> This, among others: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2218526/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2218526/ Bingo. > What matters is not the brain but the educati

> This, among others: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2218526/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2218526/ Bingo. > What matters is not the brain but the education they get". That is literally false. No, it's oversimplified, but it's still less false than the opposite view you're trying to promote. > and the positive confluence of all of these factors makes a great natural athlete, and a negative confluence on all of them makes for an unlucky individual who will likely never be athletic no matter how hard they try. Only if you count as “athletic” the performances that are outliers, by a few 10%s. But not by reasonable standards for being athletic. Almost anybody that starts practicing endurance running before their 40 can be among the top 5% of the whole human population (and be “the athletic guy”), just because the enormous majority is desperately bad for environmental reasons (including: they have something else to in their damn life than running 2 hours a day). Likewise, everyone who can read can read a book a week and quickly become among the 5% most cultivated. Except the few disabled, there's no genetic barrier you cannot overwhelm with some work, and win the game that the majority isn't even playing. > It remains the case that even if you eliminate all environmental disparities, humans will still exhibit considerable variability on all traits. Yes, 30% is still considerable by most metrics (you're never ever gonna win a race against someone who's 30% faster than you) but it's also very small difference if you compared to what are the disparities in the real world. If everyone was in the 30% expected margin, then pretty much everyone would be over 150IQ (whatever this metrics means). Sure, there would still be a few people above 200IQ, but the world would still be unrecognizable. > This counts as architecture. No, this is barely akin to hyperparameters in the ML world, but any comparison between deep learning models and the brain is completely meaningless anyway. The original take was very bad, in the ML topic, but yours is equally bad on human cognition. Yet another example that one can refute a poor argument with an even worse one. > I'm not even going to bother addressing the irrelevant comments on Murray and his book, mostly because I haven't even read it. This is all standard statistics and genetics. It's not irrelevant, it's still the main source of inspiration for most people who share your arguments and opinion, and it's likely that you have been at least indirectly influenced by it through different means.