[Parenting is not the be-all and end-all...]

 

Furthermore, the most commonly cited and generally accepted
estimate for the heritability of IQ is the APA's estimate of 75%  for individuals past adolescence. Their
estimate entails that about 75% of the variation in IQ scores within a
population is due to genetic factors and not the environment.

 

This is excactly the point of the picture I posted. Heritability in both those populations is 100% yet plant height is very much dependant on the nutritional value of the soil, which is obviously a non-genetic factor. So even if heritability is 100% you cannot say that shows something is due to genetic factors and not the environment.

[Parenting is not the be-all and end-all...]

 

 

The heritability statistic can not be used to claim something is genetic or not.

 

 

"Winick, Meyer, and Harris (1975) found 141 Korean
children adopted as infants by American families exceeded the national
average in both IQ and achievement scores when they reached 10 years of
age. The principal interest of the investigators was on the possible
effects of severe malnutrition on later intelligence, and many of these
Korean children had been malnourished in infancy. When tested, those who
had been severely malnourished as infants obtained a mean IQ of 102; a
moderately well-nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 106; and an
adequately nourished group obtained a mean IQ of 110....Neither the
social class of the adopting parents nor the number of years the child
spent in the adopted family had any effect on the child's IQ."

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf(P.250)

 

Even the severely malnourished Korean children went on to have an IQ above the national average in America.

 

 

I'm not making a point about nutrition, I'm making a point about what can and cannot be infered from the heritability statistic.

[Parenting is not the be-all and end-all...]

The heritability statistic can not be used to claim something is genetic or not.