> And no-one gets fired for claiming the opposite, which has way less evidence supporting it, and lots opposing it.
> one article, compared to countless others on the wikipedia pages I've linked to

One beats none. You did not link me to any actual arguments.

> a. Multidimensional intelligence doesn't make it non-hereditary.

If you had read the article, that is not a rebuttal against intelligence being hereditary, it is a rebuttal against a vague and inconsistently-applied benchmark, which is a common feature of shitty science

> b. Doesn't make it non-hereditary - there's a range of variation, that -must- be determined by genetics - otherwise trout could grow to be as intelligent as humans.

Again, this point is not arguing against the hereditary nature of intelligence, but against the arbitrary benchmark applied. If you can't define intelligence then how are you going to use it as a viable benchmark? And I definitely think there is a case to be made that you are dumber than a trout btw

> c. That they are inaccurate doesn't make them worthless. Neither does measuring only one axis of a multidimensional intelligence.

So what are they worth, then? What is their actual value? Am I just to assume that they're valuable without any reason provided?

> d. If true, that implies race and ethnicity affect IQ and intelligence.. exactly what this article claims to disprove?

You think race and ethnicity are genetically-derived? Oh honey, have I got news for you lol

> e. But it is correlated to it. Is this trying to say because IQ isn't perfectly deterministic of success, then it's worthless as a measure?

The presumption being dunked on is that of causality, i.e. that genetics are directly responsible for (i.e. cause) intelligence, as measured by IQ. If there were a clear cause and effect relation you would also see the pattern emerging consistently; there are plenty of counter examples that contradict such a hypothetical effect, some cited in the article in case you failed to read it

> f. It plays between 43% and 14% of the role, as per my wikipedia link.

I can make up numbers too. 69% 420% what do they mean? Show me the basis for those numbers and then we can talk turkey

> g. How does disproving this in any way disprove the link between ethnicity and intelligence?

I actually found this point puzzling, didn't quite see how it fits. I do not think it's something that either proves or disproves either side, though

> h. They're not happy that some tests don't produce a normal distribution. Why this would invalidate all the conclusions eludes me.

This is a fundamental presumption of the infamous racist and shitty science book called the bell curve. It is based on the application of statistical models that are not suited for the phenomena under investigation or the sampling strategies that would be necessary to use in order to do good science on that topic. In other words, this rebuttal demonstrates how the bell curve is bad science.

> How is a mountain of circumstantial evidence linking heredity and intelligence

The 'mountains of circumstantial evidence' have been obtained through improper research methods.

> Each premise is needlessly strict.

Ain't science a bitch!

> If they held true, determining an intelligence-race link would be easier, but even if they're all false, it doesn't even remotely disprove the link. It's the classic "the model is imperfect and therefore entirely useless" criticism.

You're presuming a link exists with no actual evidence, it's like the tail wagging the dog. People who hunt for this link are almost always trying to justify their prejudice beliefs, rather than be informed by science.

> In general, I'd suggest you be more skeptical when a single, low-impact article with barely any data behind it claims to settle a grand debate.

It's more than adequate compare to the zero research you use to support your claim. And the fact that you consider this a grand debate is just adorable.