It should be noted that the very idea of studying links between "race" (skin color) and intelligence is deeply suspect. No one is studying things like correlati

It should be noted that the very idea of studying links between "race" (skin color) and intelligence is deeply suspect. No one is studying things like correlation between hair wavyness and intelligence, or penis length and intelligence, etc. And yet skin color is exactly the same kind of trait: something you were born with and that is tied to the genetic baggage of your parents, with no remotely plausible direct link with intelligence (unlike, say, skull size, which at least had some plausible priors). You can even (somewhat) change the color of your skin if you really want. Now, there may be, at least in principle, families, and by extension populations, who are more or less intelligent, on average, than others. But "race" has little to do with that: these types of studies only look at skin color as a proxy for population, and that is obviously silly on genetic grounds. Dark skin is a dominant trait, the children of a lighter skinned parent and a darker skin parent will usually have darker skin and be assigned the racial category "black" in such research, even though genetically they are just as much a member of the lighter skinned population as the darker skinned one. Even worse, this often persists across a few generations, so a child with 1 dark skinned grand parent and 3 light skinned ones will often be dark skinned themselves, and thus be called "black" in many such studies. So, the reason you should be very very much concerned with citing studies that find links between "race" and intelligence is that the very premise is wrong in the vast majority of the literature.