Someone please explain to my why a correlation made between intelligence and [cranium size, race, socioeconomic status, any characteristic in general] is such a taboo subject. It's obviously acceptable to say something like, people raised at high altitudes have higher lung capacity, or people of european decent are taller than asians. Granted, intelligence is much more subjective than height/lung capacity, but the fact is, you can meet someone of any race, who will be so much smarter/dumber than you that it will be painfully obvious to anyone who knows the two of you more than in passing. Since differences in intelligence, like any other characteristic, obviously exist between any two given people, why does it bother people so much? Does it frighten people to suggest intelligence is some kind of innate attribute, that education and perseverence can only take one so far?
You're kidding, right?
You're drawing a direct comparison between objective analyses that are statistically predictable and a subjective construct with no possible current empirical basis. The two aren't even remotely analogous. Nobody even knows what "intelligence" is, nevermind how to measure it.
And even then, these relative differences are spread across all races. If we disregard all cultural factors and focus strictly on the genetics of "intelligence" (which, by the way, is still a very hazy area of study), then it is likely we would find that people of all races start from a similar slate. There is nothing to suggest that race plays a significant factor in some sort of "innate intelligence".In short, your argument is weak, as are any alternatives you're likely to present.