The authors are pleased with commentators' willingness to respond to their target article's challenge to identify observable reproducible phenomena that could be widely accepted as strong scientific evidence for innate talent. In this reply, the authors have organized the ideas in the commentaries into three general categories, namely the biological foundation of giftedness and heritability, deliberate practice, and objective metrics of performance. The purpose of each section is to try to identify three different types of claims and arguments: (1)what the authors believe are misunderstandings of their framework; (2) what appear to be general agreements; and (3) what they feel remain genuine disagreements. For each disagreement, the authors review relevant evidence as well as indicate where future research is needed.