Honestly, Kraut made a good point that simply identifying associations with genes is an incomplete model... but the whole point is that a) we dont need to find genes to infer genetic influence over a trait, b) it makes blank slatism pretty untenable, especially with all the non-molecular evidence against it and c) criticizing the other side for incomplete evidence is not an argument for your position (and also not an argument social constructivists should ever make when they peddle stereotype threat and implicit bias). at least our evidence is incomplete because it's the product of an advanced process and hard to do
if our molecular evidence was not yet complete but we used the standard non-molecular methods to establish some idea of heritability... then yea we could mock this line of thinking all day. Especially if 5 years ago you claimed we'd "never find the genes"