The author of the article presents a critique of the arguments of so-called "environmentalists" (environmentalists) in the debate on racial disparities in IQ, focusing on the analysis and refutation of the most frequently cited objections. The main theses and points of the summary: 1. heritability (heritability) Heritability is a measure of the variability of a trait in a population resulting from genetic differences. Examples often given to relativize it (e.g., earrings have h² = 1) are incorrect or misleading. Lewontin's cornucopia metaphor (showing that intergroup differences can be fully environmental despite high within-group heritability) is theoretical and inconsistent with actual data. Mathematical models show that to explain racial differences purely environmentally, environmental differences would have to be extreme and illogical. 2 Wilson Effect The Wilson effect: heritability of IQ increases with age (e.g., from ~40% in children to ~80% in adults). Opponents suggest that this is an artifact due to errors in test design or violations of the assumptions of twin studies (e.g., EEA - equal environments assumption), but the author counters these allegations: Environmental differences between MZ and DZ twins do not relate to relevant trait environments. Heritability is not overestimated; on the contrary, estimates from GWAS and RDR are underestimated by failing to account for rare variants and non-additive effects. 3 Spearman's Hypothesis and g Spearman's Hypothesis: racial differences in IQ are more pronounced in tests that are more heavily weighted on g (a factor of general intelligence). Critics argue that g is a statistical artifact or that the effects depend on the extraction method. The author responds: g is empirically stable and extractable regardless of the test. Jensen effects (r(g-loading, d)) are well supported by meta-analyses and inconsistent with a purely environmental explanation. Environmental patterns (e.g., adoption, education) have little or no effect on g, weakening environmental theories. 4 Alternative models to g Models such as mutualism, Process Overlap Theory and sampling theories are discussed. The author recognizes that while these models have heuristic value, they do not explain the data better than the classic g model. Mutualism would require the existence of long-distance skill transfer effects, which have not been empirically confirmed. Sampling theories do not predict known effects (e.g., no increase in all abilities while improving one). 5 Assortative and disassortative mating Criticism of data suggesting that positive selection (e.g., partner similarity) overestimates heritability - the author points out that many such methods (e.g., RDR) are based on unrealistic assumptions. RDR models ignore systematic environmental influences and the effect of parental genetic influence (genetic nurture). 6 Epigenetics, methylation, prenatal effects Examples of epigenetic differences between MZ twins are interpreted as environmental, but the author points out that: Epigenetic effects are mostly short-lived and genetically determined. Prenatal effects have little effect on IQ differences in adulthood. Conclusion: the author concludes that most environmental arguments are based on a misunderstanding of concepts (heritability, g, Wilson effect), overinterpretation or poor methodology. He postulates that the empirical evidence is stronger on the side of hereditarians and that the resistance of environmentalists is ideological rather than scientific.