Excellent thread. I'll just point out a few critiques of the racial list you have.
You're missing pacific islanders, who natively ranging from the phillipines to new zealand to hawaii. The islands of Indonesia alone are a nightmarish realm with the most barbaric tribes and cultures known to man. The natives of Papau New Guinea may be closer to aborigines than the maori. Native Hawaiians, from experience interacting with them, are somehow remarkably dumber than their cousins from the phillipines or new zealand. The biggest stand out physical trait of this race is their tendency for obesity, which is likely an adaptation for surviving long ocean voyages. I'm genuinely stunned by how dumb they are despite their history of incredible navigational skills. Like the jeets, the kingdom of Hawaii was conquered by a plantation owner who wanted to grow cheap sugar cane. The indonesians are ruled by a chinese minority.
Continental native americans and non-european admixed hispanics are different races. The Meso and South Americans were obviously so much smarter than the continental native americans that it's evident is nearly every possible way. Despite trade ties existing between north and central america, north america never adopted metallurgy, mayan brickwork, mathematics, a written language, or a calendar. All they wanted was cacao beans. It's extremely hard to say how it all went down prior to european migration to the americas. There were certainly multiple waves of migration from asia, and I'm betting the mayans are closer to mongols than the apache.
Keep all of this in mind when you write up your statements on the hispanics. I'm not a fan of the term because it doesn't actually describe a single racial group, just a cultural one. Look at the fraction of white admixture in the hispanics groups, which was fervently observed back in the old spanish colonial days. I bet you'll find strong correlations between the ratio of white/black/mayan and traits. Mexico is a really good nation to start looking. There are very good states and very shit states to use as comparisons. Also look into self-selection bias resulting from illegal immigration dominating hispanic migration into the US. This has resulted in far more hispanics of mayan origin than white origin ending up here.
I'd also like to see how much welfare has affected single mother status on a per race basis. I suspect both intelligence suppressing promiscuous behavior and the welfare state enabling the stupid and careless to raise offspring to adulthood has wildly shaped demographics. Welfare may actually be responsible for dumbing down populations by applying negative pressure to hard working, intelligent populations and positive pressure to idle, unintelligent populations. It's almost impossible for a mother to be too stupid to reproduce in the modern world. Even if she's entirely unfit, cannot secure a husband, and has no familial support, the state will still take her offspring and raise it to adulthood. High impulsivity, stupid men are also being heavily favored in these stupid demographics. Whereas in the past a whorish man who sires bastards would never support his offspring, and his offspring would suffer on that account, in the modern world welfare systems will interfere with natural selection and allow a whorish man to produce many offspring that live to adulthood. R selection strategists are stealing resources from the K selection strategists. This may be utterly agnostic to race though, as there is enough diversity in any racial group for R strategists to emerge (trailer trash, tinder whores, welfare queens, etc.). Iirc, TFR is a function of income within developed nations. The poorest have the most kids, the middle class have the fewest, and the rich are somewhere in between. As evidence has born out, most generational wealth is lost by the third generation, suggesting that the rich are more likely to be lucky than genetically superior.
Look more closely into Jews. The initial studies are alarmingly biased. They selected children from privately educated jewish schools (more likely to be wealthy), not the general population. Further, Jewish merit award recipients are down on a generational basis and trending toward baseline whites. It's very likely that initial Jewish excellence in the US was the result of recent immigrant overachievement starting the 1930's. Similar evidence can be found with Asian populations, albeit they're still in the midst of immigration waves to the US. Immigrants tend not to be representative of their baseline population and can exhibit strong selection bias, trending toward criminality, affinity for welfare, or ambitiousness depending on the circumstances. The Jewish population in Israel has far worse educational attainment than diaspora Jews, though this may be evidence that the Ashkenazi population is much more intelligent than the other Jewish populations. Israel itself is mostly populated by Jews who came from or are descended from Jews who came from Arab nations after the war of 1948. Aside, I also suspect schizophrenia is actually just a baseline component of the Jewish genome. It would perfectly explain their paranoid delusions and fear of surrounding groups. Any Jews that lack this behavior tend to outmarry (>>50% of married Jews in the US are married to non-Jews) and eventually cease to be Jewish. I don't expect Ashkenazi Jews to exist long in the USA for this reason. Their TFR is worse than generic white already, and the Israeli Jews have a very high birth rate.
Concerning Asians, avoid Chinese studies. Stick to Japanese or Korean studies. The Chinese like to manipulate outward facing data, and it's unclear to what extent their merit based exams are biased toward wealthy, urban populations vs. poor, rural populations. It's a country of 1.4 billion people spanning an area not too dissimilar to the entire USA. The concept of "Han" was a politically convenient way to annihilate local differences in identity. Look at the sheer number of minority languages in China. If there were regional retards, and there are from my own Chinese peers, the CCP isn't about to tell us about it. Use Taiwanese studies if you wish to investigate the eastern Chinese genome from the major cities, circa 1940's. I have absolutely no idea how to get accurate numbers from rural Chinese populations. Look at old blood US Chinese populations pre 1980's to see an accurate representation of Cantonese speakers, vs. the modern Mandarin urbanites you see today.
One thing I must insist you consider when looking at Asians is how absolutely abominable their TFR is. No matter where they go, they're extremely reluctant to have more than one child, regardless of national origin. While Asians are smart, Asians are also super susceptible to adapting their behavior to meet local expectations, which in the modern world means not having kids. It's the ultimate bane of the race. They're the hardest K selectors in the world, at present. Being surrounded by a lot of other smart people means that you have to fight for any advantage you can get to escape being relegated to a low pay shit job. Successive generations of Asians born and raised outside of Asia are usually way less stressed and actually have higher TFR's than their peers in Asia. A few other Asian "quirks" would be susceptibility to gambling addictions, unique alcohol intolerance, and bizarrely high rates of miscegenation with whites (seriously, go to silicon valley, asian women seem to prefer white software devs). The miscegenation might be an effort to escape traditionally restrictive cultural roles for women.
