Talk about IQ is obviously an uncomfortable one. As a number of people may know, Sam Harris not that long back interviewed Charles Murray which he got a lot of flack for. In another podcast he mentioned that a lot of the people criticising him for interviewing Charles Murray would stop at the notion that intelligence is highly heritable. Here's the thing, this is the least contested part. Most scientists within the fields that study intelligence do not deny intelligence is highly heritable. What's more, we all kind of know this deep down. We know that not everyone can be a physicist, right? We all know deep down that some people are just naturally smart.
The heritability of IQ for adults is between 58% and 77%[5] (with some more-recent estimates as high as 80%[6] and 86%.[7]) Genome-wide association studies have identified inherited genome sequence differences that account for 20% of the 50% of the genetic variation that contributes to heritability.[8] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics, for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults. The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood. This phenomenon is known as the Wilson Effect.[9] Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores;[10] however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects.[11][12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQIt is a politically sensitive subject for obvious reasons. Something that should be noted is that variation within groups is far greater than between groups. In other words just because average IQ within a group may be lower, it doesn't mean there aren't really smart people in that group. What this means is that it is always best to judge people as individuals because the average IQ of a group does not tell you anything about any given individual within that group.
I do worry about the way the Left is dealing with it actually: The view that any disparities within statistical data is mostly down to structural racism or sexism, and the constant push for parity, is inevitably going to lead to some people overstating the genetic element, and in very ugly ways. If the Left just focused their efforts on removing the barriers to entry and potential biases, and not so much on achieving parity, you could avoid the discussion altogether, which is what they want to do anyway. And it is perfectly understandable why they don't want the discussion to begin with. The problem is, the type of politics used by the left doesn't really allow for that; it's too confrontational. When your rhetoric implies everything is the fault of 'white people' and ignores any other factors, it is inevitable that some people are going to say, "hold on a minute, maybe IQ has something to do with it?" or "maybe there are biological differences between the sexes?".
