Every single person here believes that both genes and environment play a role in shaping the intelligence of an individual. When we try to quantify it, we find that genes explain about 80% of the variance in IQ, but if it's lower and our evidence is not good enough, I'd be happy to accept that.

It's the opposing position that's literally insane. Anti-hereditarians literally believe that there is no genetic component to group differences in IQ. Zero. They do accept (begrudgingly) that IQ sort of means something and that it's sort of genetic on an individual level. But they say that the claim that group differences in IQ have any genetic component (even 1%!) is a "racist" claim borne of "ignorance" and "prejudice" that "should not be entertained".

If individual IQ differences are mostly genetic, then group ones are at least likely to be genetic. The methods they use to dissuade people from this obvious assumption are called "applied postmodernism" (lying) where they will "deconstruct" all the words we use to obfuscate the argument; they'll say:

• Race doesn't exist
• IQ doesn't measure anything important
• There are different "intelligences"
• There is no IQ gap between races
• If you control for X, Y and Z factor the differences go away
• Intelligence is a social construct
• Race is a social construct
• Intelligence doesn't matter
• Why do you care?

These are pure derailment tactics and I'm not sure that those proposing these ideas actually believe them. The point is to get us hung up on debating "what is race" so that casual observers don't make the inference that group differences in IQ are genetic (because that would be "racism" (heresy) and therefore intolerable).