Andrew says he consulted with some academic psychologists for more feedback on the alleged intelligence research blackout:
I've reached out to some academic pros in the intelligence field, and the feedback I get is that the exploration of IQ and race is effectively toxic as a subject. But the rest of the research area is more complex than my first post suggested. An academic writes:
Within some subfields of psychology, there is a small degree of pushback against studying intelligence, but this is not true of psychology as a whole--there are thriving societies and journals, and reports of intelligence measures are not uncommon in mainstream journal articles. Nor is it unusual for researchers to document the degree of heritability of IQ (once again, within races). The study of racial differences in intelligence, however, particularly when it comes to assessing the possibility of genetic contributions, is still radioactive. Few researchers other than Jensen and Rushton are willing to go there, while marginal phenomena such as "stereotype threat" that superficially seem to suggest that the race difference is 100% environmental are avidly pursued.
Sullivan has more to say in his latest post, and I could quibble with some of it, but it's beyond what I'm interested in tackling. However, after reading many of the comments in other blogs that linked to this discussion, I think it might be helpful to work on a post or two covering some common misconceptions about the nuts and bolts of psych evals and psych testing. There's a great deal of misinformation out there.