> Ad hominem It's not an ad hominem at all. I attacked their thought process, not their person. And the point is that they encourage other people not to use

> Ad hominem It's not an ad hominem at all. I attacked their thought process, not their person. And the point is that they encourage other people not to use their critical thinking and brains, and just defer to others who they happen to agree with. > Being charitable here And why would I do that? They're not being charitable to the opposing opinion. If they were rational, they would have attempted a full catalogue of both sides of the matter, taking the actual of actual opposition, rather than making up straw men. > The evidence is overwhelming that intelligence is at least partly heritable This is an argument against nobody and nothing. I don't think there's a single scientist in the world who said intelligence is 0% heritable. This is a very far cry from the stance that it's mostly heritable. Which would imply greater than 50%. So even being charitable the author's factual stance is very weak, yet they're drawing strong conclusions from it. If it's 50% heritable that means less than 50% genetic... which implies that at least 50% of intelligence is based in environment. This is not at all evidence of the author's point. It's evidence against it.