In race realist circles, much is made of a so-called short curve in Asian IQ. That is, Asians are said to have few geniuses and few idiots – there are few Asians below 70 IQ (gifted) and few above 130 IQ (gifted). So, while Asians are highly intelligent, it is said that they lack a large number of the sort of extreme geniuses that really move a society forward. On the contrary, European Whites are said to have a long curve.
Quite a few geniuses and idiots, and therefore more likely to produce truly innovative and forward-looking societies. White Supremacists have jumped all over this, as they are stung by IQ studies that show NE Asians scoring about 5 points above European Whites. By emphasizing the short Asian bell curve, White Supremacists fight back by arguing that European Whites are in fact the most superior race of them all, and NE Asians are inferior to them.
There are a lot of problems with this data. For one thing, it is not holding up well in the US. Our very top universities are overflowing not just with Ashkenazi Jews (IQ = 112) but also with NE Asians (IQ = 108). One would think that the competition at top schools such as the Ivy League would be among the most high IQ of them all.
Let us also look at the data below regarding gifted programs in the US. As you can see, Asians, especially but not exclusively NE Asians, have a higher % of students in gifted programs than Whites or than the general population. This would not be the case if Asians actually had a short bell curve.
The graph below is confusing. It shows what % of Asians, out of all of those tested for the gifted program, actually made the cutoff (probably 125 IQ).
I have no explanation for some of the results below. Why do Amerindians have more gifted than Hispanics? Why do Hawaiians and Guamanians have so many gifted, but Samoans and other Pacific Islanders have fewer, when both groups have the same IQ?
The IQ scores may seem confusing. They are set at the new ranking of US IQ = 100. Scores were formerly set at US White IQ = 100. The new ranking pushes US White scores up to 103, and pushes everyone else’s score up 3 points. But the scores are still the same; only the scale has changed.
Asians are overrepresented in the gifted programs in the US, contrary to WN propaganda about narrow Asian SD and relative lack of gifted students.
For 1997, according to the Office of Civil rights (1999), 5.64% of the total enrollment was enrolled in gifted programs- 9.41% of Asians, 6.79% of Whites, 4.43% of American Indians, 3.38% of Hispanics and 2.43% of Blacks. East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans), Southeast Asians (e.g., Cambodians/Khmer, Laotians, Thais and Vietnamese), the Philippines, Pacific Islanders (e.g., Hawaiians, Samoans, Guamanians and Tongans), and South Asians (Indians and Pakistanis) were all included as Asians.
Examination of data for those assessed and those who qualified for GATE during the 1998-99 school year indicated that of 14,778 students tested during the year, 3,108 (21.03%) qualified for GATE programs.
Examination of data for Asian subgroups showed a wide range in percentages of children who qualified, with Chinese (50.47%), Korean (47.44%), Asian Indians (45.45%) and Japanese (41.30%) well above the mean for the total group assessed. Percentages for Guamanians, Hawaiians, Filipinos, Vietnamese and other Indochinese were above the average for the district.
Laotians (15.79%), Hmong (14.12%), Cambodians (12.58%), and Samoans (7.32%) fell well below the mean. Higher rates of poverty are reported for three of the four: Hmong (63.6%), Cambodians (42.6%), Laotians (34.7%), and Vietnamese (25.7%).
APA Subgroup % Certified IQ in US
Chinese 50.47% 108
Koreans 47.44 108
Asian Indians 45.45 109
Japanese 41.30 108
Vietnamese 29.76 102.5
Hawaiians 28.00 90
Filipinos 28.00 97
Other Indochinese 25.00 93
Guamanians 21.95 89
Total Including non-APAs 21.03 100
Laotians 15.79 92
Hmong 14.12 85.5
Cambodians 12.58 92
Samoans 7.32 89
Other Pacific Islander 5.56 89
In conclusion, it is not yet proven that Asians have a short bell curve relative to European Whites, and there is considerable evidence against the hypothesis.
- Cheng L. L., Ima K. & Labovitz G. 1994. Assessment of Asian and Pacific Islander Students for Gifted Programs. In S. B. Garcia (Ed.), Addressing Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in Special Education (pp. 30-45). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. 1999. 1997 Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report. National and State Projections. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.