But heritability
is wealth.
There are three different models / interpretations of "genes are a factor in A" that always get confused. They mean
different things. Like random graph models or automata equivalencies.
1. "There's a gene / combination of genes which codes for trait A and we know or can try to learn the underlying biochemical process". The most ironclad interpretation, and it doesn't directly involve parents, except that most of a person's genes are from them.
2. "Trait A correlates with trait B in parents."
3. "Genetic difference between these populations correlates with the difference in intensity of trait A between them."
The best illustrative example here is sex and gendered clothing / accessories. Let A be "wears a skirt". Genetic difference between males and females explains most of the skirt-wearing practices. However, while you do unambiguously "inherit" sex from one of your parents, there's no correlation to find. And, obviously, there's no biological mechanism that leads to a greater prevalence of skirts in XX humans analogous to that for calico cats.
(I'm not buttmad at the comic. And "economic reasons" (which I believe, btw: human intelligence is way too high-order to be genetically coded) as a lib stance is a bit

: recent (from Obama onward) diversity propaganda has given up "blacks and women can be just as intelligent, but more of them didn't have the opportunities" and settled on "blacks and women are ~alternatively~ intelligent and we need them because ~diverse perspectives~".)