[wrong_internet]

No, the consensus of scientists who actually study this is pretty strong, and supports the parent's post. Jayman has collected a nice sequence of citations on the matter, most of which are peer-reviewed:

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/#Race-IQ

Much effort has been made to minimize the effect of poverty, stereotyping, and other non-hereditary factors in much of the literature.

Most people downvoting the parent are likely doing so because this research is uncomfortable, not because it is wrong.

[kenjackson]

That's a horrible list of mostly the race baiting circle jerk (for lack of a better term). Even a cursory glance shows that it lacks several authors who have written papers that dispute this. Coincidence? Probably not.

[cb18]

lacks several authors

Like who? Stephen Jay Gould?

a cursory glance

Maybe you should give it a closer look so you're not resting your worldview on confirmation bias.

[fsloth]

"No, the consensus of scientists who actually study this is pretty strong,"

Lots of groups develop their own consensus. That still does not mean it's correct.

The main problem is that they want to find an arbitrary metric and then prove that there is a racial variance to it. I would claim that this is a variant of P-mining[0].

They take the concept of "IQ" within the context of the tests to be a scientifically concrete measure like height or weight (which it isn't) than then search for datasets which supports their racial superiority hypothesis.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging

Also, Any list that contains the name "Tatu Vanhanen" should be immediately suspect. He's one of the known "racial IQ" crackpots.