I don't remember anyone disputing strong genetic component of IQ, other than people uncomfortable with implications. And I am not even that interested in the social implications, but more practical issues like IQ improvement (basically 0 impact from what I have seen other than being physically fit/exercising), implications on parenting (you cant imprint your desired outcomes on your children and need to play to their innate interests and strengths/weaknesses), etc.
Again you can just go read Turkheimer's Vox piece for an refutation of your "basically zero impact" thing.
My big thing here though isn't to convince you that you're wrong about your belief that intelligence is innate and fixed. Rather, it's that you opened this thread with a citation to heritability research, and your usage of "heritability" was broken and misleading. With that cleared up, I don't think we need to drag this out.
> This is guaranteed to be a strong factor, there's plenty of evidence on IQ heritability and correlation with income.
> Just because it doesn't predict the outcome fully doesn't mean it's insignificant.
I'm just trying to figure out what your argument was, since it looks like you're trying to convince GP of what they already believed. Income isn't genetic after all.
I was interested if my info was out of date so I found this https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188692... which basically again confirms genetic IQ factor in adults is major. Separated twins correlate, siblings corelate less and virtual twins (same age unrelated siblings) corelate way less.
Anyway I'm no expert on this, but I've heard this view from multiple credible sources and the more I dig in the more it seems supported.