The article you linked to is helpful but makes several important claims/conclusions that have been convincingly disproved/challenged in the time since 1996. For instance, it claims:

> In fact IQ is a great example of a trait that is highly heritable but not genetically determined [...]

However, "On the genetic architecture of intelligence and other quantitative traits" (Hsu, 2014, https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421) which cites a substantial amount of supporting research, notes:

"The largest component of genetic variance for both height and intelligence is additive(linear), leading to important simplifications in predictive modeling and statistical estimation. Due mainly to the rapidly decreasing cost of genotyping, it is possible that within the coming decade researchers will identify loci which account for a significant fraction of total g variation."

Block(1996) also incorrectly asserts that:

> IQ is enormously affected by normal environmental variation, and in ways that are not well understood. [...] IQ is very reactive to changes in environments in the normal range.

From Hsu(2014): "[W]ithin a range of favourable environments (i.e., providing good nutrition, hygiene, and access to education) evidence strongly supports the claim that individual differences in cognitive ability are largely associated with genetic differences.

Hsu's research doesn't hold up under review. You're just doubling down on the exact same flawed reasoning.

It's pretty clear where you're at and what argument you actually wanna make so I'm out.

> Hsu's research doesn't hold up under review.

I don't know what that statement means, but in good faith, I'll assume you can substantiate it. Instead, consider "Upward Intergenerational Mobility in the United States"(Mazumder, Pew Trust, 2012) https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_a...

" Individuals, both black and white, with higher academic test scores are more likely to move up and out of the bottom quintile. Both black and white children born in the bottom quintile with median academic test scores are twice as likely to move up and out of the bottom quintile than if they had scores in the lowest percentile of the test score distribution. "

> It's pretty clear where you're at and what argument you actually wanna make [...]

I'm glad I was clear that we need a complete picture of the source of differential outcomes (that is, one that takes into account the tremendous amount that we know about human genetic evolution). A social welfare or wealth transfer system might have poor results depending on the correspondence between expectations and reality. It would be terrible, for instance, if wealth was transferred, yet recipients ended up eventually impoverished anyway.

fwiw My preference would be if more human effort was expended in developing therapies, protocols, medications that enhance general human intelligence. But as long as we can't discuss it openly, perhaps no progress will be made and wealth gaps will be exacerbated.