It's not a bell curve...

... but probably rather something resembling a Poisson distribution, and any full-time professional in the field is definitely already in the tail"ish" portion of that. Does not matter terribly much for the argument, but talking about averages for this tail is a bit dubious already.

The article is right that anyones position in this distribution should be regarded as something meaningless, while actual accomplishments matter, and that the correlation between the former and the latter may be weak. I believe that the talent myth is at least partially attributable to an (unconscious?) narcism that has it exactly backwards: "accomplishments" are secondary and viewed as a means to demonstrating "awesomeness" (rather than viewing "ability" as a means to "accomplish something"). This may be more poisonous than the talent myth itself.