The latter: I believe that any kind of measurement (or theory for that matter) linked to some construct of a general intelligence is fundamentally flawed. I do

The latter: I believe that any kind of measurement (or theory for that matter) linked to some construct of a general intelligence is fundamentally flawed. I don’t think we can construct a philosophical understanding on what intelligence is, as we are always bound to select an arbitrary set of traits which describes the bias of the researcher more than a useful model of behavior. How do I provide scientific basis for the assertion that intelligence is not at all inheritable? I don’t, but others do. If you believe you can select a set of traits which constitute an intelligent personality, which some researchers do (or rather assume for the sake of argument that it exists), then what you get is a large environmental effect on the supposed intelligence, a large cofactor of environment and inheritance, some genetical factor, but a close to 0 genetic bases for any group differences. This is really a double tier rebuttal which states: Even if you are right (and you are not) that general intelligence exists, and that IQ is a useful measure of general intelligence (which is also false), you are still wrong that there is a genetic basis for any perceived inheritance of this supposed intelligence.