At least Lighter got it...and 999 seemed to.
'General genetic proclivities' are not what is measured by Stanford-Binet or most other tests.....but a host of good or bad genetic markers can probably help explain various extremes on standard tests, and may go a long way toward both treating sub-normal performance and nurturing prodigies.
As Don Firth said, there ARE tendencies to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the truth and rationalize when egos are at stake. The same is true when cultural & ethnic groups feel threatened by 'test scores'. The very fact that brilliant individuals can be found in ALL groups should alleviate that problem, but sadly, discrimination based on false hypotheses is always there.

I got high scores on a number of tests in the 3rd thru 6th grades and on a very early version of the SAT. What it showed was that I read widely and collected a lot of 'information', sort like a flypaper for data. I was quite good at taking tests...especially multiple choice! I 'think' I have some basic skills at analysis and organization, but I'm rather vague about exactly how to apply them. I was the 1st person in ANY of my known family to go to college, though some of them had jobs & careers that needed the ability to **think**.

Of course we all have met people who can't seem to plan past their next beer and who we doubt should be allowed to have matches or operate a motor vehicle. There MUST be reasons for that beyond 'bad training'.

The genetic data should be reviewed and analyzed and revisited...but ONLY (so far) as a broad generalization, not to support various various versions of "see, I told you 'they' were inferior.