I kept reading on the topic, the paper in question quotes papers from a leader in the field, A.R.Jensen, from 1980,1987,1998,2006 and 2011 but decides to skip o

I kept reading on the topic, the paper in question quotes papers from a leader in the field, A.R.Jensen, from 1980,1987,1998,2006 and 2011 but decides to skip over a 2002 paper by him, GALTON’S LEGACY TO RESEARCH ON INTELLIGENCE, which says the following. "Reaction time (RT) Quickness of information processing would seem to be an advantage in early hominid survival and hence could be regarded as a Darwinian ‘fitness character’. Galton therefore included it in his battery of tests as another elemental indicator of general ability. But Galton’s own findings with RT looked unimpressive. Because of technical inadequacies in his method of measuring RT and the lack of any statistical method for determining the significance of his findings, his theory was discredited and abandoned during the first three-quarters of the 20th century.Recent research, however, has shown that Galton’s idea was right after all. We now know for sure that measures of reaction time in what are called elementary cognitive tasks (ECTs) do in fact reflect the g factor (Vernon, 1987; Jensen, 1998a)." So Jensen says the theory of a correlation between IQ and RT was later shown to be right but there are "technical inadequacies in his method of measuring RT", as well as statistical techniques were unavailable. So a leading researcher in the field says that the measurement of those data points suffers "technical inadequacies". I think if you go back to the graph of the reaction times on page 5 of the paper (http://i.imgur.com/8TBnkNF.png http://i.imgur.com/8TBnkNF.png) and remove the 19th century Galton data points there would seem to be no great change over time.