> supposed race/IQ correlations
I have one more issue with that: IQ is a bullshit. Psychology can't answer what intelligence is. It came to a point when someone proposed to treat IQ tests as a definition of intelligence. Even as IQ tests are correlated with intelligence, they grab as well a lot of cultural and educational confounders. Twin studies tend to have not so many participants, but controlling for culture and education means the need to multiplying the sample size by 10 or more if we want to get a statistically significant result.
Just think about how many factors can contribute to development of an intelligence (as a practical problem solving skill). Was a kid praised when he solved some problem, or maybe his parents didn't even notice that the kid solved a difficult (for him) problem? How about the teachers and their relationships with the kid? May some specific situation influence how a person develops their attitude to hard thinking? I mean do they like to think, or treat it as a hard work that should be avoided at all costs? Do they suffer from learned helplessness when it comes to thinking? There are a _lot_ of factors, though probably you can model them all as a motivation to think as a function of age: it would catch such things like how much time the person spent practicing thinking, and at what development stages. Then one can develop a predictive model of IQ-tests results, and then try twin-studies to explain what cannot be explained by the model.
But that age->motivation functions is not known, it is substituted with inadequate controls (in the best studies), and therefore those twin studies in the 1980s and 1990s are crystallized bullshit. Their results should be ignored by every sensible person. I wonder how did they manage to get any statistically significant results. I'd expect such studies to show just a noise around zero, or maybe around political views of the researchers.
> There continue to be published studies suggesting group differences in intelligence
I think, you just don't get it. I can believe some physics research results without understanding the research. I mean without digging into the paper figuring what the authors did, why they did this and not that, why this experimental setup, why these statistical methods, how it proves what they claim and so on. I can believe physics, because physics is (mostly) not interesting for politicians and their fans.
I can't believe social sciences because they are a battlefield for politicians. I need to dig into each research paper before I start believing. Or even worse, the research papers itself, I believe are useless, meta-research papers trying to reason on basis of many papers are better, and them I'd need to study under the microscope, to see what the authors did, and then better read what guys with PhD in the field think about the research. Keeping in mind that not everything can be said aloud.
It doesn't help that social sciences still struggling from the replication crisis.
All this leads to one conclusion: I can't believe into any social sciences results because you've said me that some kind of results is published.
But I'm not going to dive into social sciences papers, because I do not believe that their results are useful. Not yet, our society is not ready for that. If they found that blacks are learning things in different way, and the best outcome for all is to create separate schools for blacks and whites, that would respect racial differences, how our society would react? So even if they find something, it wouldn't lead to any meaningful changes.