You're not current in your understanding of the field. I encourage you to dig deeper.

You can beleive a phsyciatrist is a valid profession but 90% is not based in science.

It is based on behaviour studies. Not the same.

Your assertions imagined

Ok.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610339/dna-tests-for-iq-are-coming-but-it-might-not-be-smart-to-take-one/

Papers do a good job highlighting to fallacy

Invalid; do the math

The fallacy isn't there.

A fallacy can exist; in IQ studies it doesn't - potential problems have all been accounted for

"As of now, the predictions are not highly accurate. The DNA variations that have been linked to test scores explain less than 10 percent of the intelligence differences between the people of European ancestry who’ve been studied."

Where is the control variable?

Lol

Do you even understand what that is saying....

If it were correct. they would have to study ALL not just european

for a contrast

It's saying race is real

there is no contrast

Racial differences

but their study doesn't do work on other races for intelligence; says so right there

hello?

It's saying it's can't differentiate within a race as well as among the different races

Because races groups are so similar

Lol

You're trolling me

Read the whole thing

Every month that passes they map more genes

European!

Still, the issue is accuracy—or lack of it. Right now, the polygenic scores capture only a fraction of the genetic determinants of intelligence and none of the environmental ones. That means the predictions remain fuzzy.

"none of the environmental ones. "

Because why

ANd there it is

Nature AND Nurture

It's not measuring environmental ones

That's not what IQ measures

If you ONLY examine NATURE, you conclusions are OF COURSE going to be based ONLY on nature

Until they examine both, 'willl be fuzzy'

It's only a measure of general intelligence

It's fuzzy why?

It says why

No, it's fuzzy because all the genome isn't mapped yet..... So it's margin of error is an issue