If IQ potential was 50% genetic, then the teaching would potentially raise your actual IQ by affecting the other 50% which is huge. IQs scores in populations and individuals change based on education, nutrition, etc. But even if we hypothesized a pretend world where “g” was magically 100% genetic, this (imaginary) measure is just potential. It is not true that an uneducated, untrained person will be able to perform tasks at the level of an educated, trained person. Also The Bell Curve was written by a political operative to promote ideological views, and is full of foundational errors.

You've made the mistake of thinking that if IQ were 50% genetic (it isn't - it's way more than that, but that's beside the point), then the remaining proportion is completely (non-shared) environmental.

Researchers in this field actually break down the non-genetic component into four major components: 1. Shared environment 2. Non-shared environment 3. Error

Shared environment accounts for so little variance that it might as well be ignored; while non-shared accounts for little more than error.

Note that including error in the non-genetic component, just as you've done in your post above, you are viscerally downplaying the otherwise undeniably predictive link from genes to IQ. In other words, whatever number you give is automatically deflated due to the way a psychometric is measured.

This has never been the source of debate. Back when I was going through grad school in intelligence, people didn't have to overthink how they presented the data. Intelligence was already a mature field, and we discussed the data openly. But in the past couple decades or so, a lot of people such as yourself popped up, attempting to craft irrelevant, statistically incorrect arguments against the results of certain well-established psychometrics that happen to not fit within whatever mental world your brand of politics ascribes.

If you really cared about the data, you'd be discussing the numbers. But your interest in this previously niche topic isn't in understanding reality; it's in justifying your worldview, which is why you deny the established data, immediately present a caveat stating that the data doesn't matter in the first place, appeal to emotions, and finish it all off by claiming those who disagree with you have been brainwashed. None of those four arguments have any merit in a genuine discussion on this topic.