Hardly. Results are results, that's it, end of story. They don't indicate anything, don't entail anything, don't imply anything, they don't even show with certainty the status of the working hypotheses. All an I.Q test result shows is an I.Q test result. If John goes in, sits for an I.Q test and scores 100, the results show nothing more than the fact that he went in to a particular place at a particular time and scored 100 on an I.Q test.
That's right. I'm glad you recognise it.
Using your example, it shows John has a 100 IQ.
The results of the test have definite social implications. Why the results are what they are is up for debate.
The original hypotheses that spurned the test remains unproven definitively.
It is why the results are the way they are which is important. It is why they are the way they are which will either lend support for or against your argument. If you want your claims to be taken seriously, then you need to discuss why. No one cares for the statistical data- as I said, you can quote ten million studies crammed full of statistical data showing your case- someone from the opposite camp can do the same.
Really? No one cares for the statistical data? What an absurd statement. Statisticians are paid in the millions to provide statistical data to companies all the time. And no, you're wrong. You can't provide ten million studies showing the opposite of the studies in the excerpt from Rushton's book. I challenge you to do so. hahaha. I won't hold my breath.
You can infer anything you like from a set of I.Q test data. Make your own inferences till the cows come home, you're just another person with an opinion. Offer a reasonable argument to support your claims and someone might listen to you- all you've done though is shout the same claim over and over again. Maybe if you say it enough times it'll come true...monster realization of the truth of your recent intelligence claims 
My inferences are based on many studies all pointing to the same conclusion.
Many, many, many studies, all pointing to the sames conclusion.
I'll wait for you to provide some studies("millions" preferably) showing the opposite of the studies in Rushton's book.
You implied Rushton is disreputable when you hinted that he would include studies that aren't "more respected" in his book. The reality is, you know nothing about these studies. You made your own inference that they aren't respected after a taking a cursory glance over one paragraph describing them.
Rushton is one of the MOST respected psychology proffesors in the world. Despite the controversial nature of his studies, he is still recognised as such. The people in acedemia that would say otherwise(people like Jared Diamond) do so only because of the nature of his work. I imagine they would want to shut him up. Furthermore, if you want to discredit Rushton because all he shows is many, many, many correlations pointing to the same conclusion, you would have to discredit phsychology, since scarcely anything in psychology has been proven definitively.
Rushton doesn't claim to prove anything definitively.
Psychology is not a hard science like mathematics, and the ideas being proliferated are constantly changing.
Freud is being phased out by mainstream psyhcology.
J. Philippe Rushton-Professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
-Holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc)
-Is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations.
-He is a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience.
-Rushton has published six books and nearly 200 articles.
-In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 11th most cited psychologist.
-Professor Rushton is listed in the
Who's Who in Science and Technology,
Who's Who in International Authors, and
Who's Who in Canada.
