In the interest of clarity: I am not at all sure how to proceed in this particular case. History makes me wary of departing from the current Schelling point of assuming everybody is equal, but that's not my point.

I am saying that a course of action based on Bayesian reasoning has no special immunity to being ethically wrong, and it is those actual results that are worth worrying about, not merely the epistemology.

Funny how the only people to make that argument tend to be people who don't want to believe the beliefs in question, but have out of ways to ignore the evidence.

I, for one, do believe that the average African has lower IQ than the average European but don't go around telling that to the wrong people.

On a less meta level: what kind of "misunderstand and misuse" do you think is going to "predictably" happen.

Underestimating how much the evidence race provides about an individual's IQ can be screened off by other evidence about the individual, due to the confirmation bias and similar.