Kelly is making extremely sweeping broad claims based on no evidence and flimsy analogies which are obviously wrong - humans are not carefully-engineered cars c

Kelly is making extremely sweeping broad claims based on no evidence and flimsy analogies which are obviously wrong - humans are not carefully-engineered cars competing in a free market where cars could exist on a Pareto frontier (which itself would be a rather questionable claim...), they are organisms under a bombardment of mutations constantly happening and those mutations being very slowly purged by natural selection over thousands of generations. It is not surprising that there could be 'free lunches', anymore than it is surprising that there might be typos left in a file after a cat walked across your keyboard and you tried to fix it. I don't need to provide any references because Kelly didn't provide any of his own: what is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I shouldn't be held to a higher standard than he is simply because he said his claims first. He's not a geneticist or psychologist or otherwise working in this area, so there shouldn't be even a presumption here that he is probably right if he isn't going to provide any evidence or sources or more convincing arguments than 'there just can't be free lunches, there can't!'. I am being rude here because I am fed up with decades of people making these sweeping assertions about genetic correlations while simply completely ignoring the large literature actually measuring these FUD bugaboos. Kelly, and everyone making those arguments, deserves nothing but mockery until they show any sign of catching up to the literature as of, let's say, 1990 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_correlation&oldid=863326253#Intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_correlati...), and while we're at it, I could wish that they would understand the idea of 'adding two variables before doing selection' (I mean, index selection in genetics only goes back to the 1940s or so, you can't expect people to understand such cutting-edge concepts). And he can't provide those references because it's not true: the genetic correlations between IQ and other traits are pervasively positive, and Kelly would know that if he spent any time looking into it. In fact, you would have to go thoroughly through the list of known genetic correlations with IQ before you would find any that are bad, contrary to his assertion that there is always a strong tradeoff in a myriad of ways. (I'll save you the effort: out of hundreds of reasonably reliable genetic correlations of IQ/gf with other traits like diseases, the bad ones worth mentioning are myopia, possibly allergies (I forget if that was just phenotypic), anorexia, and autism spectrum disorder checklist self-reports. And I think the last one is probably bogus anyway due to measurement issues.)