[See]
This Wikipedia article is biased and misleading, but is useful as a starting point. A more accurate description of the current scientific consensus is that everywo agrees that (1) traits and capabilities differ significantly by race, and (2) environment plays a significant role in determining an individual's traits and capabilities. The bone of contention is whether genetics also plays a significant role.
The scientific consensus is that circumstantial evidence suggests that genetics does play a significant role, but that it is still an open question.
The academic literature on Jensen's hypothesis appears to have focused on the benefits of migration for the genes of those who emigrated from Africa. When reviewing that literature, I did not find any consideration of the "selection bias" effect in that those who remained in Africa were selected for their superior warrior genes.
The pro-Jensonist literature is more objective and reasonably argued than the anti-Jensonist literature. The pro-Jensonist argument is essentially that both evidence and reason establish a presumption that genetics plays a significant role in determining an individual's traits and capabilities. The anti-Jensonist argument is essentially that Jenson's hypothesis is racist and detestable so should be rejected in science as "politically incorrect" even if it is true.