Comment by spyckie2

This is the exact question that this research tries to portray from a data perspective.

The narrative is trying to make a claim that nurture is significant.

The stats of this research essentially says "slicing the data in a way that highlights differing qualities of nurture shows that nurture has an impact".

But it crucially doesn't isolate nurture from nature (which is admittedly very difficult). It doesn't show if the nature side (IQ in this instance) has significant overlaps with the nurture or not.

So ultimately we are left guessing.

I bet if you did, you would see that IQ indeed is also significant, and the narrative can tell a different story. That's the thing about stats and narratives. They tell a story and leave a bunch of stuff out, so you have to evaluate it yourself.

My takeaway is that nurture may play a role, but is not the only thing that determines outcome. Eyeballing the end results, being in the worst category of nurture makes the odds worse for you, not 90/10 worse, but probably closer to 65/35.