Can progressives be convinced that genetics matters?

This matches my observations for the last half decade, but more so from progressives and left leaning people. Any deviance from "the narrative" results in instant ostracizing! Other political groups just make excuses to walk away for the time being, in my experience, which isn't inherently good either, but better than this.

There was a study on twitter that quantified this: left leaning people do not follow right leaning people, right leaning people follow left leaning people. One group has only a caricature of the other, while the other has a clearer picture of the opposition party's belief set.

I really hate the idea that people must be blocked if they didn't reach the same conclusions. It assumes that people are static, irredeemable deplorables even if they weren't exposed to the viewpoint by that point in their life. Harkening back to an old campaign point from the left also half a decade ago.

Then of course there is the assumption that I must therefore be "on the right", especially given the adjectives I used as well as being frustrated more with the left. Which is why the ostracizing occurs for questioning anything, nobody considers the possibility of an "ally" having introspection, or the possibility of evaluating the world outside of a false dichotomy? Super productive, everyone.

It appears you are letting your past personal experiences distort your judgments about me. It’s ok. I understand this. It’s natural but it makes it hard to have a discussion about whether or not it’s the case that everyone can learn algebra.

You made a statement that the way to pass everyone is to do my job. Clearly you have not taught much in a classroom with a wide variety of students. Consider the possibility that you simply don’t know anything about the craft of teaching other than your very limited experience of being a student and that as such you should be wary of making negative conclusions about me.

I don't see why that would be more convincing. As a hyperbole, if two completely different species (say a monkey and a primate) are exposed to the same learning environment, one would definitely end up fairing better than the other due to the differences in their brain. The twin studies just show that, given most other factors for twins are likely to be the same.

We're currently in the middle of several highly emotional political debates, which would easily be resolved by having better/more scientific data, particularly into the correlation of IQ and interests with race & sex. Sure, genetics don't determine an individual's life, but they do influence population averages, so if genetics explain/predict sex & race differences in careers and education, we could hopefully resolve those debates.

Another example of this is the association between violence and (1) computer games, and (2) sex/testosterone. The first one, albeit "intuitive", was debunked using science/statistics, and the second one most people just assume as "obviously" true (and noone claims sexism!) (although AFAIK it's scientifically debatable).

Again, genetics don't determine an individual, but they do influence the population & sub-groups.

I understand that some have genetics that make it harder for them to keep off weight, either by metabolism, neural hunger stimuli or otherwise, but then we're still back to the fact that environmental changes made the biggest effect, not genetics. Why can't this be the case in your other examples too?

TL;DR: Yes, genetics matter. What's more relevant is, how much?