I'm not interested in formulating an argument against, say, the efficacy of secondary education using the same methodology as Ned Block, because to do so would

I'm not interested in formulating an argument against, say, the efficacy of secondary education using the same methodology as Ned Block, because to do so would take something like 20,000 words, and then you'd just reject it anyway. What you're doing is just standard trolling. You're making an argument in 100 words that requires 10,000 words to refute (i.e. timewasting). Ned Block's argument is absolutely a selective demand for rigor which at its core just argues that in social sciences nothing is "certain" therefore nothing can be known at all. I find it sort of amazing that folks will twist themselves into pretzels to argue that IQ's genetic basis shouldn't be the prior. The majority of smart people I've talked to in life had a similar experience to me growing up. Namely, they remember very well just being "better" at school than other kids, even though their environments were similar and they didn't honestly try that hard. I specifically remember teachers lauding me in 2nd grade for how hard I worked, when honestly I was and am pretty lazy. I remember very well sitting in class in 7th grade, watching the same presentations by the teacher that all the other kids watched and then with zero studying getting 100% correct on the test while many of them struggled. And I remember going to many of their houses and seeing that their home environments were either equivalent or superior to mine. Athletic kids have a very similar experience, by the way, when it comes down to running or jumping or other sports. They're just "better". At base, the environmental argument boils down to something like this: "Anyone in the world could have beaten Magnus Carlsen to become world chess champion if they'd just had the proper environment." Such an argument is so obviously preposterous that the prior should absolutely be that it's false. Another point: We already know IQ is genetic. Witness that the housecat and humans have vastly different IQs, and no cat will ever perform better on an IQ test than the median human. Again, the prior obviously should be that IQ is genetic. And again, note that I'm simply pointing out what the PRIOR should be. Thus, it should be on YOU to provide evidence that the prior is wrong. It is insufficient to simply argue that not enough evidence exists to prove IQ is genetic, because that is the prior. The burden of proof is on YOU. Your arguments boil down to simply gaslighting smart people that their life experience is somehow completely inaccurate, unrepresentative, or misinterpreted. If you really are making it in good faith, it leaves me wondering what in your life experience leads you to believe the genetic explanation should not be the prior. Did you do poorly in school? Did you grow up in such a privileged environment that you can't believe that people like me exist?