I was referencing the studies that show a low heritability in infancy and early childhood and then the it rises in adolescence and adulthood. So, it appears that parent IQ does not have much weight when you look at an infant or a 5 year old. The correlation is low enough that I assume this includes many children who have nuturing environments and have their basic needs met. Maybe what people are overlooking in the research is the fact that rates of maturation/development vary so much from one child to another in early childhood. So even a child who is in a nuturing environment may appear to be "slow" (for example), and therefore their IQ may be very different from their parents but become more similar later on. This is from Wikipedia:
"Studies have found the heritability of IQ in adult twins to be 0.7 to 0.8 and in children twins 0.45 in the Western world.[35][48][49] It may seem reasonable to expect genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, the opposite occurs. Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.8 in adulthood.[50] One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to reinforce the effects of those genes, for example by seeking out different environments.[35] Debate is ongoing about whether these heritability estimates are too high, owing to inadequate consideration of various factors—such as the environment being relatively more important in families with low socioeconomic status, or the effect of the maternal (fetal) environment."
At any rate, I was just pointing out that if a child is similar to a parent, or unexpectedly dissimilar, it is not necessarily just genes that determine IQ, especially when you are looking at children. There are many factors that go into it.
