I see what you're saying and am not disagreeing with you. I guess I just feel that intelligence as a term is something that is too difficult to define to draw any conclusions about similarities or differences between different groups and its genetic components. That's why I feel uncomfortable saying that there are clear differences in intelligence between different groups of people that are inheritable. I am not saying there aren't any, I would just prefer to reserve my judgement altogether and talk about fitness or adaptations in the context of evolution rather than intelligence.
I suppose that's fair. I tend to approach any issue with the assumption that an answer exists. We may not have the answer, and we may not even have the means to obtain the answer. But it exists. We've already discussed things like social factors which heavily influence academic success. The noise that this factor throws into the "equation" is so great that we can't make any conclusions at all. For example, I have seen no evidence at all to suggest that inner city African Americans aren't heads and tails more naturally intelligent than whites and that it is just a matter of social and cultural factors that results in lower scores according to one test or testing strategy.
Testing strategy: This needs to be fleshed out, too. If I have a need for people with specific skills I can generate a test that will assess the various levels of said skill that any person has. I can take any person or group of people and place them precisely along this line that I have arbitrarily drawn in the sand and I can say with reasonable certainty that people at one end of the line will be better suited for my task than those at another end of the line. Does this make them better people? I dunno. I couldn't conclude that, anyways, as the test in no way attempted to assess that.
This is what the OP is trying to do with the IQ test. As you've alluded to, "intelligence" as a term defines nearly everything within the realm of non-physical human ability. There is spatial intelligence, mathematical intelligence, "street smarts", musical intelligence, so on and so forth. The IQ test doesn't even approach assessing all of the
identified and named facets of "intelligence". It is, at best, an imperfect way of assessing the pattern recognition, verbal reasoning, and a little bit of reaction time and fluidity of thought. It has no way of accounting for the myriad of non-genetic variables that influence one's intelligence.
Another issue is that IQ is treated as if it occurs in a vacuum. We seem to ignore the fact that humanity is a social race which teaches its members. The knowledge (and knowledge shapes the way you reason) of older generations is passed on. Basically, what I am saying is that there are people who may be operating on lower RAM that have been taught things and had their rational approach to problem solving molded by those things in ways that other people operating with significantly more RAM haven't.
So IQ can be useful in determining an individual's ability in the areas tested as compared to other individuals. IQ makes no attempt whatsoever to determine the cause for such differences. If we were granted a magical head scanner which could spit out a person's raw genetic ability to process information, the likelihood that the races are all actually equal is essentially zero. IQ measurement isn't that tool, and even if we had it, nobody can say with the info we have now that the differences would be at all meaningful.
I seriously doubt you've explored for yourself where this "value" comes from and have taken it at face value and regurgitated it back whenever it seems relevant. I'd ask you to answer that, but we both know the answer will sound very contrived, as if it were from the rubber stamp that slaps the same forced nonsense of the personal statements of every pre-med ever (myself included. we've all been there). "Value" is a subjective concept. I'd urge you to think about why, and how this pertains to human life. I'd argue that the value of a human life is not intrinsic. It isn't some omni-present force that simply "is". 
