What you call name-dropping is justified by the need to clarify the stakes and be transparent about where the criticism is coming from.
If the article is too long for you & you're already familiar with the notion of heritability, you can go directly to the "The Dog Eat My Control Group" section near the end.
No-one is denying heritability here. The only question is where the heritability figure lies, and how reliable are the estimates that have been put forward in the past.
I don't see how anyone's "personal experience" could be a valid methodology for deciding whether the heritability of IQ is 30% or 80%.
As for the "extreme ideological indoctrination" slander, it'd be great if you could just withdraw it.
As for this snide comment that you posted behind your flagged comment:
"I don't care if you find it fair. If you can't accept that genetics determines the entire organism (stress: entire) and does not stop at the neck, then you'd perceive my later criticisms as much worse than - gasp! oh great heavens! my pearls! - unfair. It is a bitter pill to swallow that some people were simply born with better hardware than yourself, one you are obviously railing against. Now, rush on and down vote this comment as well to lighten the burden of your cognitive dissonance. I'm also finding it difficult to reconcile your use of the flag/report on the parent comment versus the rules dictating and describing what is disallowed content. Disagreement is not against the rules. Perceived "fairness" is not in the rules."
Sorry to inform you that you don't understand the meaning of the verb "determine", as "genetics determines the entire organism" is scientifically wrong for obvious reasons: "influences", yes; "encodes proteins for", yes; but "determines", no.
And, no, I'm not railing against anyone's hardware as I'm pretty satisfied with mine.
For full clarity: I didn't flag your comment (at least, not intentionally, as I never even thought about doing that)
Now the substance:
"The alleged “suppressed control group” does not turn the result into “no heritability”."
=> Of course not, did anyone claim there was no heritability? But
1/ It's not "alleged", it's printed black on white in the paper.
2/ There is no excuse for suppressing control group data (it's like suppressing the placebo arm of a drug study).
3/ It does turn the result into "junk", and it does establish a definite case of scientific malpractice among people arguing that IQ heritability is 0.70.
As for later analyses, they weren't the topic of my post, but that doesn't mean they're casher.
Which exact passage of my piece triggered this bizarre interpretation? What made you jump from "someone criticizes a 1990 paper in Science for withholding critical control group data" to "this person is subject to magical thinking"?
As it happens, I often run into trouble due to my conceptualist views on the foundations of mathematics (that is, I'm a hardcore physicalist & anti-Platonist cognitivist, which is quite rare among mathematicians), so I find your criticism particularly unfair.