I find the suggestion that IQ was designed to be racist highly unlikely considering that many studies have shown Asians to have higher average IQs than Europeans. Even in regards to SAT testing, Chinese American immigrants are extraordinarily over represented in upper percentiles.

Are you saying you don't think it's likely for the test to be designed to make a certain group perform worse than another as long as some groups outside either of those score better than the group that designed the test? Or that if it was actively designed to make one group perform worse than the one who designed the test, it's not racist because some third group scored even better? Neither of those claims sound particularly persuasive to me

Let's put this in the proper context. Many modern studies and analysis show similar disparities in intellectual abilities between ethnicities and races, based on a number of tests designed in the modern day by many different institutions globally. The suggestion that IQ tests are on the whole are a racist ploy is very conspiratorial. Furthermore, it's pretty hard to imagine how one would design visuospatial and pattern matching problems so that they are discriminatory.

> Let's put this in the proper context. Many modern studies and analysis show similar disparities in intellectual abilities between ethnicities and races, based on a number of tests designed in the modern day by many different institutions globally. The suggestion that IQ tests are on the whole are a racist ploy is very conspiratorial.

The parent comment that original suggested this claim linked to an article tracing the academic influences of the I.Q. test and other similar standardized testing frameworks, and it doesn't seem "very conspiratorial" to me in the absence of any specific critiques.

> Furthermore, it's pretty hard to imagine how one would design visuospatial and pattern matching problems so that they are discriminatory.

Maybe my imagination is more active than yours, but it doesn't seem that hard to imagine for me. Broadly speaking, I'd imagine that the process of coming up with any sort of test like this would consist of the following steps:

    1. Come up with potential questions for the test
    2. Assess people with the test in a controlled environment
    3. Revise the set of questions based on the results of step 2, then repeat steps 2 and 3 until you're satisfied

To tailor the results to a certain group, give the test to both people in and outside of that group in step 2, then in step 3 revise the questions towards the type that the favored group scored better on (e.g. throw out questions that the disfavored group scored better on, come up with more questions similar to the type that the favored group scored better on, etc.).

You wouldn't be guaranteed to find a set of questions that ended up statistically favorable to the favored group, but it certainly doesn't seem very hard to imagine it might work sometimes, and for it to have happened, it only would need to have worked once.

> the I.Q. test

there is no “the I.Q. test” there are many different ones, designed differently, the article distorts this, and attacks the original Stanford-Binet test as if it was the universe of IQ testing, and even there the entire substance of its attack on that test, delivered in meandering back and forth where it drifts in and out of discussing the SAT and other tests, seems to be that a researcher who later was influential in developing other tests also wrote their dissertation about the same work by Alfred Binet that a completely different researcher leveraged in developing what became the Stanford-Binet IQ test was a eugenicist who thought that blacks and other races were inferior and that testing supported this. Which isn’t just ad hominem, its ad hominem directed at someone not even involved in the development of the test. There is literally nothing in the piece actually arguing for any ill-motive, much less actual scientific flaw, in IQ testing.

There are some real issues that the article hints at – particularly regarding school rankings – but they spent a lot of time trying to juxtapose negative things with various tests that they had no real argument about and just hoped to use guilt-by-(often strained)-association to impugn.

For your argument to be valid, you would have to show that Chinese immigrants have always had higher than average IQ's (i.e. at the time the IQ test was first designed).

Otherwise, all it means is that Chinese immigrants may have a higher capacity for work/studies (unless you are also arguing that Chinese people have rapidly been evolving intelligence in the last 100 years. And if so, why?). Which may or may not be genetic, but is definitely not the same thing as intelligence.

I could not find that data, but I found this which is also interesting:

  Richard Nisbett, a professor of psychology who has written an excellent book about intelligence, cites a study that followed a pool of Chinese-American children and a pool of white children into adulthood. The two groups started out with the same scores on I.Q. tests, but in the end 55 percent of the Asian-Americans entered high-status occupations, compared with one-third of the whites. To succeed as a manager, whites needed an I.Q. of 100, while Chinese-Americans needed an I.Q. of only 93.

  So the Asian advantage, Nisbett argues, isn’t intellectual firepower as such, but how it is harnessed.

From https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/the-asian-...

Plus, it's well known that one of the most reliable ways of improving IQ (and SAT scores) is to be born in a wealthier family.

At the end of the day, it still not particularly important if different races score higher or lower on measures of intelligence. It is the environment which selects the traits in a population. There is no adaptive advantage to investing in intelligence if your environment does not require it. It would be "dumb" to be "too smart" if that makes sense. The right question is why is the environment selecting for these traits, whether they are passed down genetically or culturally.

The fact that Europeans "specifically designed" a racist test to make all other races look dumb, but then failed when Asians took it, may in-and-of-itself be an indicator of the relative intelligence of the races.