Nevertheless, what you cited and attacked is uncontroversial. IQ is heritable, whether it's due to genetics or prenatal nutrition or some combination. You then turned such a scientifically uncontroversial statement into an emotional straw-man attack.
> IQ is heritable, whether it's due to genetics or prenatal nutrition or some combination.
Yes, and I said it wasn't genetic. A "heritable" effect can only last one generation - all you have to do is invest in lead abatement.
In fact, even if it is genetic it can still be treated. Phenylketonurics have a "genetic condition that reduces intelligence" that affects them when they drink Coke, and the treatment is to not do that.
People who discuss this in SSC and marginalrevolution comments don't care about this - what they want is to have secret knowledge that society won't acknowledge that says they're morally superior to Mexicans so they can complain about immigration.
Right, but you said "Children exist in the same environment", which is present-tense. If you said "Children existed in the same environment", then it would've come across as you intended.
> I said it wasn't genetic
Source/rationale? That's a rather strong claim.
> even if it is genetic it can still be treated.
Potentially correct, but it doesn't mean it can be treated well given current knowledge. There's lots of genetic problems where our treatments currently suck, and you can't claim to know when/if those treatments will get better for some specific genetic problem.
> People who discuss this in SSC and marginalrevolution comments don't care about this
Who would argue against lead abatement resulting in higher IQ levels? Who would argue that prenatal nutrition isn't part of the picture? I mean sure, you can find one nutjob in the comments section anywhere. But that's hardly an argument against anything.