No, because cognitive ability is still highly heritable in behavior genetic work (think twin studies). Candidate gene studies (the tradition GWAS grew out of) tends to have null results because there are thousands of genes related to cognitive abilities, and they likely do not work in a simple additive way (think necessary and sufficient conditions).

So, while I would certainly agree that candidate gene studies are unlikely to find a "smart" gene or genes, this statement:

doesn't quite follow from these results.

Intelligence may be a factor in achievement (if it exists), but achievement has many other factors - most of them social and contextual.

Because they can clearly only use one or the other.

Did I tell you about my trip to Iraq? Here, I have pictures...

In all fairness "my controls are messed up" has been a viable excuse for poor performance since Street Fighter 2 hit the SNES in 1992.

Mod parent up - the MTurk study missed the point by a mile.

It is unlikely that a free textbook (or any textbook, really) will count for tenure, in either the social or physical sciences, barring very high level technical textbooks.

So, yes, they would be wasting their time unless already well established. That rules out grad students and early career professors.

That is false: familiarity with facebook does not mean tech-savvy.

A surprising portion of even the very best and brightest 18-22 year olds would still hold a floppy disk completely level if you told them the bits might fall off.

It has always seemed to me that an iPhone only really made sense if you were already an almost completely Apple shop. If you already use OSX everywhere, have a few apple TVs or airport speakers lying around, an iPhone is tops for integration.

I've never understood why anyone would buy one that didn't already have at least one OSX machine.

DB-25 was a proprietary connector?

I remember the IIgs in color.

That is how scientific publishing is structured. Don't blame the authors, they're mostly incapable of fighting the system without sabotaging their careers.

So, I haven't been in an IBM content hosting server room in around 13 years, but I think you far underestimate how large they can be.

While that is true, the safe bet is still going to be that X implies Y.

If the first premise is true (X is highly correlated with Y), then to expect Y when one finds X is only natural (and takes less processing time).

Now, if we had some clear cases where X doesn't lead to Y, for example when Z is present, then we can solve the problem of unfairly expecting Y by also looking for Z. Hunting for Z will probably be more fruitful in the long run than trying to train people to ignore stereotypes that have evidentiary support.

Clearly no such ban is immanent. That said, prop 8 passed in California with only 52.24% of the vote.