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.
I disagree we're at a dead end. While we could potentially end up in the loop you describe we're definitely not there yet. I also disagree that the research I've linked is fringe and/or not very widely-accepted. I'm not an expert, obviously, but everywhere I look the nature vs nurture discussion still seems to be in full swing. The way I see this going somewhere is if you respond to my specific concerns with links of your own, just like I did. If we're both intellectually honest we should be able to get a good sense of the lay of the land that way and that should be the first step.
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.
Why wouldn't the Flynn effect not be real?
Disqualifying it would basically take away the strongest argument there is for a big environmental effect on IQ, so wouldn't that render this whole discussion pointless?
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.
Your methodology would not necessarily lead to the correct conclusion either. Nature vs nurture is a hugely complicated and complex topic with lots of feedback loops connecting the two and the conclusions you've drawn from twin studies are simply not on par with how we've determined, for instance, the speed of light. We have a multitude of direct measurements of the speed of light that all give us the same figure. Similarly, no one is questioning whether the heredity of IQ can be up to 0.8 under certain circumstances. Instead, what is questioned is whether this heritability is necessarily 1) genetic and 2) static/not environmentally affected since those are inferred conclusions and not directly proven. It's thus necessary to look at more data than just the twin studies.
