Sure we're all different and maybe 95% is high but its at least 50%. One out of every two people I meet I am confident they could become proficient at programming given a solid learning environment.
>One out of every two people I meet I am confident they could become proficient at programming given a solid learning environment.
That's quite possible, even if what I say is true. People tend to mix with people on their own intellectual level. The people you talk to enough to get a good estimate of their intelligence are unlikely to be randomly selected from the population.
If you believe average people can become good programmers, this implies you could make billions converting 100 IQ people into programmers and then undercutting everyone else. I predict you will fail, unless you figure out a way to vastly deskill the art of programming.
For example, the evolution of Javascript from a low status programming language to a high status one has paralleled a shift from a stable core language and a well documented API to the DOM to a combinatorial explosion of changing frameworks and complex development toolchains. Learning some combination gulp and babel and redux and angular(2) and webgl and ten other things is more a matter of access to people who will patiently answer questions than something a person can learn without working on a team.
I'm a learn-by-doing type though, YMMV.
At least half of these already self-selected and 80% filtered students were not really able to program (and eventually flunked or transferred to other departments - although some people who could program flunked and some who couldn't graduated, I think the two groups were quite well correlated).
I'm sure you can do better at teaching (and filtering) than the CS program at my university, but if such a focused group had a 50% failure rate I'm sure the general population is at the very least not better (remember that it's not just about 'raw' ability but also about interest and motivation).