No, I've already cited sources explaining that, scientifically, all types of intelligence are pretty highly correlated, meaning that people tend to be more or less generally intelligent. It's not like the Sims 2 where we're all born with an equal number of "skill points" that get distributed to different areas (e.g., "Johnny's a 6 in writing and a 2 in math while Sally's a 4 in writing and a 4 in math"). Some people are simply born with more "skill" points than other people (e.g., the reality is closer to "Johnny's an 8 in writing and a 4 in math, while Sally's a 4 in writing and a 3 in math"). That's what the science says.

You're committing a logical fallacy by assuming that your experience trumps scientific study on the matter. The harsh truth is that you're probably not actually gifted at writing (especially given the reasoning skills you've put on display in your comments here). But even if your self-assessment is accurate, reasoning from anecdote is a formal fallacy--as is arguing from ignorance ("You haven't proved me wrong so I'm right"). So, I've provided sources citing credible science. You've committed two logical fallacies and provided no sources.

Now, who is the one that's "avoiding defending their beliefs" again?