When people say some people are wired different, they're usually thinking of high functioning autistic people. I would argue "innate talent" is very often autistic brains (look up the local overconnectivity theory) developing a special interest young enough that it became as second nature as other things typically learned at such early an age like a native language.

But I think what they're talking about is moreso relevant when we're talking about two people with equal potential because no one is disputing that the intellectually disabled exist. Two gifted kids may develop very different special interests. One might be reading math books at 8 years old likely because their parents are engineers while the other hyperfocuses on Harry Potter just because. The first gifted kid might tie their identity to their intelligence and look down on the other as being stupid. The second kid might internalize the message and who knows what they could've been. Society will label the first person as smart and point at all their status achievements as proof and label the second person as stupid and point at all their unproductive hobbies and lack of achievements as proof. But those external validators have much more to do with their interests, dedication, and what they value than they do with innate intelligence. I would also add onto this socioeconomic class as the biggest factor, but that's its own discussion.