Is he saying that because other animals also seem to exhibit free will, and because some humans appear to be more impulsive than others, that makes it possible

Is he saying that because other animals also seem to exhibit free will, and because some humans appear to be more impulsive than others, that makes it possible without a "supernatural ability to transcend the laws of nature"? Buried in the article, rather than in an introductory definition of the terms used, is the line: "for some, a really free will is one that is not determined by anything – one that stands outside the causal chains of nature. Such a person might feel cheated when offered instead a set of capacities that we share (to a degree) with cats and chickens." Surely there's nothing at all novel here. We've long known that other animals have varying degrees of autonomy. I also don't think that any determinists would argue (or even ever have argued) against the existence of this kind of free will. Just that it is only free if you also accept that Bertrand Russell's table is "oblong, brown and shiny, to the touch it is smooth and cool and hard", and choose to go no deeper.