This is a nice, well-written review of the two most recent books by Charles Murray. I loved the style and some of the the literary flourishes (such as the corpse in the attic bit), though they can be a bit much at times, for example when adverbs and adjectives make the prose heavier than it has to be (e.g., "praiseworthy rebellion", "limpid, unembellished prose", "vexatious tactics", "a rewarding and courageous book that is nothing less than a vigorous and sustained attack", "Laudably balancing provocative ideas with judicious prose and ethical wisdom" etc.).
Here are some comments and suggestions for your consideration:
p. 1 "I review both thematically rather than thoroughly, focusing exclusively race differences": missing "on"
p. 4 it might be worth noting that the "not enough time for them to evolve unique psychological adaptations" has been used quite often by some prominent evolutionary psychologists, who have tried to distance EP from race-related research (and from behavior genetics more generally). This is interesting because EP is also in violation of a number of orthodoxies (about sex differences, mating, the function of aggression...), but by and large, the field has steered clear of anything associated with the biology of race.
p. 5 "This is understandable for those who only vaguely remember some guy named Mendel from high school biology. If pea plants can change dramatically because of differences in one gene, then why can’t humans? " Sounds a bit condescending; Lewontin's fallacy is a verison of this idea and has persuaded a lot of smart people over the years.
p. 5 hard/soft sweeps: you may also want to mention "polygenic adaptation", which is not characterized by sweeps to fixation but by subtle changes in frequency across large numbers of loci (see https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008035 ).
p. 5 "He examines the GWAS..." I re-reasd this paragraph a couple of times and it's not entirely clear what Murray did or what these correlations measure. Please clarify.
p. 5 "Murray resolutely refrains from speculating, declining to forward a single concrete example of a likely difference in cognitive repertoires." Well, Nicholas Wade did offer some (clumsy but explicitly labeled) speculations in A Troublesome Inheritance, and that more or less spelled doom for the book. It's a bit of a catch-22 for an author writing on this topic.
p. 6 "But this example is importantly different from the many incendiary race differences researchers may discover because it seems to “favor” the group that is not “privileged” (i.e., women). " An example of sex differences that are taboo might reinforce this point.
p. 8 Why "Africans" in the second paragraph? Sounds odd
p. 10 "... and Goliath won’t even blink." This is an effective ending, but somehow left me with many unanswered questions. What happens in practice if the orthodoxy becomes invulnerable? How are other disciplines (genetics, evolutionary biology) going to be affected? For how long is this sustainable? Any possible surprises on the horizon? Are Murray's worries and projections about the future reasonable? What are the prospects of attempts to criticize "systemic" theories without resorting to hereditarianism? And so on. In short, I think I would like to hear more about your thoughts and extrapolations. Of course this is completely up to you, but I thought I'd share my reaction.
FYI, here's a review of Human Diversity that used the book as a trampoline for all sorts of intriguing trains of thought:
http://unremediatedgender.space/2020/Apr/book-review-human-diversity/ . It's a very different approach (and more suited for a blog than a journal review) but I hope you'll find it interesting.