I'm willing to cut these guys some slack because I understand the history of the jihad that the liberal creationists launched on anyone who veered from the party line. EO Wilson was physically attacked. Jensen, a highly prolific researcher who work has withstood numerous challenges was vilified. Stephen Jay Gould falsified data in order to smear opponents (his book, The Mismeasure of Man, is basically garbage now.) Klein and Takahata alluded to this in the piece I linked earlier:
Originally Posted by Just1Voice
It is certainly not shared by all anthropologists and is by no means the majority opinion of the public at large. It appears to be a conclusion reached more on the basis of political and philosophical creeds than on scientific arguments. Correspondingly, anthropologists who do hold this opinion often attempt to shout down their opponents rather than convince them by presentation of facts. Their favored method of argumentation is to label anybody who disagrees with them as racist.
The American Anthropological Association has divorced itself from science in order to more freely pursue advocacy:
Anthropologists have been thrown into turmoil about the nature and future of their profession after a decision by the American Anthropological Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word “science” from a statement of its long-range plan.
The decision has reopened a long-simmering tension between researchers in science-based anthropological disciplines — including archaeologists, physical anthropologists and some cultural anthropologists — and members of the profession who study race, ethnicity and gender and see themselves as advocates for native peoples or human rights.
It's sad that people can't stand behind their data, but even today we still find plenty of scientists hiding behind squid ink. They may be studying the genetics of Alzheimer's and they purposely create data sets which omit race because they simply don't want to touch the issue. The creationist zealots in the academy are pretty vicious.
It's one data point amongst thousands, all of which reinforce each other. This is why the hereditarian perspective is so difficult to knock down. It's the most parsimonious. It's not as extremist as the environmentalist perspective because it acknowledges the role of environment as having some influence, unlike the environmentalist position which stakes out the position that genetics can play no role in the issue of the Achievement Gap.
The findings may stand as accurate, but what is it you seek to interpret that data to mean? How are you applying it?
Specifically to your point - the variance we see in IQ between race is quite often "explained" away as an byproduct of differing social environments, differing parental styles, differing cultural values, differing exposure to outside influences, differing exposure to quality schools, differing exposure to quality teachers, etc. These transracial adoption studies (there are more than one) manage to control for a host of the factors that are used to raise doubt on the issue. Here we have, basically a family, but a family with children from different races. These children are exposed to the same (within practical limits) environment as they are being raised. The principal factor that distinguishes the children from each other is their genetics - they are the offspring of different parents. With environmental factors being controlled, the variance that develops can be explained away by fewer and fewer environmental factors.
How does "organize one's thinking" develop into action? Is it intuitive? Is it a behavior that is picked up from culture, from family? Is it taught? If it's intuitive then it is a remarkable coincidence, is it not, that this varies by race and that there is a rank order effect seen across all of the families? If it's learned somehow, then shouldn't all of the children be uniformly exposed within their families. Why is it that the biological children have better "organized-thinking skills" than the adopted white children, who in turn have better "organized-thinking skills" than half-black and half-white children, who in turn do better than the adopted children who were born to two black parents?
An IQ tests results are affected as much by the way the taker organizes their thinking as it is by it's measurement of one's ability to learn.
It's not deterministic, but it's the best single factor that exists. It doesn't guarantee success, but the probability is heavily weighted towards success. The Benbow study on Mathematically Precocious Youth which began in 1972 and is still going strong, follows the lives of people, who at 13, scored above 700 on the SAT math test. If these tests had little predictive ability, then the 5,000 people who are a part of this study should be little different in life outcomes than a random slice of 5,000 people drawn from the general population. Using just that single test to parse these people into one group produces a group that has had remarkable accomplishment over the years, accomplishments that far exceed the population norm.
It's not really accurate as a determinant of how "smart" a person is in a practical, real-world sense.
To continue, IQ tests predict health outcomes:
ABSTRACT—Large epidemiological studies of almost an entire population in Scotland have found that intelligence (as measured by an IQ-type test) in childhood predicts substantial differences in adult morbidity and mortality, including deaths from cancers and cardiovascular diseases. These relations remain significant after controlling for socioeconomic variables. One possible, partial explanation of these results is that intelligence enhances individuals’ care of their own health because it represents learning, reasoning, and problem-solving skills useful in preventing chronic disease and accidental injury and in adhering to complex treatment regimens.
IQ tests predict job performance:
That's a pretty creative bit of soothing pablum he uttered, isn't it? Some of us like to call it squid ink. Here's the problem with the validity of his statement. If it was an accurate assessment of what is going on then it would throw the correlations of IQ to creativity all to hell. We'd be seeing all through the literature that low IQ people were very creative and that high IQ people were not creative. But that's not what we see. Further, there is a greater definitional problem with creativity than there is with intelligence. With intelligence we can correlate it to a broad spectrum of life but creativity is more difficult to quantify. So, when we see creativity being expressed in the real world it can take many forms. There is literary and artistic creativity which isn't reliant on intelligence as much as the creativity of innovation we see in chip design, new pharmaceutical compounds. You can take a highly creative person with average IQ and try to get them to design a new drug and they'd be lost because they don't have the intelligence to sit in on that poker game. Anyways, when he makes that statement all that he's done is bought himself some plausible deniability so he can continue to research in peace and not be targeted by liberal creationist zealots because it is precisely this type of message, one which gives hope on another avenue, which serves very well at quelling the fury in the heart of liberal creationist zealots.
Just as an example, that same author has stated that people who are more creative can give "wrong" answers because they view the problem from a different perspective.
It also can't be used to measure one's potential to be a persuasive speaker or to be a cooperative worker just like Electrocardiography can't measure what Electroencephalography measures. Just because an Electrocardiograph can't measure what an Electroencephalograph measures doesn't mean that the Electrocardiograph isn't very useful for what it measures.
He has also related creativity to leadership in a very positive light. Your presented data cannot really be used to measure ones potential to lead intelligently.
There is no single better psychological predictor of a host of sociological outcomes than IQ. Period. Full Stop. It's not perfect and no one is claiming it is. It's a pretty weak attack to argue that because a metric is not perfect that it therefore is useless and that until a perfect measure is devised that no measure should be used. I'm not saying that this is the thrust of your argument, I'm just pointing out that this is a common line of attack.
To your question. So what?