3IQ is cosmetic

brilliant

goodbye

Cosmetic means they are not passed down to progeny

Look up Spearman's Hypothesis

So again, you'll end up with the Philosophical problem known as Fisherman's Bait

Wherein you'll have to continuously aid them for many years

This is why even progeny of high IQ immigrants regress to the racial mean

Because whatever changes they receive from controlling environmental factors are "hollow for g"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

In other words, only their skill is increasing, not general intelligence

IQ can also be trained by practicing the thought patterns that are required to achieve higher scores in IQ tests
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/iq-boot-camp/201605/new-evidence-iq-can-be-increased-brain-training

"Relational skill" is not to be mistaken with social skills, it just means stuff like if A > B then B < A etc.

Which subtests did they use?

idk, I haven't purchased the paper

It is of course possible to "train" for low heritability subtests, as it is possible to train to use Photoshop

But the main point about IQ tests are high heritability subtests

i was watching the clip from People's Veto , seems very interesting

Which are the main source for infering about g factor and, in turn, racial gaps

The point is just that IQ is a mixture of genetics, environment and training

No shit

Congrats on finding something apriori

Yeah but people who say that genetics is number one lack the evidence for that, that's why I'm saying this

That no one here contested

Well when someone says 80% is genetics, they do kinda contest it

and since we cant change genetics, and we dont need everyone to be equal in IQ at 130 or some shit....

How? @ETBrooD

Because that number is nonsense

What do you think the rest 20% is?

It isn't

It's all inferred from research

There's a lot of research to the contrary, you can choose to believe that number is accurate, but it makes no sense to believe that

LMAO

Do you even read before you post nonsense

?

It of course "makes sense" as far as the data indicates it does

And of course there exist many studies

Hence you take a meta analysis

Only if you select your data specifically to support the 80%

Not a single study

Have you read the numbers from the link I posted?