You're right - I was only teasing, except that I think there is plenty of suggestive evidence for a meaningful innate G (even though it's a sum of various types of health, and not only genetic, much less the sum of just a few SNPs). I was thinking of falsifiability because it seems to me that you'd say in response to any study that seems to segregate people by G and measure their outcomes later, you'd just say "they were already on the path toward having a sane+rational set of beliefs+practices".

I've held a tentative version of your view (that nearly anyone could in principle learn to be smart) in the past. I've moved away from it as I've read more, but I still think there's a great deal of difference in ability to observe or judge truth, at equal native mental talent, between someone with a workable set of beliefs and skills, and someone who's tied to enough screwed-up beliefs and practices. (probably everyone sees this)

Your unusual behavior at first made me underestimate your competence. My heuristics usually save me a great deal of time, so I won't apologize for them, but it was diverting having them tested.

I've read a single book of Popper's (something like Open Society + its Enemies) and took away from it that he was smart and disliked Plato. So I don't think I understand what it is you like about him, or why it would be useful for me to know more of what he wrote.