What if Jews are just better?

[Politesse]

It's an adjective for critical theory in general.

"All critical theory" is generally overtly opposed to the idea of their being any fait accompli truths. Hence, "critical".

No--that isn't the state of critical theory. Critical theories very much proclaim unambiguous 'truths'. For example, critical race theory proclaims:

• All white people are racist, or complicit in racism, and whether they are complicit or not, benefit from it
• No black people can be racist
• Being unaware that you are racist, or that you are complicit in racism, is a marker of white privilege
• Being presented with the 'facts' of critical theory and continuing your questioning is a sign of white fragility
• Although you cannot ever stop benefiting from your white privilege, you can work at being anti-racist. Failing to put in the effort of anti-racism work means you accept your racism. It is not enough to 'get out of the way'

Postmodernism started out with layers of inscrutability proclaiming nothing is really knowable and there are no universal truths only forms of power and all words are defined by other words in a hopelessly circular nihilistic framework. But that isn't what it has evolved in to.

I've read a fair bit of critical race theory, and I'd say only the third statement is an accurate representation of that school. The fifth is certainly a very common political view in our times and one that I quite agree with, but has only incidental connection to critical race theory.

I suspect you've been getting your information from Youtube rather than from books, but whatever the reason you have a very confused understanding of the social sciences.

 

[Metaphor]

No, it does not.

Okay. I can see any debate with you on this would be fruitless.

Because you're wrong. Both in regard to Ashkenazi Jews being more intelligent and in regard to IQ tests being an indication of arbitrary group intelligence. You have no standing to debate anything.

IQ tests measure intelligence. I don't know what you mean by 'arbitrary group intelligence'. There's nothing arbitrary about it; it's a group mean.

 

[Metaphor]

No--that isn't the state of critical theory. Critical theories very much proclaim unambiguous 'truths'. For example, critical race theory proclaims:

• All white people are racist, or complicit in racism, and whether they are complicit or not, benefit from it
• No black people can be racist
• Being unaware that you are racist, or that you are complicit in racism, is a marker of white privilege
• Being presented with the 'facts' of critical theory and continuing your questioning is a sign of white fragility
• Although you cannot ever stop benefiting from your white privilege, you can work at being anti-racist. Failing to put in the effort of anti-racism work means you accept your racism. It is not enough to 'get out of the way'

Postmodernism started out with layers of inscrutability proclaiming nothing is really knowable and there are no universal truths only forms of power and all words are defined by other words in a hopelessly circular nihilistic framework. But that isn't what it has evolved in to.

I've read a fair bit of critical race theory, and I'd say only the third statement is an accurate representation of that school. The fifth is certainly a very common political view in our times and one that I quite agree with, but has only incidental connection to critical race theory.

I suspect you've been getting your information from Youtube rather than from books, but whatever the reason you have a very confused understanding of the social sciences.

Robin DiAngelo
https://stateofopportunity.michigan...le-being-called-racist-theory-white-fragility

Then, if someone comes along and talks about racism the way DiAngelo does – that racism is a system of oppression. That anyone can be prejudiced, but in America, only white people are racist. And, actually, all white people are racist because, as DiAngelo says:

"Racism comes out of our pores as white people. It's the way that we are."

Robin DiAngelo charges $6,000 per hour to lecture people on how racist they are and how racist their institution is. She is a race grifter extraordinaire. I did not make up any of the bullet points I listed above. They are all taken from critical race theorists like DiAngelo.

 

[SimpleDon]

In the fait accompli critical theory, postmodern, equity "understanding" of society, all groups are equal in all relevant respects, and so if there are disparate outcomes, it's because society has done something (bad) to cause groups to have differential outcomes. This is accepted without question by the modern left, even though no proof is ever offered. It's certainly the case that people more accomplished than I have been fired for saying far less than I did in my 'what if men are just better?' thread.

Although I predict this thread to have a similar outcome as that one (that is, the people who categorically believe that nearly all relevant differences between men and women is due to social conditioning and/or discrimination, continuing to believe that), I nevertheless want to float another idea, and probably an idea that won't be too popular with the antisemitic left:

Jews are just better at almost every human endeavour (except, I think, sporting/athletic achievement).

What do I mean by this? I mean, for a group that is less than 0.2% of the world population, and 2% of the American population, Jewish achievement is staggeringly disproportionate to its population. Twenty percent of Nobel prize winners are Jewish, (and probably more if Jewish ancestry is considered more broadly). A quarter of Fields medallists (the highest prize in Mathematics) are Jewish.

The success is not confined merely to sciences; Jewish talent is staggeringly abundant in the arts as well. More than a third of Academy Award Best Director trophies went to Jewish directors; more than two-thirds of Tony-award winning composers and lyricists are Jewish. Jewish comedians number among the most successful of all time. Jewish achievement in politics and finance and economics and industry and medicine and literature are widely known.

In the first half of the twentieth century, American universities had quotas to keep out the allegedly 'feeble minded' Jewish population. No doubt similar quotas apply today under 'diversity' initiatives.

I think that Jewish success is partly--or perhaps mostly--explained by higher than average intelligence in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. But explaining differential success between groups as partly dependent on intelligence is anathema to the left. It is forbidden. It is verboten.

The only thing that can explain Jewish success relative to other groups is Jewish privilege. Jews are not just white-adjacent. They must be superwhites.

You should limit yourself to your normal straight, white male grievance and outrage threads that you do all of the time, your diatribes about radical feminists, or slippery slopes of social programs leading inevitably to socialism and communism or medical school admissions of unqualified applicants of the wrong color or any of the hundreds of others that get you amped-up and voting reactionary-conservative that you get from Facebook or the down-under equal of Russ Limbaugh or the National Journal or your favorite Murdoch rag masquerading as journalism.

If you wanted to branch out into new areas you might have tried to explain why conservative governance around the world seems to be so inept in the face of the pandemic and the accompanying economic collapse. And why the relative amount of ineptitude seems to increase the further to the right the government is, from just right of center like Germany, to corporate oligarchical conservatism like the UK and what we had in the US pre-Obama, to what we see currently in the US, full on reactionary, to where Trump wants to take us, a cult of personality fascist dictatorship. Or you could answer some of the questions we have been asking for years now, like if regulations kill kill jobs can you name a regulation that kills jobs.

But you didn't do any of these, you decided that you would justify your own racism by presenting a rephrasing of it in a form that you thought no one could possibly dispute. That on reading it the scales would drop from our eyes and we would realize that what we thought was eighty years of social progress was not actually progress in better understanding our shared human condition but a denial of the fact that we humans are prisoners of our genes. That while individuals may excel or fall behind their group society must realize that our genetic make-up is different among the traditional yet seemingly arbitrary groupings of skin color, countries of births, sex, sexual orientation, politics, and religions that justify those groupings and that allow society to make judgments on how much and what kind of an effort to make on the group as a whole.

You didn't succeed with me. It read like the same crap that racists have used for a hundred years to justify their own racism. As I am sure you will hear from others, the examples you give of the Ashkenazim is actually an example of the power of social action over hundreds of years against a group to determine some of the group's collective characteristics that last over many generations after the social pressures have been lessened or removed. In other words, this is an example of the opposite of what you believe and what you were trying to prove.

 

[Trausti]

In the fait accompli critical theory, postmodern, equity "understanding" of society, all groups are equal in all relevant respects, and so if there are disparate outcomes, it's because society has done something (bad) to cause groups to have differential outcomes. This is accepted without question by the modern left, even though no proof is ever offered. It's certainly the case that people more accomplished than I have been fired for saying far less than I did in my 'what if men are just better?' thread.

Although I predict this thread to have a similar outcome as that one (that is, the people who categorically believe that nearly all relevant differences between men and women is due to social conditioning and/or discrimination, continuing to believe that), I nevertheless want to float another idea, and probably an idea that won't be too popular with the antisemitic left:

Jews are just better at almost every human endeavour (except, I think, sporting/athletic achievement).

What do I mean by this? I mean, for a group that is less than 0.2% of the world population, and 2% of the American population, Jewish achievement is staggeringly disproportionate to its population. Twenty percent of Nobel prize winners are Jewish, (and probably more if Jewish ancestry is considered more broadly). A quarter of Fields medallists (the highest prize in Mathematics) are Jewish.

The success is not confined merely to sciences; Jewish talent is staggeringly abundant in the arts as well. More than a third of Academy Award Best Director trophies went to Jewish directors; more than two-thirds of Tony-award winning composers and lyricists are Jewish. Jewish comedians number among the most successful of all time. Jewish achievement in politics and finance and economics and industry and medicine and literature are widely known.

In the first half of the twentieth century, American universities had quotas to keep out the allegedly 'feeble minded' Jewish population. No doubt similar quotas apply today under 'diversity' initiatives.

I think that Jewish success is partly--or perhaps mostly--explained by higher than average intelligence in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. But explaining differential success between groups as partly dependent on intelligence is anathema to the left. It is forbidden. It is verboten.

The only thing that can explain Jewish success relative to other groups is Jewish privilege. Jews are not just white-adjacent. They must be superwhites.

You should limit yourself to your normal straight, white male grievance and outrage threads that you do all of the time, your diatribes about radical feminists, or slippery slopes of social programs leading inevitably to socialism and communism or medical school admissions of unqualified applicants of the wrong color or any of the hundreds of others that get you amped-up and voting reactionary-conservative that you get from Facebook or the down-under equal of Russ Limbaugh or the National Journal or your favorite Murdoch rag masquerading as journalism.

If you wanted to branch out into new areas you might have tried to explain why conservative governance around the world seems to be so inept in the face of the pandemic and the accompanying economic collapse. And why the relative amount of ineptitude seems to increase the further to the right the government is, from just right of center like Germany, to corporate oligarchical conservatism like the UK and what we had in the US pre-Obama, to what we see currently in the US, full on reactionary, to where Trump wants to take us, a cult of personality fascist dictatorship. Or you could answer some of the questions we have been asking for years now, like if regulations kill kill jobs can you name a regulation that kills jobs.

But you didn't do any of these, you decided that you would justify your own racism by presenting a rephrasing of it in a form that you thought no one could possibly dispute. That on reading it the scales would drop from our eyes and we would realize that what we thought was eighty years of social progress was not actually progress in better understanding our shared human condition but a denial of the fact that we humans are prisoners of our genes. That while individuals may excel or fall behind their group society must realize that our genetic make-up is different among the traditional yet seemingly arbitrary groupings of skin color, countries of births, sex, sexual orientation, politics, and religions that justify those groupings and that allow society to make judgments on how much and what kind of an effort to make on the group as a whole.

You didn't succeed with me. It read like the same crap that racists have used for a hundred years to justify their own racism. As I am sure you will hear from others, the examples you give of the Ashkenazim is actually an example of the power of social action over hundreds of years against a group to determine some of the group's collective characteristics that last over many generations after the social pressures have been lessened or removed. In other words, this is an example of the opposite of what you believe and what you were trying to prove.

Do you get it, Metaphor? In every age there are things you are not allowed to talk about. If the Church teaches that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, it is. If Comrade Lysenko says DNA does not exist, it does not. If the Party announces that two and two make five, you have to believe it. Common sense is heresy.

 

[laughing dog]

In the fait accompli critical theory, postmodern, equity "understanding" of society, all groups are equal in all relevant respects, and so if there are disparate outcomes, it's because society has done something (bad) to cause groups to have differential outcomes. This is accepted without question by the modern left, even though no proof is ever offered. It's certainly the case that people more accomplished than I have been fired for saying far less than I did in my 'what if men are just better?' thread.

Although I predict this thread to have a similar outcome as that one (that is, the people who categorically believe that nearly all relevant differences between men and women is due to social conditioning and/or discrimination, continuing to believe that), I nevertheless want to float another idea, and probably an idea that won't be too popular with the antisemitic left:

Jews are just better at almost every human endeavour (except, I think, sporting/athletic achievement).

What do I mean by this? I mean, for a group that is less than 0.2% of the world population, and 2% of the American population, Jewish achievement is staggeringly disproportionate to its population. Twenty percent of Nobel prize winners are Jewish, (and probably more if Jewish ancestry is considered more broadly). A quarter of Fields medallists (the highest prize in Mathematics) are Jewish.

The success is not confined merely to sciences; Jewish talent is staggeringly abundant in the arts as well. More than a third of Academy Award Best Director trophies went to Jewish directors; more than two-thirds of Tony-award winning composers and lyricists are Jewish. Jewish comedians number among the most successful of all time. Jewish achievement in politics and finance and economics and industry and medicine and literature are widely known.

In the first half of the twentieth century, American universities had quotas to keep out the allegedly 'feeble minded' Jewish population. No doubt similar quotas apply today under 'diversity' initiatives.

I think that Jewish success is partly--or perhaps mostly--explained by higher than average intelligence in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. But explaining differential success between groups as partly dependent on intelligence is anathema to the left. It is forbidden. It is verboten.

The only thing that can explain Jewish success relative to other groups is Jewish privilege. Jews are not just white-adjacent. They must be superwhites.

You should limit yourself to your normal straight, white male grievance and outrage threads that you do all of the time, your diatribes about radical feminists, or slippery slopes of social programs leading inevitably to socialism and communism or medical school admissions of unqualified applicants of the wrong color or any of the hundreds of others that get you amped-up and voting reactionary-conservative that you get from Facebook or the down-under equal of Russ Limbaugh or the National Journal or your favorite Murdoch rag masquerading as journalism.

If you wanted to branch out into new areas you might have tried to explain why conservative governance around the world seems to be so inept in the face of the pandemic and the accompanying economic collapse. And why the relative amount of ineptitude seems to increase the further to the right the government is, from just right of center like Germany, to corporate oligarchical conservatism like the UK and what we had in the US pre-Obama, to what we see currently in the US, full on reactionary, to where Trump wants to take us, a cult of personality fascist dictatorship. Or you could answer some of the questions we have been asking for years now, like if regulations kill kill jobs can you name a regulation that kills jobs.

But you didn't do any of these, you decided that you would justify your own racism by presenting a rephrasing of it in a form that you thought no one could possibly dispute. That on reading it the scales would drop from our eyes and we would realize that what we thought was eighty years of social progress was not actually progress in better understanding our shared human condition but a denial of the fact that we humans are prisoners of our genes. That while individuals may excel or fall behind their group society must realize that our genetic make-up is different among the traditional yet seemingly arbitrary groupings of skin color, countries of births, sex, sexual orientation, politics, and religions that justify those groupings and that allow society to make judgments on how much and what kind of an effort to make on the group as a whole.

You didn't succeed with me. It read like the same crap that racists have used for a hundred years to justify their own racism. As I am sure you will hear from others, the examples you give of the Ashkenazim is actually an example of the power of social action over hundreds of years against a group to determine some of the group's collective characteristics that last over many generations after the social pressures have been lessened or removed. In other words, this is an example of the opposite of what you believe and what you were trying to prove.

Do you get it, Metaphor? In every age there are things you are not allowed to talk about. If the Church teaches that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, it is. If Comrade Lysenko says DNA does not exist, it does not. If the Party announces that two and two make five, you have to believe it. Common sense is heresy.

Summer time is especially hard on snowflakes.

 

[Trausti]

Do you get it, Metaphor? In every age there are things you are not allowed to talk about. If the Church teaches that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, it is. If Comrade Lysenko says DNA does not exist, it does not. If the Party announces that two and two make five, you have to believe it. Common sense is heresy.

Summer time is especially hard on snowflakes.

So sorry you’re melting.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you get it, Metaphor? In every age there are things you are not allowed to talk about. If the Church teaches that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, it is. If Comrade Lysenko says DNA does not exist, it does not. If the Party announces that two and two make five, you have to believe it. Common sense is heresy.

Summer time is especially hard on snowflakes.

So sorry you’re melting.

LOL - I'm not the one stupidly kvetching about how "common sense is heresy".

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Because you're wrong. Both in regard to Ashkenazi Jews being more intelligent and in regard to IQ tests being an indication of arbitrary group intelligence. You have no standing to debate anything.

IQ tests measure intelligence.

No, they don't. But your repetition of this often misconstrued trope does. As does this:

I don't know what you mean by 'arbitrary group intelligence'. There's nothing arbitrary about it; it's a group mean.

There is no such literal group of people as "Ashkenazi Jews." That is merely an arbitrary construction of people who share a randomly determined lineage starting point--in this case, Eastern Europe/Germany (that's what Ashkenaz means in Hebrew) around 800 years ago (based off of a split from some 20,000 years prior) and who also share some semblance of religious beliefs. The only reason why their beliefs are relevant is that it kept them within a tighter gene pool--i.e., they were only allowed to marry within their faith--and thus made it easier to track in regard to mitochondrial DNA.

But of course if you go farther back than 20,000 years, you'll find that we all came from Africa, so it's really not relevant no matter how you slice things.

ETA: Here are some pretty pictures for you to follow, since you don't bother to read:

 

[Metaphor]

But you didn't do any of these, you decided that you would justify your own racism by presenting a rephrasing of it in a form that you thought no one could possibly dispute.

On the contrary. I guessed that most people would reject the idea because of their own prejudice.

That on reading it the scales would drop from our eyes and we would realize that what we thought was eighty years of social progress was not actually progress in better understanding our shared human condition but a denial of the fact that we humans are prisoners of our genes. That while individuals may excel or fall behind their group society must realize that our genetic make-up is different among the traditional yet seemingly arbitrary groupings of skin color, countries of births, sex, sexual orientation, politics, and religions that justify those groupings and that allow society to make judgments on how much and what kind of an effort to make on the group as a whole.

You didn't succeed with me. It read like the same crap that racists have used for a hundred years to justify their own racism. As I am sure you will hear from others, the examples you give of the Ashkenazim is actually an example of the power of social action over hundreds of years against a group to determine some of the group's collective characteristics that last over many generations after the social pressures have been lessened or removed. In other words, this is an example of the opposite of what you believe and what you were trying to prove.

I do not doubt that social conditions must play a role in the success of Ashkenazi Jews. What I also do not doubt is that higher than average intelligence also plays a role, and, as I suspected, you and others like you have categorically ruled out the possibility in your minds.

 

[Metaphor]

No, they don't. But your repetition of this often misconstrued trope does.

Of course they do. Your own source says so.

Dombrowski studies the validity of IQ tests using rigorous statistical techniques. He says IQ tests do have meaning and are valid measures of intelligence — when they are interpreted correctly.

As does this:

There is no such literal group of people as "Ashkenazi Jews." That is merely an arbitrary construction of people who share a randomly determined lineage starting point--in this case, Eastern Europe/Germany (that's what Ashkenaz means in Hebrew) around 800 years ago (based off of a split from some 20,000 years prior) and who also share some semblance of religious beliefs. The only reason why their beliefs are relevant is that it kept them within a tighter gene pool--i.e., they were only allowed to marry within their faith--and thus made it easier to track in regard to mitochondrial DNA.

But of course if you go farther back than 20,000 years, you'll find that we all came from Africa, so it's really not relevant no matter how you slice things.

Ashkenazi Jews are an identifiable group, like any other identifiable group.

 

[bilby]

Evolution is a population level effect.

A population isn't just any group you can identify; It has a specific meaning. Indeed, we know that "men" and "women" are identifiable groups, with only fairly small grey areas; And we know that the difference between these groups is genetic - we gave a pretty good understanding of the broad genetic differences between the two groups. But to suggest that they are different populations would be insane. Obviously almost every new member of either group inherits traits from members of both groups - so they are one single and genetically blended population.

Humans are sexually promiscuous and indiscriminate. A large fraction of people have no clue that their purported father is not their actual father; And the problem of even determining with any confidence from whom you are descended becomes worse the further back you look. The odds are low that all of your great-great-grandfathers are who you think they are, and even if you are part of a fairly insular group, there's a good chance that at least one is from outside that group.

Humanity is a small world network of genetic interactions. The visible indicators of genetic makeup aren't strongly linked to any of the invisible ones - certainly not sufficiently strongly as to justify their use in public policy.

As usual with political issues, both "sides" are right about their axioms, but only the left is correct about their conclusions, largely because the left is by definition less prone to oversimplification of their opinions.

That racial differences are important is obvious, simple, reasonable, logical - and (demonstrably) wrong. That right wing authoritarians won't sit still for the demonstration does not change the fact that it exists.

 

[Metaphor]

Evolution is a population level effect.

A population isn't just any group you can identify;

Statistically speaking, that's exactly what a population is. Hell, even the set of observations produced by that population is itself a population.

It has a specific meaning. Indeed, we know that "men" and "women" are identifiable groups, with only fairly small grey areas; And we know that the difference between these groups is genetic - we gave a pretty good understanding of the broad genetic differences between the two groups. But to suggest that they are different populations would be insane. Obviously almost every new member of either group inherits traits from members of both groups - so they are one single and genetically blended population.

Men and women are of course different populations to each other. They also, together, form a population of 'humans'. The population of China is different to the population of Australia. Populations have populations within them.

Humans are sexually promiscuous and indiscriminate. A large fraction of people have no clue that their purported father is not their actual father; And the problem of even determining with any confidence from whom you are descended becomes worse the further back you look. The odds are low that all of your great-great-grandfathers are who you think they are, and even if you are part of a fairly insular group, there's a good chance that at least one is from outside that group.

Humanity is a small world network of genetic interactions. The visible indicators of genetic makeup aren't strongly linked to any of the invisible ones - certainly not sufficiently strongly as to justify their use in public policy.

What public policy is it that you think I've proposed?

As usual with political issues, both "sides" are right about their axioms, but only the left is correct about their conclusions, largely because the left is by definition less prone to oversimplification of their opinions.

That racial differences are important is obvious, simple, reasonable, logical - and (demonstrably) wrong. That right wing authoritarians won't sit still for the demonstration does not change the fact that it exists.

Authoritarian? What do you think is authoritarian about what I've proposed?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If Jewish scores were above average after the second world war, does that not indicate higher Jewish intelligence?

Suggests, does not prove. IQ tests measure how good you are at applying your intelligence, not your innate genetic ability. (And there's also the issue that they measure only certain aspects of intelligence.)

The immigration pattern of Chinese into America could certainly explain the apparent increase in IQ observed in 'a generation or two' in America.

Yup--immigrants are on average better than the population they came from.

The narrowing of the black-white IQ gap is explained by an uplift in IQ scores of the lower half of test-takers, indicating improving social conditions for black Americans.

Also, immigration. Immigrant blacks on average fare better than native blacks.

 

[Metaphor]

Suggests, does not prove. IQ tests measure how good you are at applying your intelligence, not your innate genetic ability. (And there's also the issue that they measure only certain aspects of intelligence.)

So...what? It beggars belief that people think because IQ tests are not perfect measures, they measure nothing at all.

 

[Metaphor]

Suggests, does not prove. IQ tests measure how good you are at applying your intelligence, not your innate genetic ability. (And there's also the issue that they measure only certain aspects of intelligence.)

So...what? It beggars belief that people think because IQ tests are not perfect measures, they measure nothing at all.

EDIT: Also, nothing in my OP suggested that the intelligence advantage of Jews was entirely 'genetic', merely that there was an intelligence advantage.

 

[Trausti]

 

[bilby]

Statistically speaking, that's exactly what a population is. Hell, even the set of observations produced by that population is itself a population.



Men and women are of course different populations to each other. They also, together, form a population of 'humans'. The population of China is different to the population of Australia. Populations have populations within them.

Humans are sexually promiscuous and indiscriminate. A large fraction of people have no clue that their purported father is not their actual father; And the problem of even determining with any confidence from whom you are descended becomes worse the further back you look. The odds are low that all of your great-great-grandfathers are who you think they are, and even if you are part of a fairly insular group, there's a good chance that at least one is from outside that group.

Humanity is a small world network of genetic interactions. The visible indicators of genetic makeup aren't strongly linked to any of the invisible ones - certainly not sufficiently strongly as to justify their use in public policy.

What public policy is it that you think I've proposed?

As usual with political issues, both "sides" are right about their axioms, but only the left is correct about their conclusions, largely because the left is by definition less prone to oversimplification of their opinions.

That racial differences are important is obvious, simple, reasonable, logical - and (demonstrably) wrong. That right wing authoritarians won't sit still for the demonstration does not change the fact that it exists.

Authoritarian? What do you think is authoritarian about what I've proposed?

Congratulations on your ability to prop up your errors with equivocation; That must be very comforting for you.

But a gene pool doesn't give two shits that you like to use the word 'population' to mean other things too.

I honestly don't believe that you are as stupid as you are making out, so I can only conclude that your position is a quasi-religious one and so has no input from reason, other than to form rationalisations to support your preconceptions.

I never once suggested that YOU had proposed any public policy, but again, I can't believe you are so unaware of the history of this topic as to naïvely imagine that no public policy implications exist.

And this extremely well known history tells us that your philosophy is dearly beloved of authoritarian regimes.

 

[barbos]

I was wondering when we'd come around to the actual purpose of this thread. This is a white supremacist shell game, the purpose of which is to establish biological differences in a seemingly benign, non-racist manner, which in turn justifies separating the species according to biological differences. Aka, stereotypes. The piece linked does a good job of explaining. Snippet:



In regard to Ashkenazis in particular:

The recent revival of ideas about race and IQ began with a seemingly benign scientific observation. In 2005, Steven Pinker, one of the world’s most prominent evolutionary psychologists, began promoting the view that Ashkenazi Jews are innately particularly intelligent – first in a lecture to a Jewish studies institute, then in a lengthy article in the liberal American magazine The New Republic the following year. This claim has long been the smiling face of race science; if it is true that Jews are naturally more intelligent, then it’s only logical to say that others are naturally less so.

The background to Pinker’s essay was a 2005 paper entitled “Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence”, written by a trio of anthropologists at the University of Utah. In their 2005 paper, the anthropologists argued that high IQ scores among Ashkenazi Jews indicated that they evolved to be smarter than anyone else (including other groups of Jews).

This evolutionary development supposedly took root between 800 and 1650 AD, when Ashkenazis, who primarily lived in Europe, were pushed by antisemitism into money-lending, which was stigmatised among Christians. This rapid evolution was possible, the paper argued, in part because the practice of not marrying outside the Jewish community meant a “very low inward gene flow”. This was also a factor behind the disproportionate prevalence in Ashkenazi Jews of genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher’s, which the researchers claimed were a byproduct of natural selection for higher intelligence; those carrying the gene variants, or alleles, for these diseases were said to be smarter than the rest.

Pinker followed this logic in his New Republic article, and elsewhere described the Ashkenazi paper as “thorough and well-argued”. He went on to castigate those who doubted the scientific value of talking about genetic differences between races, and claimed that “personality traits are measurable, heritable within a group and slightly different, on average, between groups”.

In subsequent years, Nicholas Wade, Charles Murray, Richard Lynn, the increasingly popular Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and others have all piled in on the Jewish intelligence thesis, using it as ballast for their views that different population groups inherit different mental capacities. Another member of this chorus is the journalist Andrew Sullivan, who was one of the loudest cheerleaders for The Bell Curve in 1994, featuring it prominently in The New Republic, which he edited at the time. He returned to the fray in 2011, using his popular blog, The Dish, to promote the view that population groups had different innate potentials when it came to intelligence.

Sullivan noted that the differences between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews were “striking in the data”. It was a prime example of the rhetoric of race science, whose proponents love to claim that they are honouring the data, not political commitments. The far right has even rebranded race science with an alternative name that sounds like it was taken straight from the pages of a university course catalogue: “human biodiversity”.

A common theme in the rhetoric of race science is that its opponents are guilty of wishful thinking about the nature of human equality. “The IQ literature reveals that which no one would want to be the case,” Peterson told Molyneux on his YouTube show recently. Even the prominent social scientist Jonathan Haidt has criticised liberals as “IQ deniers”, who reject the truth of inherited IQ difference between groups because of a misguided commitment to the idea that social outcomes depend entirely on nurture, and are therefore mutable.

Defenders of race science claim they are simply describing the facts as they are – and the truth isn’t always comfortable. “We remain the same species, just as a poodle and a beagle are of the same species,” Sullivan wrote in 2013. “But poodles, in general, are smarter than beagles, and beagles have a much better sense of smell.”

The article goes on in depth to thoroughly debunk the whole nonsense, but, basically, no, no one group of people are generally any more intelligent than any other group of people genetically speaking. Though a very good argument can be made that anyone who voted for Trump is a fucking moron, it's really more like a core 20% that are that way due most likely to inbreeding.

You seem to be of an opinion that mere fact of quoting something debunks it.

 

[barbos]

Jews always had strong community ties and support. Culture does matter.

So if culture values education and pursuit of knowledge don't you think that eventually over generations it would select corresponding genes?
I mean smartest jew gets more women and children, you know, Darwin and shit, no?