[dennis_jeeves2]

Anyway to answer your question the number of fingers in one's hand would be nearly 100% inheritable. A more accurate figure would be 99.<something>

tptacek , I'm not sure why you are hung up so much on the specifics, haven't we veer well past the main topic? My getting the definition of heritability, innateness etc. in this should not matter beyond a certain point. I understand that if we were experts debating a certain tropic definitions matter. Quirks , physical trait, depression, mental illnesses, and by extension IQ would run in families, this was common knowledge in the pre-modern era. ( and probably is still so in many parts of the an on urbanized world). Ofcourse one has to separate out the external factors like common food habits (that was common to these families) would impact psychological traits.

[tptacek]

No, it is the opposite: the number of fingers on your hand has virtually zero heritability. Variation in the number of fingers on your hand is virtually always a result of environmental influences (for instance: thalidomide during gestation).

If you don't understand what heritability means, (a) you shouldn't be using it to make points about the connections between phenotypical groups of people and their measured IQ, and (b) the links I have for you aren't going to do you any good.

[dennis_jeeves2]

Fair enough. I that case I don't understand what the formal definition of heritability. ( I could some time and understand it but that beside the point)

So what term would you use to describe individuals inheriting trait from their parents eg, skin color ? especially the colloquial term.

(and again aren't we veering way off topic?)

Edit/Addendum - I looked at the colloquial definition of heritability/heritable, I think I'm essentially correct: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heritability , https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heritable . You need not reply. I have a feeling that our discussion is missing the forest for the trees. (And yes you can have your gotcha moment)

[tptacek]

The technical definition matters because the evidence people supply about the genetics of intelligence is based on that technical definition, not your intuitive definition. You said intelligence has been shown to be heritable. Indeed, it has. But that doesn't mean what you think it meant.

[dennis_jeeves2]

Again, fair enough. ( I'm pretty sure that when I used the word heritable first, the person understood it, although he/she may not have agreed with me.)

And if I may defend myself most terms with a formal definition start out being used colloquially and later if/when adapted scientifically may have a more nuanced definition. And after it is adapted scientifically the word continues being used colloquially. Isn't it generally assumed that when 2 people talk the colloquial is assumed? Unless they both decided to use the formal definition, or they are both experts in the subjects.

[tptacek]

I don't think you should feel bad for using heritability in its colloquial sense. I'm just saying that you won't be able to support the claim you made with the evidence you had available. That's how discussions work: you make claims, some of them hold up, some of them don't.