Asians have higher standard deviation

http://infoproc.blogspot.se/2008/06/asian-white-iq-variance-from-pisa.html

higher standard deviation in PISA

The fact is there have been absolutely no evidence to show that asians have a lower standard deviation and if anything have been shown to have a higher one. This can be shown by SAT scores where the average gap is asians/pacific islander scoring about 10 points above whites. But asians also had a higher standard deviation at 123 compared to whites at 100. So when you took at the 99th percentile of both groups, which is people scoring about 1500 or so, the gap increases to about 100 points asians over whites. So it seems that not only do asians have a higher mean average but also have more intelligent people on the far end of the spectrum.

Here is the source. Go to table 4-1.
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2003/pdf/2003_TOTALGRP_PRD.pdf

This is related to the stereotype that the Asian population is monolithic and genetically homogeneous, and lacking in diversity. Although the stereotype of Asian intelligence exists in the public consciousness and popular culture, it is also promoted as propaganda on Web forums and websites by White supremacist groups. White supremacists promote the idea that Asians have little variation in intelligence compared to whites in order to "prove" that Whites are better than Asians by rote of having more White geniuses than Asian geniuses. [47]


There stereotype is also based on the fact that China had no industrial revolution and scientific revolution despite the wealth, prosperity, stability and technological superiority it has in the 1600s. Some believe that Asian countries did not have enough Asians geniuses for innovation [48] (although many "geniuses" have low IQ. For instance, the Nobel Prize Laureates, Richard Feynman and Francis Crick have an IQ of 'only' 125 [23] and 115 [24] respectively). One study has shown that the reason that there was no industrial revolution was because of the high level equilibrium trap [25] [26]. Also, the type of government did not encourage inventions. [27] Social and cultural factors might have prevented the onset of an industrial revolution. [28] Furthermore, Eurocentrism in textbooks mentioned only the Europeans that contributed to society, and skipped the contributers from foreign continents.


Nevertheless, some studies have shown that the population of East Asians in the United States actually have a higher standard deviation (sd=15, mean=106) in IQ than Whites in the United States (sd=14.7, mean=101.4), in a normally distributed WAIS IQ test (standard deviation=15, mean/median/mode=100). [29]

"More specifically if the threshold for entry into gifted education were set at IQ 125, the ratio of Blacks to Whites in representative samples would hover around 1:30, and for Hispanics 1:5. Asians would tend to be overrepresented above this IQ level by 2:1."–Linda Gottfredson

"In the U.S., Whites have an IQ of 101.4 with a standard deviation of 14.7 and Asians have an IQ of 106 with a standard deviation of 15."

 http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004desegregatingGiftedEducation.pdf

 To illustrate this point: in a normal population with a mean IQ of 100, and a standard deviation of 15, 228 children in every 10,000 would have an IQ score two standard deviations above the mean, that is, a score of IQ 130 or higher. However, with a mean shift upwards of half a standard deviation, as reported by Jensen for Asian Americans, no fewer than 668 children in 10,000 would score in the IQ 130+ range. Many American gifted programmes which employ an IQ criterion for entrance set their entry level at IQ 130; in this situation, 6.68 per cent of Asian children would be eligible to enter these programmes on the basis of IQ as opposed to only 2.28 per cent of Caucasian children-an overrepresentation by a factor of 2.93. Yet Sternberg reports an overrepresentation by a factor of 5! Why do American gifted programmes contain almost twice the number of Asians than could be statistically expected from Jensen's projections. The children of this study have scored at or above IQ 160 on the Standford-Binet Intelligence Test L-M, an instrument with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation fo 16. Thus these children score at least 3.75 standard deviations above the mean. Fewer than 9 children in 100,000 score at or beyond this level. However, if we shift the mean upwards by 0.5 of a standard deviation, to investigate the implications of Jensen's findings and if we assume the standard deviation for the Asian population to be the same as that for non-Asians, then the criterion score of IQ 160 for entrance to this study becomes only 3.25 standard deviations above the new mean. Beyond this point lie not 9, but 58, children in 100,000. If Jensen's findings regarding a higher Asian mean are correct, and if they hold good for the Asian-Australian population as well as Asian-Americans, then we could expect to find Asian-Australians over-represented in the study by a factor of 6.5. Yet the over-representation actually found id an astonishing 15.6!