I'm sorry, but this is a persistent myth about this space. Lots of research is done every year on the genetic components of behavior and cognition. The field doesn't see it as a yes/no question; there are questions about how far you can get with classic twin studies vs large-scale GWAS, questions about the malleability of intelligence, questions about the validity of IQ tests (see things like test-test reliability), questions about the meaningfulness of psychometric "g", all actively studied.

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.

Just a reminder about GP's original comment:

> 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.

You've clipped out the question that comment replies to, which was about the genetic determinism of IQ.