Esoteric Environmental Determinism

Basically, it's the same pure critique but of a more technical and discrete type. Still the same lopsidedness to the standards. That molecular genetics dispute neo-darwinianism, which current hereditarian arguments are based on, so therefore they are right without any evidence. And they amass some gaps closing at different times from all around the world with different traits. with no context or explanation for why, and in some cases these traits are related to iq but are more complicated than that. Like crime (which varies a lot) and economic development (we're richer than we were in the 80s, are we significantly smarter?)

And sometimes that GxE and epigenetic makes it impossible to divine genetic influence so we can't be right, which is just an issue of human techniques determining something rather than actually making genes meaningless

- GWAS hits, which are underpowered, sometimes give false positives so they're useless totally

- You cant separate genes from environment in an organism... therefore heritability isnt a real thing (heritability is looking at the variance among organisms you can attribute to genetic differences of course, not asking how much of an organism is genetic)

- acting as if the mere existence of epigenetics renders the idea of genetically influenced gaps obsolete. A minor change within a paradigm in response to environment does not justify total human malleability

Meanwhile... any correlation with the environment is gilded proof. As is the general appeal to ignorance

Notice their criticisms are basically limitations of the methods available. Basically just demanding proof not yet doable and taking its absence as proof of their conclusion, Equality of the Gaps again

The issue may be too messy for these methods, but they're good enough for scientists to employ them to make claims about reality. I am just taking the criticism at face value and junking them to prove a point. Without them, we have no methods with any predictive validity. Greater mechanistic explanation I nice and all, but they don't explain tens traits very well. Like General relativity and quantum mechanics being sings if an incomplete framework. The point about predictive validity comes from the fact these inferior heritability studies actually look at real people and the real phenotype in the real world. It describes what actually is observed.

Also, it is all too convenient this as in demand that we ignore other fields within the same science. They pretend the use of math somehow invalidates these things, when math and inference from math is inescapable. It is demanding what they cannot even provide but chide you for lacking, not just with the math but their own molecular evidence for their position. And it I obviously asinine to demand all evidence be of your preferred method, especially when that method gives no answer either way and particularly in a young frontier. But apparently the  newest frontier is the only place where the truth actually is this time, typical

Basically just "the absence of evidence for your position meeting my specific mythological demands excuses my lack of evidence at any methodological level"

Also, the idea of the environment simply unlocking or suppressing potential is also not supported by the evidence http://archive.is/Ej7XF
The idea of gene and environment being inseparable conceptually also ruins that
As does canalization, since phenotype are robust (and even crazy environments won't give us anything predictable but that part is speculative)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canalisation_(genetics)
The point is, if their argument is that you can't separate genes from environment as some kind of discreet and irreducible prime mover that we can't be right, well the same argument goes for environment since genes affect how environments are selected, reacted to, or modified in accordance with predispositions. Which is really our argument anyway, that if all were equal we still wouldn't have equal outcomes or even "equal environments" after a while once people make choices about their environment

They really do thing epigenetics just invalidates race realism either by being infinite or by making it impossible to say something is truly genetic (wow, we're btfo I guess)

They also criticize IQ, and miss the point of studying IQ by demanding more from the variable than it claims to provide. If IQ varies, it will hardly be just IQ which varies. And IQ is predictive, especially among a large sample. Almost all of this coming from Ken Richardson

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3388793/
This cites Deary but he still looks at the heritability of things like IQ somehow. These are largely philosophical objections. And then sort of reads the phone book.

Flynn even studies intelligence and thinks things like IQ matter

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-and-gcse-results-in-england-r081/