>The value we place on the skills that IQ tests measure

It's not even that. Imagine there is an isolated population on a remote island that is legitimately very low on general intelligence, "nobody can ever learn to count past ten" kinda low, yet undeniably human.

What would be a reasonable policy toward such people?

The same as you'd have to the severely mentally impaired in general, I imagine.

To apologise for such a unidimensional interpretation of intelligence? Maybe they harness their intelligence to survival in their environment. What would the measure of such an intelligence be? What if you've never been posed a logical puzzle before, or even had a written language, just oral tradition. Are we saying that the western definition of intelligence discounts all other forms of mentation and application of that mentation to significant survival advantage? Perhaps these people score low on "curiosity" rather than intelligence per se? How do we even define intelligence in these discussions? Is Elon Musk intelligent? By some measures, clearly yes. By others, clearly not. What is the point of these discussions of not to partition the room? Personally, I'd like to see a broad-spectrum array of measures relating to different modes of mentation. Then we may be able to get somewhere. Until then, whenever I see a discussion mentioning "whites", "blacks", "Asians", "Africans" as if these are a homogenous mass (which is utterly ludicrous), then I'll continue to suspect ulterior motives.

A lot of assumptions here. What intellectual advantages do chimpanzees have over humans? Their survival advantages over us are in other planes. Clearly at some stage between the last common ancestor and us there was an intellectually inferior, yet more or less human. Sure they could maybe sleep naked in the cold, run marathons in 1:30 or even, as a facet of mental ability, have superhuman reaction time, but they would just have no place in the human society. Your refusal to even consider a genetically defined human subset of inferior intellect is quite typical, I suppose because you don't like the conclusions for if it existed.

A controversial 2005 paper https://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jb... claims:

  Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data. They score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average, corresponding to an IQ 112-115. This has been seen in many studies (Backman, 1972; Levinson, 1959; Romanoff, 1976), although a recent review concludes that the advantage is slightly less, only half a standard deviation Lynn (2004).

The controversy is discussed here: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/30/21042733/...

The fact that none of the cited sources (Backman, 1972; Levinson, 1959; Romanoff, 1976) provide evidence of or back the that Ashkenazi IQ is close to a standard deviation above the European average might be why that paper is controversial.

While what you say logically makes sense, it's very difficult to handle the thought for most people. Most people are either racist and disagree with the latter part of what you say, or are anti-racist and reject even the possibility of any intelligence disparity.

I find it uncomfortable, and I personally don't accept it as a fact (there is pretty significant evidence that points at many possible conclusions, as well as many many confounding factors), but I can't, as a reasonable person, reject the possibility.

I would never even voice that opinion in public, though. Even a position like this could make me a social pariah.