We have essentially no mechanistic understanding of gene/intelligence interactions. Rather, we have cohorts of people tagged with traits (educational achievement, tested IQ, height, etc), all sequenced, and then we can run correlation surveys across all their genomes to identify correlations between alleles and traits. When you do that, you get 10-30% heritability numbers; the gap between that and the range for MZ/DZ twin studies (the 50-80% you often see) is "the missing heritability problem".

Regarding missing heritability: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-good-news-is-that-one-s...

"That is, once you include the rare variants, the amount of genetic variation that “should” exist but doesn’t shrinks to only 12%. Plausibly an even bigger study, investigating even rarer variants, could shrink the gap further, all the way to zero."

Of course, even then heritability will not be 100%.

The Good News Is That One Side Has Definitively Won The Missing Heritability Debate

...

Astral Codex Ten
I don't think the rare-variant hypothesis is taken seriously anymore by practitioners, but feel free to cite.
I think you might be mistaken, but feel free to cite metastudies that support you POV.

Follow cites from here, and then look at the Twitter conversation between Gusev and Alexander Strudwick Young.

https://theinfinitesimal.substack.com/p/the-missing-heritabi...

The missing heritability question is now (mostly) answered

Not with a bang but with a whimper

The Infinitesimal
Thanks. I'll wait for proper meta-analysis.

So when you said "cite anything", you meant...

Oh. Never mind. You rewrote your comment after I provided the cite. Well played.

I clarified implied "anything [that supports your claim that it's not taken seriously anymore]". A proper way to do it is meta-analysis.
Why would you expect me to keep conversing after you stealthily reframed my comment to look like I had answered a different question? If you had anything real to say, you wouldn't have done that.