No, it hasn't. What ever else you want to say about the research results you're describing, "widely accepted in the field" is not a thing you can hope to say about them. The objections scientists have to these kinds of statements is fractally deep.
Claims that politics are preventing genetic and psychometric research also seem to drive practitioners in the field pretty nuts; there is clearly and obviously a ton of this research happening "in the west", it just doesn't say what race science activists want it to.
I owe another thread a deeper answer than this, so I'm keeping this brief.
No, they haven't. The opposite thing has happened (I owe another thread details): as we've shifted to genomics, the estimates have cratered. This isn't an "activist" thing.
You know you're in trouble when people start implying that actual genomic and quantitative psychological research in academic labs is suspect because of "taboos". In fact, since you made that point, and since I really shouldn't be digging into this before responding to the other person I said I would respond to: I'll leave it there.
