Last time I checked the data supporting the "IQ is good" had some horrendous lack of statistical information, the same applies to the "IQ is bad" people.
Their papers lack to understand where statistical significance fits in inference which they use, abusing the scope of validity, but I did not read much of them (5 from "IQ is good" and 6 from "IQ is bad"), by the way I understand nothing about biology, being not my area of interest I cannot criticize these papers on these grounds, I only think that's very strange that both sides do not construct their arguments using neuroscience.
Their papers lack to understand where statistical significance fits in inference which they use, abusing the scope of validity, but I did not read much of them (5 from "IQ is good" and 6 from "IQ is bad"), by the way I understand nothing about biology, being not my area of interest I cannot criticize these papers on these grounds, I only think that's very strange that both sides do not construct their arguments using neuroscience.