[flagged]
Would you share evidence? How are you defining 'cognitive ability'?
The idea that cognitive ability doesn't benefit from education is unbelievable - the opposite of experience and of what I understand.
Though I'd go with innate over genetic: leaves more room for nurture and epigenetics and doesn't make one sound like a white supremacist.
Again, any evidence? What exactly is 'cognitive ability'? A hallmark of the lack of substantive argument is vague terms that can mean anything the speaker likes, and by not defining the term they prevent any substantive critique - nobody really knows what they're talking about (and usually, not the speaker either).
I highly doubt it's all or nothing. While there are likely variations in anything, they can be quite insignificant. For example, everyone, with tiny exceptions, can learn to speak & understand language, and write & read - highly sophisticated cognitive abilities. And they can improve those abilities through education.
These baseless generalities don't show much 'cognitive ability'.
I'd start with a search on "general intelligence factor".
The rest of your diatribe is US styled epistemic theatre I don't feel the need to engage with, so I didn't.
What exactly did your posts contribute?
Lucky you dodged that bullet, eh? I suppose 'white supremacist-adjacent' is an improvement.
They also run better or worse neural networks on that hardware, which can be educated, but there's no replacement for displacement.
> it just happens to be fairly well documented that some people run faster hardware than others for a wide variety of nature and nurture reasons.
Vague statements like that are unfalsifiable. Of course there are variations in performance - that's absolutely undeniable; mostly likely I type faster or slower than you do. The questions are, how big are those variations and how much are they dependent on what the person is conceived with biologically. If you want to claim anything, you need to be much more specific about those issues.
To put your example in different terms - I don't have the physique of an olympic athlete, so I'll never be that fast or strong, but going to the gym absolutely improves on what I have already. I don't have to just live with whatever nature handed to me.
The fact that you can somewhat improve your muscles doesn't change that some people need to put much less effort in or can recover fast enough to be able to put more effort in.
Same for brains. Except we don't know a way to improve a healthy brain's performance (*in a general way, ergo a way that transfers to other tasks).
> Education helps channel cognitive ability into useful pathways, but you either have something to channel or don't.
You didn't say "some people have it easier than others", which I could agree with; hence my physical training analogy.
> we don't know a way to improve a healthy brain's performance (*in a general way
Yes we do - it's called education.
The question besides the obvious is how close to their ceiling the average human is (or even the 90th percentile). Because the entire discourse about “ceiling” implies that people are somewhat limited by their ceiling. But if 90% of the people are plateauing at 30% of their ceiling because of environmental factors, it makes little sense to talk about the ceiling at all.