"IQ is inherited but how much of it"
80%
Wouldn't that be it's heritability rather than it's inheritability? 
[source]
Edit:
I see your posts quiet beef. I will get around to them but by God paraphrase you asshole lol
Paraphrase centuries of history of one of the planet's most prolific and powerful nations? I did.
However, I'm sure you must be making a joke. As you're such an interested student of history, it being "your thing", something you "do every day", I imagine you'll take great pleasure in reading my post thoroughly and having the opportunity to debate in depth a fascinating subject with a fellow devoted historian. I look forward to your lengthy and knowledgeable rebuttal, that I'm certain is coming any day now.
Kestrel made good points:
Most major innovations in history come from white people.
Sadly most of QuietBeef's wikipedia copy pastes of Chinese inventions were either derivative work and some were made by Americans. I lol'ed at "improving sailing boat rowing techniques" revolutionizing history.
White people have lead the charge and Asians have followed behind, copying white leaders and innovators at every footstep. People here are brainwashed by the SJW propaganda that they feed in leftist schools and universities.
I wish I could give you the argument you're looking for.
I'm flattered by the username, by the way.
If you have two methods and one of them is obviously subject to less bias, why would you look at the one that is subject to more bias? We both agree that twin studies are subject to much less bias. So why the fuck would you point to the shittier studies except to drive your pre-determined conclusions and disposition brought upon by leftist SJW upbringing?
No I am not referring to *that* study. I am referring to all of them and the overwhelming consensus of scientists who actually do this for a living.
At least link me something so I have an opportunity to read it and respond.
If you have two methods and one of them is obviously subject to less bias, why would you look at the one that is subject to more bias? We both agree that twin studies are subject to much less bias. So why the fuck would you point to the shittier studies except to drive your pre-determined conclusions and disposition brought upon by leftist SJW upbringing?Because twin studies are not perfect and can be interpreted in different ways depending on these other studies. I've given you several examples of that and you haven't bothered to counter any of them. Take the Flynn effect, for instance. How do you explain it without bringing the environment (or severe malnutrition) into it? Or is it a SJW lie?
How do you explain it
No I am not referring to *that* study. I am referring to all of them and the overwhelming consensus of scientists who actually do this for a living.At least link me something so I have an opportunity to read it and respond.
"Haha, your SJW fantasy does not convince me. Try again." 
He's been sticking more to the traditional gender roles topic for the past two days for some reason, which goes into similarly related (near-identical) matters of race as a tangent for what feels like over half of it. You may have more luck getting him to reply if you address him there, but dude's trolling as far as bragging about speaking seven languages though, so I don't know how much luck you're going to have.
Because twin studies are not perfect and can be interpreted in different ways depending on these other studies. I've given you several examples of that and you haven't bothered to counter any of them. Take the Flynn effect, for instance. How do you explain it without bringing the environment (or severe malnutrition) into it? Or is it a SJW lie?
At least link me something so I have an opportunity to read it and respond.
This is at a dead end if it comes down to a mindless citation race so let's back up a bit before moving on. Do you agree that you can find a research article to support almost any a conclusion? How do you propose to fix that issue? I can keep quoting research that supports my conclusions and you can keep quoting research that supports your conclusions. Neither of us are experts in any relevant field.
How do you propose to fix the issue? My proposal was to focus on studies that are subject to less bias and have well-accepted conclusions by the scientists actually working in the field, like twin studies. The Flynn effect would then be disqualified from the discussion immediately because nobody understands the cause of the Flynn effect or even if it is a real thing. There are at least 5 different potential explanations none of which are favored enough to make any conclusions.
Using my proposed methodology one can reach the correct conclusion regarding several questions where we know the correct answer: Evolution theory, speed of light as a universal speed limit, beginning of the Universe, etc etc, whereas citing random articles which are not generally widely accepted by scientists to have firm conclusions would not necessarily lead to the correct conclusion.
"Haha, your SJW fantasy does not convince me. Try again."
"Haha, your SJW fantasy does not convince me. Try again."Except I pointed out why your shitty arguments make no sense instead of just saying they are not convincing.
You're going to have to try harder than just some repetitious Stormfaggotry, as I've otherwise ran laps around you in ways that can be observed by more than merely myself.
Keep trying though.
Because twin studies are not perfect and can be interpreted in different ways depending on these other studies. I've given you several examples of that and you haven't bothered to counter any of them. Take the Flynn effect, for instance. How do you explain it without bringing the environment (or severe malnutrition) into it? Or is it a SJW lie?At least link me something so I have an opportunity to read it and respond.
This is at a dead end if it comes down to a mindless citation race so let's back up a bit before moving on. Do you agree that you can find a research article to support almost any a conclusion?
Ahh the "you can find anything nowadays" argument, otherwise known as further giving up on trying to have a real discussion. For discussion to be able to have any semblance of discourse there must be a reciprocal exchange going on, otherwise it's just modeling after a professor and it's student. We can sit here all day being like "Nothing means anything, nothing is objective, it's all solipsistic projection" and get nowhere, while at least listening to someone give sources and real world comparative basis has the potential to suspend disbelief through how it shows some sort of basis from elsewhere. Even quoting Mein Kampf would be you putting more onto the table in lieu of just making constant demands while expecting everyone else to do all the heavy lifting for you.
A discernment of source quality is the key there (as well as avoiding abstraction as best you can). Sure you can find hundreds of people spouting mad right wing rambling about how (((they))) are taking over society while spreading blood magic rituals through normalizing pedophilia among the rich and successful, but that's just a matter of quantity. Not all sources are created equal, and considering said sources are essential towards deconstruction in lieu of mere spouting off.
Beyond that, there's the room to compound multiple existing points to come towards speculative conclusions, essentially forming assumptive hypotheses. While said speculative conclusions themselves do not require sources, having a backing of existing real world details makes the leap of faith that much smaller for others to venture as you gradually bridge your points with reality.
Sources don't prove anything but themselves, but they lend towards the conclusions we make beyond mere opinion. The more diverse and arguably legitimate the sources are, the less that visiting the point becomes just an expression of that person's desires, the more arguably objective that it becomes when compared to completely invented notions.
Every idea comes from somewhere, and having a comprehensive backing of sources shows it's potential to be more than just 'Fantasy'. It's the weight that makes points worth visiting at all if you aren't otherwise going for sheerly out-of-the-box thinking.
How do you propose to fix the issue? My proposal was to focus on studies that are subject to less bias and have well-accepted conclusions by the scientists actually working in the field, like twin studies. The Flynn effect would then be disqualified from the discussion immediately because nobody understands the cause of the Flynn effect or even if it is a real thing. There are at least 5 different potential explanations none of which are favored enough to make any conclusions.
You're just going to coast on your single sentence point about heritable factors as if you've been Mr Scientist otherwise across this entire topic? When questioned on it you barely if at all even bother with elaboration.
Using my proposed methodology one can reach the correct conclusion regarding several questions where we know the correct answer: Evolution theory, speed of light as a universal speed limit, beginning of the Universe, etc etc, whereas citing random articles which are not generally widely accepted by scientists to have firm conclusions would not necessarily lead to the correct conclusion.
'Speed of Light' and 'The Beginning of the Universe etc etc'? You can't be srs rn, even The Bible has better coverage. 
Evolution theory if anything you've been staying away from beyond the capacity for crossbreeding.
