I browsed through it. Is there some point in particular that you wanted me to take note of?
Variance explained by genes (both directly and indirectly) grows with age. As more and more of the environment comes under control of the individual the more IQ reflects a person's genetic endowment. As the fraction of variance explained by genes grows with age, the constancy of IQ over time grows—because genetic differences are stable.
bound for the direct impact of genetic endowment on IQ is lower still.
I really don't think that I did. I have been accused in this thread, several times, of saying that genes were more or most important in the IQ of an individual.
You did state at one point that: "for the most part, variations in IQ are genetic."
Sure, that could happen, but my point is that this modeling career would be much less likely, since she's ugly. To suggest that people tend toward the sorts of activities which they are worst at contradicts most of my experiences.
Ugly is a bit extreme. But maybe her mother was a former model and with the insider knowledge of the industry the girl saw modeling as a real possibility for herself as well (we see that with actors). The source of motivation and what sets a person on a particular path can be environmental.
Ok...I call "no fair." That's outta context.
On the graph I was describing, there's an assumption of all other things being equal. In which case, nothing else is left. You have to admit, that has not been my central position.
The point was that because(in my hypothetical) the poor girl got beat by the genetic ugly stick, so being a model would be very, very difficult. If she was kinda pretty, or a bit pretty, I would have written that into my hypothetical but she wasn't. She was fugly.