Dak
mentat
The 50% marker is problematic, and more recent studies suggest the percentage is smaller (others, alternatively, suggest that it fluctuates and can even be larger):
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-intelligence-hereditary/)
I said roughly 50% because there is some fluctuation around the mark (40-60%), which your quoted portion notes. The "20% in infancy" note is amusing, I don't know how the fuck they could test that with any confidence.
We've more or less given up on finding single genes to predict/determine almost anything. The fact we can't explain our findings genetically yet doesn't mean they aren't there to be found, particularly when we may be looking for something that is more emergent than a simple on/off biochemical process.
Murray's work makes use of significantly unsubstantiated and unverifiable data in order to present a deterministic/predictive argument about future social organization, hence his application of biological IQ to the rise of a "cognitive elite" (or some such nonsense). His work isn't in the name of science, it's in the name of political interests invested in rationalizing the conditions of the social demographic.
Serious research into the relationship between genetics and intelligence is ongoing, and in and of itself isn't controversial. Murray's work shouldn't be the benchmark for this kind of work. He gets press because his work is politically controversial, not because it's scientifically sound.
Well again, I wasn't quoting that article for anything specific to Murray, which is why the quoted portion wasn't referring to him. However, even just assuming you are correct about Murray's work (again, haven't read any of it), given the completely bonkers, not-even-claiming-to-be-scientific nature of the work of grievance mongers (which are welcomed with pomp to universities), there's no legitimate basis for suddenly objecting to a given speaker "because science!". If speakers should be rejected because they aren't engaging in good science, people like Coates or Butler should be deplatformed. If the response is they don't claim to be scientists, even more reason to dismiss them.
My main interest is in the percentage of faculty either in favor of limitations on free speech, and/or at least non-committal.