In particular, two semantic tricks are used. First, the fact that current genetic markers aren't a good prediction for IQ heritability is used as an argument against it. The other likely explanation that our understanding of those markers is widely incomplete is not explored.

Unlike our understanding of IQ, the game of matching shapes where the loser gets a teen pregnancy. That's been fully explored.

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Science: “our current understanding of genetics leads us to believe IQ is not heritable”.

This fucking guy: “IQ is heritable and you just haven’t proved it yet. Citation: I belong to a race with good genetics, unlike you”

[–] bitofhope@awful.systems 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Honestly, I'm really surprised to hear that IQ is not even a little bit heritable, given that IQ test performance correlates with level of education, which correlates with wealth, which is heritable.

True, wealth is not genetic, but heritability has an interesting definition which leads to some unintuitive cases of heritability abd non-heritability. For instance, wearing earrings is heritable while having ears is not.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

IQ is heritable and it can’t be fully explained by wealth. Twins raised in different families have a high IQ correlation between them whereas non-twin siblings raised in the same household have far less IQ correlation. This suggests that IQ is likely affected by some combination of genetics and the maternal womb environment much more so than the household environment (where wealth would play a big factor).

Now, the maternal womb environment is not wholly uncorrelated with wealth. Maternal health including lifestyle, activity, and nutrition may play a big role here. Since all of those are positively correlated with wealth, this suggests a potential cause (which still needs to be investigated) of maternal health on fetal brain development and therefore IQ.