> The heritability of IQ, from twin studies and via other traditional methods of measuring heritability, is way higher than the author of that article implies.

> The heritability of IQ, from twin studies and via other traditional methods of measuring heritability, is way higher than the author of that article implies. It's as high as 0.8. No one here can seem to be able to prevent an LLM from saying 3+5 is something other than 8, yet you talk about "IQ" as if some test cam boil down human brains to one integer and then rank them. Also if one person is born in a stable, educated house, and another in a poor unstable house where they are not educated, how is environment separated from heritability? People try to make social science studies to do this, but the problem is they have limited data to draw on. This ideal of a Calvinistic Brahmin chosen people is rooted in parasitism and idleness. We can have a meritocracy society where everyone starts on the starting line, or we can have one where at birth someone is either on the worker bee or rich kids of Instagram born on third base path. The idle class aristocratic parasitic view favors the very weak idea of heritability - some hidden genetic change in the past 50,000 years after behavioral modernity.