Rushton and Jensen (2006, this issue) concede that the magnitude of the Black-White IQ gap is not immutable, but could have narrowed by as much as 3.44 IQ points, or 0.23 White standard deviations. They concur that the Black-White IQ gap rises with age. Using Shuey’s 1966 data, Jensen (1998) estimated a gap of 0.70 standard deviations in early childhood, 1.00 standard deviations in middle childhood, and 1.20 standard deviations in early adulthood. Our current estimates are 0.31 (age 4), 0.63 (age 12), and 0.87 (age 18). Comparison of Jensen’s pre-1966 values and our current values yields a Black IQ gain of 0.33 to 0.39 standard deviations. This equals 5.0 to 5.5 IQ points, close to the midpoint of our estimate that Blacks gained 4 to 7 points. Therefore, unless Rushton and Jensen question our current values, our main contention is also conceded. All that is at stake is the timing of the steps by which Blacks progressed from Jensen’s values to ours, something we grant to be problematic. And yet, Rushton and Jensen never challenge our values for current Black IQ. They do argue that we exaggerate the qualitative difference between samples we consider suspect and samples we favor, namely, those used to standardize the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), Stanford-Binet (SB), and Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT). They note that the samples we used were selected to be representative of Americans in general, but not the Black and White subpopulations. First, this is untrue of the sample used to norm the AFQT, as that sample is designed to give the military accurate data on the performance of various ethnic groups. Second, the samples we rejected all have the same defect, plus a host of others. To set the record straight, our argument (scorned) that the 1983 sample for the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children suffered from excessive variance is in fact not ours, but borrowed from Jensen (1984). Also, with respect to the Woodcock-Johnson, the following sentence should have been included in our Appendix B (Dickens & Flynn, 2006, this issue): Wicherts’s (2005) analysis of the subsample of the research sample shows that it is not representative of the U.S. population and that the subsample with data on all tests is a nonrandom subset of the research sample. Rushton and Jensen call for values based on the totality of the evidence. We anticipated this objection by analyzing the samples we think flawed. These analyses are contained in our Appendix B, and every one of them confirms our projections for Black IQ in 2002. Rushton and Jensen do not dispute this contention. Rather, they cite Roth, Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, and Tyler (2001), who found a gap of 1.1 standard deviations based on 6,246,729 individuals from military, corporate, and highereducation samples. This massive meta-analysis does not challenge our main contention. If GRE (Graduate Record Exam) results are treated as a single source, almost 60% of the studies Roth et al. analyzed refer to pre-1980 data. As for the gap of 1.1 standard deviations, the median age in the meta-analysis of Roth et al. would not be under 24. Our Figure 3 projected to age 24.7 gives a current IQ for Blacks of 83.5, or exactly 1.1 standard deviations below Whites. Rushton and Jensen quote Roth et al. (2001) as concluding that there has been no Black gain. However, Roth et al. explicitly stated that their own data left them ‘‘unable to assess the influence of time on standardized ethnic group differences’’ (p. 323). Instead, they directed the reader to three sources that they thought might be illuminating: Lynn (1998), which is a study of vocabulary scores and not IQ; Wonderlic data, which we have already analyzed in Appendix B; and Nyborg and Jensen (2000), in which there is no attempt to measure trends over time and which Jensen himself has not cited against us. If Rushton and Jensen wish to make a case based on analysis of these three sources, they should do so. Citing the conclusion of Roth et al. is simply an appeal to authority, and to imply that the conclusion of Roth et al. is based on the data that they analyzed is unhelpful. Rushton and Jensen say they have applied simple arithmetic to our Table A1 and derived a prerise value for Black IQ of 86.44 and a postrise value of 89.88. Table A1 contains raw data that must be adjusted, particularly for the fact that the data sets range from covering a full 30 years (the WISC) to covering only 16 years (the SB). It is fortunate we have no data set covering a period of 1 year, or simply averaging it in would tend to drag gains down toward zero. Address correspondence to James R. Flynn, Department of Political Studies, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, e-mail: jim. flynn@stonebow.otago.ac.nz. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE