Emil O W Kirkegaard

Not because results of twin studies etc are "wrong" but because the variance partitioning is wrong. Heritability studies typically separate observable variability (in behavior or physical traits) into a genetic and one or more environmental components.

So I will be blunt. I do not care if the above "is not true." What is relevant to me is that there is way more uncertainty about heritability in general, and of IQ in particular than once believed.

One might argue, "Well, Lee, that's why we need to do the research!" No, not when one's tools are so crude or controversial or unsettled that they risk wreaking terrible damage.

Altho an imperfect metaphor, "exploring the ocean floor" might be scientifically important, but if our tools risk wreaking massive environmental damage on that very ocean floor, no, we shouldn't. We should hold off till we have better, and less dangerous, tools.

Which gets to Problem 2. The possibility that group diffs in IQ or anything else evaluative may have a genetic basis attracts the worst sort of faux-sophisticated (or even actually sophisticated) ax-grinding scientists.