If you know how a person feels about IQ, and the extent to which it's determined by genes, you'll likely know his entire political philosophy.
You can make an educated guess about how he feels about putting more money into falling schools, and whether that will result in a more productive society.
How he feels about criminals' vs. victims' rights.
About nation building abroad.
About foreign aid.
About affirmative action.
These are all political positions which are, to a certain extent, subjective, and a function of the values that people hold.
But the IQ controversy itself -- the extent to which it's nature and not nurture that determines one's intelligence -- is not a subjective, or moral, matter. it's a scientific one. And as with all scientific matters, the truth is far less squishy.
To determine which side is right, study the issue with an open mind -- a truly open mind. Read what Stephen Jay Gould (who felt intelligence was just a social construct) had to say on the matter, then read what Arthur Jensen (who believed our intelligence is mostly determined by our genes) had to say. Take a look at the various separated twin studies, of which this is one. Ask yourself whose opinion was informed by science, and whose by propaganda and wishful thinking.
After you study the issue, see if it affects your political thinking.
Too many people have either no knowledge of the nature vs. nurture controversy, or have been fed propaganda rather than facts. And when your entire view of human intelligence is based on propaganda, you're bound to have a lot of wrongheaded political views as well.