I am very busy right now, but I think it is important for me to answer some posters here, out of courtesy if nothing else.
@Data10, @Mastadon, @mackinaw and others. Standardized testing is the crown jewel of the social sciences. No other branch has such predictability, reliability, or consistency. Econometrics attracts extremely bright students, but can their mathematical models predict anything? No economic theory was able to see the fall in oil price, or the market crash of 2009 ahead of time. Yet psychometric is able to anticipate the productiveness of precocious children with a 2 hour test given at age 13, even separating those scoring in the top quarter of one percent from those who scored in the bottom quarter of one percent. If the other branches of social science have to live up to the standards critics set for psychometric, they would all cease to exist.
Most of the critics are from outside the field. The exception is Sternberg but even he admitted he is not convincing experts in the field. The other critics I have seen have not been impressive, speaking generally of course. I find most simply lack the mathematics to do so. One that comes to mind is Stephen Jay Gould (who turned out to be a fraud, btw). I remember Jensen responded to his criticism with this “brutal” reply:
http://www.debunker.com/texts/jensen.html
In this article from the other side of the pond, the journalist is showing the ambivalence we all experienced. The field is moving on, however, from behaviour genetics to molecular genetics. I suspect the picture will be clearer within a decade. I guess we just have to let the truth set us free, however unpleasant.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8970941/sorry-but-intelligence-really-is-in-the-genes/