Agree?

No - I can't say that I agree with the way you are using this data.

Your original comment implied causation - that different races have different intelligences BECAUSE of their race. You are hiding behind a technicality of never explicitly saying "causes" in your posts.

The sources you posted are all correlational - and indeed each goes on to explain in great detail why they are not causal. You are literally using articled that disagree with your initial implication to try to prove some technicality and twist data.

It is no better than stating "black people are dangerous" and then providing articles that show per-capita crime rate. The data without context (socioeconomic forces, etc) is useless. Using it blindly hurts people.

You are dog whistling here.

So you do agree but just misunderstood me. You should have made this post about your assumptions up front instead of asking for evidence of the wrong claim.

You people really need to stop hunting for racists under every rock! It blocks your ability to think as well as everyone else's when they're at risk of being attacked for failing to write the equivalent of "praise the Lord" at the end of every sentence to demonstrate their faithfulness.

I never said that I misunderstood. I said that your comment was implying other things. You are hiding behind technicalities, knowing full well what you had implied.

Hypothetically, if I commented on a fashion blog "people that wear blue shirts are more intelligent" and then pointed to an article stating that doctors often wear scrubs and score higher on intelligence, my original comment - while technically true - is worthless - it adds nothing to the discussion. Worse, my comment implies the wrong thing - color of shirts is independent - the true causal variable is a person's profession

I asked for a source for your statement. Why was it so hard to provide that? Instead we had to go through this huge ordeal to discover that you were making a weak correlational observation. Was it because you knew that your articles didn't support the claim you made?

I was reluctant to provide a source because it was trivial to do so yourself. I found 7 just from the first page of a couple of quick Google searches.

But it turns out you didn't want a source for my claim, you wanted a source for a different claim that you didn't state. Your mind is so bogged down in racism that you can't read people's words objectively.

No, it's not like your blue shirt example. Many people credit race-IQ differences to fairly common differences in upbringing and treatment by others, not the existence of some small but very uniform sub-group. A better example would be "people wearing t-shirts are less intelligent than people wearing buttoned shirts". That might actually correlate with the jobs of a wide range of people.

But at the end of the day, it's very clear:

My claim: "those different ethnic groups have different average IQs"

Your interpretation: "different races have different intelligences BECAUSE of their race"

That is clearly a misunderstanding, so you misunderstood me. The difference between causation and correlation exists and you conflated the two.