Ashkenazi Jews and intelligence

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Bad logic

Why?

I dont know why all of the sudden its is only the ashkenazi jews that were persecuted, and are therefore more intelligent. Sephardic jews were persecuted just as much as ashkanazis for centuries. What I am seeing is an ashkenazi superiority complex by the writers of the article. They dont even want to admit sepharic jews are jews, simply because odf beliefs that jewness only passes through the mother. Tell that to the Sephardic Jews that were persecuted in Spain and Portugal.

Didn't Jewishness pass through the mother in Sephardi communities as well?
I don't see any suggestion that Sephardis are any less Jewish than the Ashkenazi.
And there are other reasons why one would not automatically talk about the Sephardis, merely because one had touched upon the Ashkenazi.
1 Is similar data available for the Sepharidis? (I dunno. Maybe it is.)
2 Were the Sephardis equally forced into intellectual forms of work?
3 Was the emphasis on personal scholarship as deeply rooted among the Sephardi as among the Ashkenazi? (Ditto. Might be true, but I just dunno.)
I know that it is specifically among the Ashkenazi, and not among the Sephardi, that Tay-Sachs and other genetic illnesses appear more frequently than in the general population.
You may be talking apples and oranges here more than you realize, New End.

 

[B_New End]

Just because we don't know the genes that influence IQ does not mean they don't exist.

bad logic

Just because we don't know the metals that aliens use on their saucers, doesn't mean they never visited.

Just because we don't know God hair color, doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

It is bad logic, because it adds nothing to the discussion.

From NG article

Because Jews were discriminated against in medieval Europe, they were often driven into professions such as moneylending and banking which were looked down upon or forbidden to Christians.

Misstated fact. One of the reasons Jews started to be discriminated against, was because they became money lenders, which Christians and Muslims found unethical. They weren't "forced" into it. Language of victimization.


Also, I find any research on human development, that only has 50 - 100 generations as evolutionary development, and isn't talking about fruit flies, highly specious. Futhermore, there were millions of not so successful Jews living in the Ghettos of Europe.

It is undeniable Jews have had a disproportionate impact on the sciences. However, they also have a culture of support, and a large amount of wealth accumulated form the days of money lending. An dit has been shown time and time again through history, no matter where you go, that the wealtheir have "more intelligent". I do not believe it is becuase they are intelligent, therefore they make money, but that the money gived them the environment and nutrition to foster human curiosity.

Mention the Jews are taking all the Nobel prizes... OK
Mention they also have a disproportionate representation in our banking system, and control a large amount of our wealth... conspiracy quackiness.

As you can see, my complaint is, we can talk about Jews if it is flattering to them. But if it is in an unflattering light, then it becomes a no no. There is no room for honest discourse in this environment, and that is the main reason I object to these articles, and the discussion.

 

[B_New End]

Here is what I mean:

'Race row' Nobel winner suspended - CNN.com

The controvery began with an October 14 interview Watson gave to the Sunday Times, which quoted him saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really."

The museum said Watson's words had "gone beyond the point of acceptable debate."

Yet National Geographic publishes something that essentially says Jews are smarter than Gentiles.... and... crickets.

 

[dong20]

bad logic

Just because we don't know the metals that aliens use on their saucers, doesn't mean they never visited.

Just because we don't know God hair color, doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

It is bad logic, because it adds nothing to the discussion.

I disagree.

The reason being that discovery in science is typically stems froma desire to explain observable and measurable effects.

God's haircolour [a faith based being] and the metallurgy of unknown and unseen alien craft don't really fall into that category and to that end they don't add to the discussion.

However the impact of genes on physiology, the properties of materials at an atomic level and the effects of gravity do.

As you can see, my complaint is, we can talk about Jews if it is flattering to them. But if it is in an unflattering light, then it becomes a no no. There is no room for honest discourse in this environment, and that is the main reason I object to these articles, and the discussion.

I disagree again. While like most of Wlyds racially dubious threads this one seems to have stablised and I think there has been some honest discourse, or a passable representation thereof, given the nature of the subject.

 

[B_Nick4444]

Point 1. "Race" as being used in this discussion is a sociological category

So, if differences among these categories are detected, they highlight sociological factors

Hence, we are back to nurture vs. nature

Striking example I can think of is a South African report I read of sometime back -- In an attempt to prevent hypoxia ischemia of several fetuses, the blood of their mothers were saturated with oxygen in measured dosages. The children that developed all displayed exceptional intelligence. Children of mothers that exercised during pregnancy also displayed higher intelligence. Of course, everyone by now should know nutrition is also a factor in fetal development.

Couple that with the differences in rearing patterns and differences in educational quality that obtain across different sociological categories.

The same holds true for intelligence. If we keep telling black kids they are as gifted as white kids, then if they fail, as they do so often, it has to be that they have crap parents, a indifferent culture, or the kids themselves are not trying hard.

Does no one see the damage in that?

Point 2. Even assuming arguendo, that "race" as a biological, genetic category is a good predictor of expected intelligence, "intelligence" as measured does not limit or proscribe achievement, as what may be accomplished within that range of capability -- witness one of the examples cited, Albert Einstein.

 

[B_New End]

However the impact of genes on physiology, the properties of materials at an atomic level and the effects of gravity do.

The point is, trying to use what we don't know as any kind of evidence that it exists, is a logical fallacy.

Are there genes that determine intelligence? Is there proof of these genes? Is the whole concept of intelligence a human construct, the removal of a tiny piece from the whole? Usually, intelligence, (IQ in particular) is actually a measurement of spacial reasoning, and nothing more.

 

[dong20]

The point is, trying to use what we don't know as any kind of evidence that it exists, is a logical fallacy.

You seem to be wilfully missing the point. Which is to seek to understand the nature of intelligence and determine if it has a genetic basis, in whole or part. Before discoveries are 'confirmed' they are inferred from observation, theorised as to cause, and tested. I'm sure the same was said of those who said the earth was in fact, round. Turns out they were right.

Are there genes that determine intelligence? Is there proof of these genes? Is the whole concept of intelligence a human construct, the removal of a tiny piece from the whole? Usually, intelligence, (IQ in particular) is actually a measurement of spacial reasoning, and nothing more.

I don't know and that is exactly the question - are there? There is evidence that there are, but it's not conclusive or well understood.

Of course intelligence means whatever one needs it to mean in the context the term is used. As you say, IQ is but one measure of one aspect of intelligence and by the way, it measures more than just spatial reasoning. But like most measures of something 'intangible' - attractiveness being another example - it's a little tricky to 'measure' with precision and in a way that means the same thing to different observers. It's a guide.

I don't think it's much of a leap to consider that if physical attractiveness has some genetic basis, intelligence may do also. That may not ultimately prove to be the case but to deny the possibility merely becuse it's so far unproven doesn't seem very ... intelligent.

 

[B_New End]

You seem to be wilfully missing the point. Which is to seek to understand the nature of intelligence and determine if it has a genetic basis, in whole or part. Before discoveries are 'confirmed' they are inferred from observation, theorised as to cause, and tested. I'm sure the same was said of those who said the earth was in fact, round. Turns out they were right.

I'm not willfully missing anything. What is the theory that a gene, or a series of genes causes intelligence? It is the penuiltimate of pop science today.. tehre is a gene for everything.

But all I said was, which *you* seem to be willfully missing, is the statement he made, is true. Just because there is no proof something does not exist, does not mean it doesn't exist. This is true, but it is logically irrelevant. Just because there is no proof something does not exist, does not mean it does exist. This statement is also very true. Now, I hope you can see the logical irrelevance of his point.

Of course intelligence means whatever one needs it to mean in the context the term is used. As you say, IQ is but one measure of one aspect of intelligence and by the way, it measures more than just spatial reasoning. But like most measures of something 'intangible' - attractiveness being another example - it's a little tricky to 'measure' with precision and in a way that means the same thing to different observers. It's a guide.

Well, you are the big winner, got me on a typo.

I don't think it's much of a leap to consider that if physical attractiveness has some genetic basis,

Whoa whoa whoa!! Proof!? This is why I hate evolutionary psychology and sociology. Pretty soon people are making broad statements, that are backed up by a bunch of hypothesized nonsense. The whole concept of "attractiveness" is unquantifiable, and yet, pop psychology and silly little university tests done here and there have people thinking it is a science. It isn't!


P.S.

Die grammar nazi!!

"intelligence may do also."

ooh, live by the sword, die by the sword.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Just because we don't know the genes that influence IQ does not mean they don't exist.

bad logic
Just because we don't know the metals that aliens use on their saucers, doesn't mean they never visited.
Just because we don't know God hair color, doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
It is bad logic, because it adds nothing to the discussion.

True, but chaz was responding to the implication of another poster that since we don't know the genes that influence intelligence, that we therefore had at least some ground to suspect there are no such genes.
Now, this has validity only to this extent: That if we truly DID know that genes X, Y, and Z influenced intelligence, that we would know that intelligence is in part determined by genetics.
But not knowing which genes contribute to intelligence has no implication whatever upon whether such genes exist.
And this false implication, made by another poster, was the one that chaz was seeking to refute.
So chaz's point was a sound one. Not merely trivial.

From NG article
Misstated fact. One of the reasons Jews started to be discriminated against, was because they became money lenders, which Christians and Muslims found unethical. They weren't "forced" into it. Language of victimization.

Well, there are accounts by which they were forbidden to do most work, and Christians, because of religious strictures against usury, were forbidden to lend money.
So Jews were forced into this by default.
Of course, they could have starved ...

Also, I find any research on human development, that only has 50 - 100 generations as evolutionary development, and isn't talking about fruit flies, highly specious.

The selective pressure may have been more intense than one imagines, since the affluent Jewish families tended to have greater numbers of children.
Moreover, affluent Jews were more likely to live to reproductive age.

Furthermore, there were millions of not so successful Jews living in the Ghettos of Europe.

Absolutely. But if you look at the numbers of Jews of high achievement compared to the size of the Jewish pool, the numbers are remarkable.

It is undeniable Jews have had a disproportionate impact on the sciences.

Not just the sciences. Among classical musicians, for example, Jewish performers were long predominant, and still are hugely over-represented.
The number of celebrated Jewish authors has always been extraordinary.

However, they also have a culture of support, and a large amount of wealth accumulated form the days of money lending.

No question many have been affluent. I wouldn't tie it too much to money lending ... they weren't all Rothschilds.
But they tended to do well in the professions, had a strong work ethic, and believed that mastery of the art of investment was a useful tool in life's kitbag.

And it has been shown time and time again through history, no matter where you go, that the wealthier have "more intelligent". I do not believe it is because they are intelligent, therefore they make money, but that the money gives them the environment and nutrition to foster human curiosity.

Of course, it would partly work in the direction you describe.
But the game of making money requires intelligence.
You have people chasing a finite amount of money.
The winners will tend to have an intellectual edge, as they do in any game requiring application of intelligence (which pretty nearly means all of them).
Of course, there will be lots of individual exceptions.

Mention the Jews are taking all the Nobel prizes... OK
Mention they also have a disproportionate representation in our banking system, and control a large amount of our wealth... conspiracy quackiness.

Today, with international lending and a truly global financial system, it is quackiness.
And probably always was, to a large degree.

As you can see, my complaint is, we can talk about Jews if it is flattering to them. But if it is in an unflattering light, then it becomes a no no. There is no room for honest discourse in this environment, and that is the main reason I object to these articles, and the discussion.

Well, you can certainly attack the Jewish state ... which happens here all the time, and is not in principle ruled out as a worthy topic.
You've managed to make your posts in this thread, without being strung up.
The fact is that attacks on any group are becoming more and more verboten. You have to have more justification than before to find a willing audience for critical commentary.
(Except, I might add as an over-polite Canadian, among the American political class.)
And that has a downside and a quite large upside, imo.

 

[dong20]

I'm not willfully missing anything. What is the theory that a gene, or a series of genes causes intelligence? It is the penuiltimate of pop science today.. tehre is a gene for everything.

Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't. personally I doubt it, but the science is about finding out. You may believe it isn't so, I don't know, [or care] that's your prerogative. I don't know either, nobody does - but, I'm open to discovering the truth one way or another.

By the way, you do know what penulitmate actually means, right?

But all I said was, which *you* seem to be willfully missing, is the statement he made, is true. Just because there is no proof something does not exist, does not mean it doesn't exist. This is true, but it is logically irrelevant. Just because there is no proof something does not exist, does not mean it does exist. This statement is also very true. Now, I hope you can see the logical irrelevance of his point.

I didn't miss it, I just disagree with you.

If you mean 'absence of evidence as evidence of absence' you will have to do better than that. If not, you will have to clarify what you mean by 'logically irrelevant' in context.

I agree, there is no proof that genes influence intelligence, as there is no proof they don't. What there is is evidence - both empirical and anecdotal. There is also evidence that environmental factors are likely to be at least as significant.

In this context - seeking to prove the non existence of genetic influence on intelligence is tantamount to a fools errand [like seeking to prove there is no life on Mars, for example], seeking to prove its existence is science. That is, that the negative is the assumption unless evidence shows otherwise. Of course, in science, actual proof is illusory, evidence is as near as it gets.

Now, what was your point again?

Well, you are the big winner, got me on a typo.

That wasn't really the point of my comment though it seemed ironically appropriate. Still, I suppose it saved you from having to address it beyond the trite comeback.

Whoa whoa whoa!! Proof!? This is why I hate evolutionary psychology and sociology. Pretty soon people are making broad statements, that are backed up by a bunch of hypothesized nonsense.

You know it's really a shame when people do this. I guess it's becasue they're getting desperate. Your problems with evolutionary psychology and sociology are your own, not mine.

Now, please illustrate using my words, where exactly I said a genetic basis for one thing was anything more than a cause to consider if it may be a basis for something else, but was as yet unproven.

Just because you disagree with a hypothesis doesn't make it nonsense, not without evidence to counter it. It simply means you disagree. Do you have that evidence - beyond throwaway 'pop' science references and your dislike of evolutionary psychology and sociology, that is?

 

[kalipygian]

It was reported (it was not very recently) that the US Senate was 10% Jewish, I think the percentage of population is @ 1%. An out gay person has never been elected to this body, just from this, we must be huge underachievers.:biggrin1:

The variation between groups is extremely small compared to the variation within them.

 

[B_New End]

Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't. personally I doubt it, but the science is about finding out. You may believe it isn't so, I don't know, [or care] that's your prerogative. I don't know either, nobody does - but, I'm open to discovering the truth one way or another.

By the way, you do know what penulitmate actually means, right?

No please tell me what penulitmate means, grammar nazi. You misspelled my misspelling, or misspelled it, either way, I usually refuse to talk to grammar nazis, because they are so damn annoying. Responding once was hard enough, this will be my last response to you... and of course, I have no desire to read the rest of your response.

Today, with international lending and a truly global financial system, it is quackiness.
And probably always was, to a large degree.

Thank you for proving my point. Especially the "always was to a large degree..." even though you acknowledged the historical fact they were essentially the only bankers! You don't even want to go down the road. We can view Jews as more intelligent, but not as disproportionately in control of the financial world. Of course, this is the untouchableness in the media that Jews have.

Also, diamonds and the jewelry industries, some of the great markers of wealth, were and/or still are dominated by Jews.

There is no way to have a truly reasonable discussion about this. I am already starting to read the raised eyebrows... "wait, are you talking about Israel, or Jews?" because people are already starting to get uncomfortable where this discussion is headed.

But lets suppose for a minute Jews are disproportionately more intelligent... why would it be a far fetch to also then assume they are disproportionately represented in the realms of the powerful?

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Usually, intelligence, (IQ in particular) is actually a measurement of spacial reasoning, and nothing more.

It measures more than just spatial reasoning.

Well, you are the big winner, got me on a typo.

It is the penuiltimate of pop science today.. there is a gene for everything.

Do know what penulitmate actually means, right?

P.E.N.U.L.T.I.M.A.T.E.
Ding dong ... the witches are dead.
And now it's official ... rubi is LPSG's offishul SpellingNazi™.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Thank you for proving my point. Especially the "always was to a large degree..." even though you acknowledged the historical fact they were essentially the only bankers! You don't even want to go down the road. We can view Jews as more intelligent, but not as disproportionately in control of the financial world. Of course, this is the untouchableness in the media that Jews have.

But of course they were disproportionately in control of the financial world.
That by itself is nothing I would dispute.
I don't want to put words in your mouth ... but you often hear inferences that they were the secret rulers of the world on that account.
That point is hugely overplayed.
(I don't say it's your point.)

There is no way to have a truly reasonable discussion about this. I am already starting to read the raised eyebrows... "wait, are you talking about Israel, or Jews?" because people are already starting to get uncomfortable where this discussion is headed.

Not me.

But lets suppose for a minute Jews are disproportionately more intelligent... why would it be a far fetch to also then assume they are disproportionately represented in the realms of the powerful?

It's not farfetched.
It's true.
They tend to be winners in this world.
Then tend to succeed.
My only point is that they don't run the world.
The tail is too small and the dog is too big.
(But for the size of tail, there's no doubt a pretty big wag.)

 

[dong20]

No please tell me what penulitmate means, grammar nazi. You misspelled my misspelling, or misspelled it, either way, I usually refuse to talk to grammar nazis, because they are so damn annoying. Responding once was hard enough, this will be my last response to you... and of course, I have no desire to read the rest of your response.

Touché. :biggrin1:

Well, it was in fact spelled correctly by you, [the first time anyway], it was simply the wrong word.

You give up too easy and I was just joshing with you. But I suppose if calling me a 'grammar Nazi' [a first I think] gives you a conveniently contrived 'out', so be it. Incidentally, for the sake of precision [us Nazi's are so pedantic] the errors were in vocabulary, not grammar.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Ding dong

Oh.
Never noticed this.
You know, dear dong, that I mean nothing personal.

 

[dong20]

P.E.N.U.L.T.I.M.A.T.E.
Ding dong ... the witches are dead.
And now it's official ... rubi is LPSG's offishul SpellingNazi™.

And yet, there's a perverse but pleasing symmetry to the exchange, don't ya think? :biggrin1:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

And yet, there's a perverse but pleasing symmetry to the exchange, don't ya think? :biggrin1:

Take it either way:

I do, dong ...

I do dong.

 

[kalipygian]

Penultimate hints: it comes between the antepenultimate and the ultimate. A peninsula is almost an island, a penumbra is next to a shadow.

I think I recall it being used about twice by someone who actually knew what it meant, so it is reasonable for a person to make an incorrect presumption about it. It gets used incorrectly more often than correctly.

(the last time this came up here, NIC and DMW/Splooge were part of the discussion.)

 

[evan27uws]

i agree with Bucko...Jews have excelled due to their cultural upbringing, not so much genetics. If you see the 1980's Tv series Civilization and the Jews, it does a great job of explaining how Jews got to where they are. Education, a drive towards acquiring knowledge, and sheer determination. The jews knew that if they made themselves useful to the powers that be in whatever country they settled they wouldn't be such easy targets...whether it be as court scribe, financier, or whatever other literate occupation. Don't forget in the middle ages even the aristocracy was illiterate in Europe. The Torah requires all Jewish males to be literate, so they developed a huge advantage over illiterate Christians. In fact the Catholic church did its best to keep the Christian masses illiterate. The Jews I have known were also not content to be average Joes...they were determned to succeed and were willing to sacrifice to obtain it. Just for the record, I am not Jewish, although I play one on TV.