While I think on the whole our society is very biased toward a Boasian view of nature versus nurture: "give me a child and I can raise it to have any personality and aptitudes via deliberate rearing techniques." I'm skeptical of some of the conclusions being drawn from this study.

Environment has not been entirely separated out here it seems. And while a comparison of fraternal and identical twins detangles things somewhat it doesn't completely.

My intuition is that a person's personality and aptitudes (around 50% heritable according to many studies) can help them to take advantage of their environment in certain ways. So it's not that environment doesn't matter at all. It's just that people with varying attributes will leverage their environment in different ways, leading to different outcomes.

It would be even more interesting to me to see the personality profiles of the children compared against their future earnings. My guess is there would be a strong correlation since personality -> interests -> career choices.

Then it would just so happen that identical twins have similar personalities. Leading to the results we see here.

Admittedly I'm hopeful that if we could figure out the correlation between personality and environment maybe we could shift our focus away from the unhealthy extremes of 100% nurture (leads to children being pushed by their parents to fit into a mold that may not suit them) and 100% nature (genetic fatalism leads to apathy and hopelessness). Instead what if we took a child's natural gifts and personality profile into account and tailored their environment to maximize their potential within those constraints? Seems like a more hopeful and useful path.