Problem is that the same argument applies, in that biology isn't very good at reliably identifying that the differences in these behaviours are biologically determined; they're correlational.

Its the absurdity of the nature / nurture argument - Its unsolvable, because people have bought into a false scientific paradigm - which science has long moved on from. Its the relationship between nature and nurture that's important, not one or the other.

We are both socially and biologically constructed, the two are really inseparable. Attempts to prove one or the other, have always failed, because they've mistakenly embraced self fulfilling assumptional bias.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

There is a consensus in the field that nature is 50 to 80 of behaviour....on intelligence at least.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

That's why it's used for sure, but you'd be better off without them and getting the bill through as it should be rather than knowing the other side will let it expire.

As it was it only applied to new weapons anyway, existing stocks and second hand ones could still be bought and sold. No doubt the gun manufacturers simply over-produced prior to the ban, and knew in all likelihood that they'd be back in ten years. Having little effect on the sale of the consumables in the meantime.

Optimistic as ever

It depends on what you mean by intelligence, but they're kind of right, I think intelligence is probably 80% biological, but its more because that 20% relates to biological dysfunction that effectively limits someone's intellectual capacity and ability.

You could also point to the fact, that without socialisation, humans would be primarily glorified apes (education and learning being social factors) - which is why we shouldn't really call it nature vs nurture.

Because the real value of intelligence isn't some biological quotient, its how you utilise and maximise that capacity. People aren't born geniuses, they're made through educational application and effort.

Which sums up a good point from critical social psychology on IQ studies - that scientists in order to prove intelligence is genetic, have divorced the idea of intelligence so far from the real world that they're measuring something that's utterly irrelivent, in order to prove they were right.

Granted, IQ has its place. But given that probably only 5% of people, at best, lie outside of positions of variance, it doesn't really tell you much of value about the other 95%. People with very high IQs don't always go onto remarkable things, where as some people with very average IQs change the world.

And of course IQ, is at least on of many different forms of intelligence. Someone can have low IQ and present exceptional ability (idiot savants), whilst sociopaths score high in IQ, but show very poor achievement educationally.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Scientific Paradims are fantastic, if you know what they are. Scientists tend to. Everyone else rarely even know what underlying assumptions and scientific paradims actually are.

And that's a problem. A study showing that 1% of people with a gene y perform better at x, gets translated in the news, that gene y makes you better at x.

It doesn't, there is only a correlation between x and y. Even in the sample, you'll find people without Y who perform better at X, than some people with Y.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

You admitted the heart of the democratic party is progressive and with Bernie Sanders and then you come out with this drivel.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)