80%+ is what the current corpus of scientific knowledge says. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/ Here's a somewhat good primer on the topic, but the wikipedia page on heritability of intelligence (and it's sources) is also somewhat good.
I think the idea that we can control properly is extremely unlikely and IQ will turn out to be a lot difficult to extract from learning/society/environment than you might think, especially as findings with epigenetics and intelligence start to be shown. https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/research/epigenetics-an...
As for cultural loading in intelligence tests, maybe you could expand on that? How do you measure how much culture was involved in the methodology, and how it affected the results of the tests?
Intelligence is a notoriously hard thing to define and measure, and I think it's more easily predicted by environmental factors than genetics. The idea that smart people breed and have smart children and that's why some people are smart and others are dumb, is more of a cop-out, since predictors of success that tests like IQ try to explain are more accurately explained by socio-economic factors.
Basically this has no real world implications. I realise this isn't the argument you were trying to make necessarily, you were just pointing out a perceived 'fact', but it lacks a lot of nuance that could lead to dangerous assumptions about the real world, especially since you related it to sexuality.
People have no clue how much more rigorous these studies than anything else in the field and adjacent fields.
If you think that IQ studies are inadequate, don’t even look at other fields that study humans (aside maybe from double blind trials in medicine), you are going to have a heart attack.
By your standards we need to ignore 90% of academia and solely rely on physics research to guide our policy.
Only in young children. The correlation vanishes as the children age. You were wise to delete this remark from your comment.
> Don't think I'm not aware of the history and research of this area.
Heh.
First you try to insinuate that IQ is not related to intelligence and even if it were intelligence has not practical application in the "real world".
Your first point was disputed by the comments related to how rigorously this subject is studied and documented, due to it being a third-rail area of academia.
I am going to dispute your second point myself. That rigorous study and documentation associates IQ with intelligence and intelligence with 'g' which, although not precisely defined, is associated with (at least) higher problem-solving ability.
So now your argument reduces to "higher problem-solving ability has no practical application in the 'real world'".
And so I will just dispute that statement out of hand because problem-solving ability is what has allowed humans to become the dominant animal on Earth.