Is it flawed logic for an insurance company to charge higher premiums to someone from a high risk group?
I don’t know, dear. I’m not sure where you got the idea that “Jews were smarter than everyone else”? Or even that all Jews are smart?
So cultural attributes that are positive aren’t stereotypes? Wait. What you said made no sense because you just argued they are all stereotypes.
Jewish culture is high on survival and education. It’s not a surprise that they enjoy high SAT scores, doctorates, and successful business practices in the 21st C.
Coupled that + Israel’s quest for statehood, it is probably no surprise that Israel has more companies on NASDAQ than other non-North American countries or that seven Israelis have been awarded the Nobel Prize (two in Economics) or that around twenty per cent of winners have been Jewish.
According to this site, here is the breakdown, what with the top four being traditional smarty-pants areas:
Since Germans are obviously majority of the German population (excluding immigrants), the idea that Germans are petty punctual is less of a stereotype and more of a given.
In a way, it makes the Nobel observation more eyebrow-raising as only .02 per cent of the world’s population is Jewish. (Even if you wanted to narrow it down to industrialized countries, the Jews who have won the Nobel Prize are mostly American Jews and American Jewry is still pretty low - while it has risen, it is still 1.7%, give or take, of the American population.)
But hey, I doubt most people pay attention to the number of Jewish Nobel Prize winners. Jews in my area (Denver) are about .02% but consist of a large group of lawyers, doctors, businessmen, teachers, academics, politicians, etc., and is home to the National Jewish Health. That doesn’t mean there aren’t Jewish kids who don’t have academic or cognitive troubles or that every Jew is well-off or even moderately comfortable right now…but…there are specific organizations aimed at helping Jews with disabilities and Jews who struggle financially.
My own bank account is dismal as I’m a second year non-tenured teacher in a state that had massive K-12 staff cuts, but thanks to the values of our community, my son gets a $12,500 scholarship to attend one of Denver’s best private schools - a [secular] Jewish school. If I wanted him to attend a Jewish religious school, he’d probably get a full scholarship. The graduates of that school that I’m friends with off the top of my head are:
- in finance (broker)
- own businesses (three come to mind)
- a doctor
- couple lawyers
- an aviation engineer
which isn’t surprising if they have plenty of AP classes, advanced math, music, involved parent and a 98 per cent college attendance rate. Did some people read this article and think, ‘Well duh, Jews are brainy and shit.’ Sure. shrug
Is it a stereotype that Jews are smart? Yes. But are a lot of Jewish people successful in areas of academia and business? Yup. And that’s a result of historical influences and culture combined with the opportunity for advancement.
Now, if * of the world* or most of Americans had those things, Jews wouldn’t noticed because they would not be a deviation from the norm. That’s what makes Judaism a sub-culture in many places. It’s different.
Because I were short on food, I could go to the Federation, the Jewish social services, or my synagogue. If I were traveling to another area/country/etc. and needed refuge, I could probably contact the local Chabad.
When I needed a short-term loan in my senior year of undergrad (my poor car was under-insured and I was hit) two staffers (complete strangers) from the nearest Jewish welfare agency personally mailed me $1,500 (no strings/expectations) as I was out of their program’s jurisdiction, the (former, as I moved) local Jewish loan agency (which my former rabbi was a member of) sent $1,200 for a girl 900 miles away to the university bursar and me a contract kindly asking me to pay it back within four years, no interest charged of course, and please keep in contact if I incur further troubles, plus an acquaintance with the Federation dropped off a shit-ton of Kosher-for-Passover food that I was not expecting.
Does the government do all of those things for individuals? Uh, no, not like that. Can families? Sometimes.
I paid the strangers back within a few months, and the agency back within six plus a donation of a few hundred dollars. Since then, I’ve donated to ADL, the Federation, my son’s school (majority is time [volunteering] and services [guest teaching history]), my former and current synagogue (which I never attend!), and I participate in the mitzvah projects of bar and bat mitzvah students. But…that was no change from my former level of civic participation.
What good is my anecdotal evidence? Well, it just illustrates the cycle of Jewish giving that sets up a good model for success. Coupled with traditional problems-based Jewish education, it should kind of be expected that Jews are ‘successful’ and ‘brainy’.
To repeat:
Nowhere did I say:
Most Jews appear to be successful.
Therefore, allJews must be successful.
Most Jews appear smart.
Hell, Jews are smarter than everyone else!
I guess you could rationalize the following:
Most Jews appear to be successful.
Success is built on the backs of others.
Therefore, most Jews are capitalist bastards.
It’s their fault the economy sucks.
Plus, Jews only care for their own.
but that just makes you an idiot, a an asshole, or a possible basketcase.
I stuck up for Argent Towers because 1.) I found fault with the OP’s premise 2.) I think he gets picked on and 3.) “Jews are smart” isn’t that far off if you give any weight to IQ scores.
That stuff gets dangerous when you start thinking that Jews are a race and are inherently smart, because, you know, conniving people are usually the smart ones.
Hey, Harvard used to restrict Jews on the basis that ‘they cheat’ and later wanted to limit them for being so successful.
So when someone like Buchanan says, 'Well, half of Harvard is Asian and Jewish" to incite alarm or there are “too many Jews on the Supreme Court”, does that become a problem because apparently not enough people received the proper education to filter out bullshit?
If you (as in, anyone) took this to heart:
the problem is not so much Pat Buchanan or the casual observation that “Jews are smart” as it it your own damned prejudices, and it’s one that isn’t going to be helped by dropping Argent’s stereotype.
These statements are in a special class, and not just because they aren’t ‘mean’, but because they’re based on some well-known observable fact or historical connotation:
[ul]
[li]“Jews are smart.” - Stereotypical reasoning.[/li][li]“Jews are religious.” - lack of knowledge/assumption[/li][/ul]
These statements are, as some pointed out, so far from the truth that they are not even distorted ‘versions’ of truth:
[ul]
[li]“Jews are greedy fucks.” [/li][li]“Jews are not true Americans.”[/li][li]“Jews know how to plunge that knife in your back so deep that it will come out of your chest and stab a Chinamen without leaving a visible mark.”[/li][/ul]
**Prejudice, subjugation, and racism are outside of logic. **For example, how can Jews in Nazi Germany be responsible for the economic crises *and * be sub-human if Ayrans were the intelligent human ‘race’?
How could everyday Japanese Americans in WWII America be spies capable of aiding the enemy thousands of miles way…pre-technology boom?
How the fuck can Mexicans be lazy and take all our jobs?
Yes, it can be and frankly some examples I think skirt up to the line of what is ethical to do. Population statistics can breakdown when applied to the individual. We can all cite examples of extremely safe 16 year old drivers and careless 35 year old ones. However, at least those stats are generally based on accurate information. Depending on the data, how they apply to individuals can be more or less accurate- such as the risk of life-long smoker being less healthy than a comparable nonsmoker is pretty high, even at the individual level.
Stereotypes, not based on data at all- at best confirmation bias and at worst whole cloth lies, don’t even have that population accuracy going for them.
I see your argument and I raise it. If I define stereotype as you did (which I bolded) then what Argent Towers said was a little ethnocentric
Part A:
Part B:
but it wasn’t a stereotype.
Sure, he based what he said on the generalization of Jews being smart (that has a considerable element of truth, not just a grain), their quest for Zionism (documented fact) and their successes in a desert wasteland (also documented fact), but his actual statement, while reflective of stereotypes, was not a stereotype in itself.
Not sure if, “Jews are stereotypically good at agriculture and are pretty brainy, so x” would have gotten the same backlash.
So what’s a stereotype based on data called?
Jews and Asians seem to share a lot of them: smart, cunning, good with cash, and have extremely overbearing mothers who cajole them into eating too much while simultaneously cautioning against getting fat.
*edit: I used to wonder if my ‘fitting in’ so well with the Jewish community in adulthood was a result of being brought up in Chinese-American household. :l
Common sense? Factual observation? It’s a stereotype to assume that men are larger and stronger; people normally make that assumption anyway because it’s the norm; it’s easier to deal with individual exceptions as they come. Of course, when a stereotype has actual data behind it, we seldom call it a stereotype in the first place.
I don’t need a cite, since we can work off the same excerpt you posted.
(bolding mine)
At no point did she substitute a superficially similar position for an original. She essentially said “if you believe X (which is stereotype), then you must believe Y (which also is a stereotype), but of course you don’t really believe Y (because it’s a negative stereotype), so why the fuck do you believe X (oh, it must because it’s a positive stereotype)?” I don’t believe this argument is rock solid logically speaking, but it’s not a straw man.
A straw man would be “You’re saying X (e.g. ‘I hate religion and wish it would die out’), but I’m gonna put Y in your mouth (‘I hate religious people and wish they would all die’) and pronounce you wrong on that basis”.
But that’s not a straw man. Seriously. There’s a reason you’re the only one in here saying this.
Yeah, and both Jews and Asians are comprised of disparate groups. I think when most of us think of “Jews”, we think of the ethnic group that is predominately represented here in the US and in the media. The Ashkenazi Jewish person. When we think of Asians, we think of Chinese, Japanese, or Koreans.
For the latter, we tend not to think of Hmongs or Vietnamese, both groups that are often poor and don’t fit the “model minority” mythology. I went to school with lots of Vietnamese kids. Many of them were the anti-thesis of the model minority. Yet the “Asians are great!” mystique applied to them, by virtue of their small epicanthic folds and yellowish complexions. And if Chinese are so brainy and cunning, why are they just now making it on the scene as an industralized nation? It puzzles me why people will point to Africa’s “third-worldness” as proof of black inferiority, but will gloss over the poverty of India and east Asia when they want to trumpet the superior intellect of The Asian.
For the former, Americans don’t tend to think of Sephardic Jews, who don’t have names like Goldstein or Ruben. And many would be surprised that there are entire neighborhoods in NY where Jewish folk are so broke that they are living on public assistance and don’t give a shit about it either! For awhile I lived in Ivy Hill in Newark, NJ, home of the giant highrise apartment buildings with an equally gigantic menorah in the front yard. Guess what kind of complex this was? A low-income one! Most of the men were menial laborers and their wives were often barefoot and preggers, scanning their EBT cards at the Foodtown like it was nobody’s business. Brainy? Ambitious? Eh. I guess so. I guess the idiotic Jewish kids I went to school with were also brainy and ambitious but were just too shy to show it. Or maybe the southern climate deactivated their intelligence genes. Poor them.
Yeah, for every stereotype that’s out there, I’ve got rebuttals. There’s a stereotype that I’m very familiar with. That of the “angry black person”. I make fun of it all the time because the stereotype is funny to me for some reason. But while I see incidents of angry black people occassionally, most of the time all the black people I see are just like me and everyone else. Not angry. The last time I was ever cussed out? A white guy. Happened yesterday (and it stung, but only for a nanosecond). In fact, I’ve been cussed out by more white people than black people in my entire life, and I know lots of both. Perhaps being black myself, black people grant me some type of pass. But it’s funny, never in my life have I been tempted to generalize and say, “White people are angry motherfuckers, aren’t they?” I suppose it’s because I have consciously taught myself NOT to generalize whenever possible.
I don’t know how some ideas about people become encased into stereotypes and others do not. I guess societies, like God, work in mysterious ways.
I find it difficult to use the word stereotype and data in the same sentence. Data is objective and falsifiable. For example, one can generalize that Eastern European Jews are at higher risk for certain genetic disorders. That is not a stereotype because it is based on data. You can use that data to choose to genetically screen certain individuals if they fall into that ethnic group.
I think anecdotal observation coupled with confirmation bias can lead to some stereotypes. However, a stereotype based on this information is inherently flawed and then can lead people to think they have facts about certain groups. Jews being smart is anecdotal and subject confirmation bias unless you can demonstrate a controlled research study that bears this out. While it may be somewhat true- certainly practicing Judaism and the need to learn another language and the emphasis on study may encourage those academic qualities- that doesn’t bring it to the level of data.
From my personal societal observations the stereotype is that Jews are smarter than others, not that they are more driven, not that they are culturally pushed harder to succeed in academic areas.
For that reason it is in fact a dangerous stereotype if people take it seriously. If I’m a partner at a law firm and we have two recent graduates from the same law school who are essentially identical in every conceivable measure and both interviewed equally well, if we picked the Jewish candidate because we said “hell, we know the Jews got to be better all things being equal” that is where the stereotype becomes harmful–it can be used to discriminate against individuals.
I don’t believe there is any verifiable evidence to suggest Jews are biologically more intelligent, in fact I don’t believe biology supports the possibility of such a conclusion (not least of all because worldwide Jewry is not biologically homogenous.) So any information about academic, professional services, and business acumen of Jews would to me be a reflection of culture. For that reason then it is entirely possible that some individual Jews will not be exposed to the unique “cultural influences” of Judaism that work to give people exposed to said influences a slight edge in certain areas. So because of that possibility (which is in fact definitely true, because there are lots of Jews who are essentially Jewish in name only and who are not significantly exposed to Jewish culture at all) it isn’t appropriate to judge individual Jews based on anything stereotypical of Jews as a whole.
I doubt I’m the only gentile that gets a little tired of Jews like CitizenPained and Argent Towers crowing with borderline supremacist posts about their people, though. If they were Germans people would be pitting them.
The reason it is a personal affront to me is because anything these two think is “special” about the Jews I just shrug and say “so what?”
They’ve succeeded against overwhelming odds in establishing Israel? Well, so what? Their accomplishments are akin to English colonists coming to the new world and using superior technology, organization, and vast support from afar to push aside less sophisticated, poorer people. When the natives around the English colonies really started to get angry and push back, the English colonists received ever increasing support from very powerful forces back home, up until their superior technology and societal organization more suited to staking and taking land drove the natives essentially into the status of minorities in their own land.
That’s very similar to what the Jews did in the Holy Land, and I don’t really feel there is anything particularly special about it. It’s not “uninteresting” but I don’t talk about Spanish and English conquerors of the New World as though they are unique supermen who achieved what no other peoples could achieve. There was nothing unique or special about the blood of Spaniards or Englishmen, and if the roles were reversed they would have been conquered and driven to the brink of non-existence, so likewise I see nothing special in the blood of Jews that leads me to think what they have done in Israel is a singular event. I think it is highly similar to many other events in history.
As for Jews superior academic performance and scores on standardized tests, that to me is like saying that monks and priests in the 1200 were the smartest people in the western world that being a monk or a priest makes you smart. No, it is the hours of studying and reading that make you smart. Incidentally being a monk or a priest leads to hours of studying and reading. Any sub culture that focuses on learning more than the majority culture will outperform in the aggregate on any task in which greater education leads to better performance.
If you were to look at children born into the lowest 20% of adjusted gross income households versus children born into the top 20% of adjusted gross income households I can tell you which group will score better on standardized tests, which will score better on IQ tests, and which will graduate high school and college at higher rates and which will be more likely to enter a professional field such as law, medicine or etc. Without spoiling a big surprise, it will be children born into to people who are the top 20% of AGI, does that mean the amount of money in your parent’s bank accounts makes you smarter?
Of course not, it means that parents who are financially stable are more likely to have their lives together and are more likely to be able to afford the luxury of spending lots of time and effort on making sure their children do well in school. If you look at the top 1% of adjusted gross income families the effect will probably be magnified.
So what I am thus saying is that any group that focuses on the education of their children will notice results above the norm. That doesn’t mean there is anything intrinsically special about Jews. I don’t necessarily think most Jews think that there is, but like I said the stereotype isn’t that Jews study hard it’s that they are smarter and that is a different thing, a less correct thing and a dangerous thing.
(Interestingly if you take it to the extreme things get a little weird. The very richest people in America tend to have less formal education, but that is because when you’re talking about the 100 richest people in the country it’s mostly entrepreneurs who as a group tend far less towards academic pursuits than most other groups.)
There certainly is evidence for that stereotype, here is one theory behind it.
Well, that’s because Ashkenazim are the majority. (:
I usually don’t say “Asian” as that’s a geographical connotation and there is no pan-Asian movement I know of, but I that’s the ‘stereotype’ so I said it…I feel ya, though.
Yes, well, Indian-Americans are considered to be brainy, and no one thinks of Egyptians as Africans or Israelis as Asians.
Point taken: people like to categorize and simplify.
Another example of ‘model minority’ is the ‘noble savage’ where everyone thinks that there is such a thing as Indian Princesses. That’s where a so-called positive stereotype is just a gross mis-characterization. Jews are smart is not.
I do not know what you are trying to get at. Even “Sephardic” Jews have ‘Jewish’/Hebrew names, e.g., Kahn, Drey. Half of Israelis are Sephardim, but when an Isreali is in America, he’s from ‘the Middle East’. You’re just talking about an American perspective. I don’t know of any specific Sephardic group in America that is somehow worse off than the rest…the Sephardim were some of the first Jewish settlers here.
I was rather annoyed when Barack Obama gave both Jews and Muslims the same speech about his name in the election for personal points. “I have a Hebrew name…” and “I have an Arabic name…” as baruch is Hebrew for blessing and barak has the same connotation. Yah, people usually associate Arabic names with Muslims, but there’s a reason for that, too.
And -stein does not mean you’re Jewish, but Rubenstein is a clue that your name probably hails from Germany or Austria (places that don’t speak a Semitic language) and you’re Jewish.
So I don’t see what you mean by names. If you are just talking about Jews in America, O.K., but anyplace where Jews are allowed freedom of movement has resulted in success. (When Russian Jews left Russia, their children were no worse off if they joined mainstream Jewry. The ultra-Orthodox Russians in New York are a deviation because of their religious sub-culture.)
And yet many are surprised that the ultra-Orthodox are not representative of world Jewry…see the 10,000 Israel threads on this board. 
Did you just categorize a subset of Jews as idiotic and lazy based on genetics?
Yes, they have large families, and yes, they place more value on Torah education than academia, but…?
Did I not just say that stereotypes reflect an observable trend? And Jews are not a race?
We all do.
Are you more sensitive to stereotypes because you are black?
And you make no assumptions or generalizations about white people? Ever? :dubious:
Well, we know that studying language correlates with other academic success, that problems-based education (like that seen in Talmudic study) strengthens your skill in logic (perhaps why Jews like the study of law), and that Jews seem to be disproportionally successful.
Your example of Ashkenazi Jews having higher rates of genetic illnesses is an entirely different field: genetics. Jews are (or were) relatively homogeneous.
Saying that Jews are born a certain way is problematic as the positions I put forth are based on (still observable) social sciences. That’s where the “Gee, I wonder why this is?” stuff comes from.
Academics reflect what a community sees as being successful, right? As of right now, Jewish education (and as I pointed out) values add to their chances of success. We define “smart” by academics and testing - two things Jews excel at here. (Additionally, the poor Jews in New York define their own successes by Torah study and family. They aren’t stupid; try discussing philosophy sometime or having a debate.)
My goodness, if the only successful people in the world were beautiful ones, we would not be having this conversation…
Note that the Wikipedia entry was not originally my cite by but I did use it.
She added random additional data (negative stereotypes) to the original argument which is then reproduced in a distorted as a weaker version, the broadened undefined set is easily refutable. She then dismisses the original claim as invalid without actually addressing the original claim.
So we may have a definition issue here, Even with this post I can not see where it would ever be valid logic except by chance.
But I will take the ad populum rebuke with pride after re-reading through the thread.
If I may recommend some ‘light’ reading though.
I think the case for positive stereotypes (that tend to be true) is that any positive attribute given to a minority is seen as a good thing since minorities are usually subjugated.
Since Jews have risen to meet the American dream, they’re not considered minorities anymore. They’re ‘white’. Eastern Europeans and Irish also used to be considered a different ‘racial’ category, but hey, GOOD FREAKING THING NO ONE CLAIMED RACIAL SUPERIORITY HERE!
We’re not talking about judging individuals; we are talking about generalizations.
Sounds like you have some personal issues. I’d advise a doctor, but only a Gentile - just to be safe.
Is that a reference to Nazi Germany? Are you saying that Germans today can’t have national pride? Are you stereotyping?
Hmm…Have you been to Milwaukee, Wisconsin? German-American pride everywhere. Ask my grandmother about the Rhineland and you’ll get a friggin’ earful and she wasn’t even born there. Walk into an American Jewish food store anywhere and you’ll see all kinds of Jewish spins on traditional Eastern European foods, whereas French Jews don’t schlep to the bakery for bagels.
Hamentaschen…nom nom nom.
It’s not a crime to be proud of one’s country. It is also not a crime to be proud of one’s ethnic group. When you specifically don’t take pride in those things or are embarrassed, you become one of those ‘self-hating ____’.
Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and have suffered pogoms, genocides, inquisitions, massacres, expulsion upon expulsion, prejudice, etc., and are somehow still doing relatively okay. If you really think so what, uh, that’s on you, kiddo.
I outlined the potential whys of how come Jews are still kickin’ it and none of it was based on a genetic quality or divine attribution.
Curious: Do you freak out when people advocate for the Democratic party?
But half of Israeli Jews aren’t descended from Europe. They’re Sephardi. And I think some Arabs (and Native Americans!) would be a little offended at your characterization of the non-Jews in the area as “less sophisticated, poorer people”.
Do you know what this is? This bad history and incorrect information. It’s also the kind that’s propagated by anti-Semites, but I’m going to stick you in the ‘ignorant’ category and move on, as this is not an Israel thread.
I cannot speak for Argent, but I have never said Jews have some special Kryptonite blood. Talk about a strawman.
Please stop. I have said many times that Jews are not a race and I really fucking resent you insinuating that I said otherwise.
Isn’t the definition of ‘special’ a ‘deviation from then norm’ or ‘beyond reasonable expectation’?
Jews get attention in the social sciences, medicine, and politics because they are that kind of special - not because they are superior. Jews aren’t WASPS or royals.
WTF is your beef with someone pointing that out?!
You think Jewish people just…have good luck?
Cite?
Zuckerberg, Harvard.
Koch brothers, MIT.
Bill Gates, Harvard.
Warren Buffet, Columbia.
I’m gonna need a breakdown of the other 95.
I said that smart can translate into successful (which maybe you classify as rich)…although you can’t be successful and stupid. Being rich and stupid is a matter of luck.
But the very richest people in America are in a category all unto their own and I have no idea what that has to do with the subject at hand, so don’t bother giving me any cites. 
Hi CP! How are you? 
My response was a reply to your questions about stereotypes based on “data”. My argument is that, almost by definition, a stereotype is never based on what is considered data but generally on either outright lies or overgeneralized observations sullied by confirmation bias. Social sciences can absolutely have data and discuss trends within ethnic/racial/socioeconomic groups, but they are not stereotypes. Even if you can ferret out the root “truths” that may underlie the positive (or negative for that matter) stereotype, it doesn’t raise it up to the level of data.
I personally think that stereotypes, positive or negative, overall harm the group. However, recognizing cultural strengths and weaknesses, that are supported by real observation, not personal anecdote etc, is interesting and may have some limited utility in deciding what services to make available to that group or anticipating need. However, danger always lays when a person doggedly applies any generalization (even data supported ones or positive ones) to the individual.
Right, and that’s an old argument that many biologists have been writing papers discrediting since the 1960s when Arthur Jensen first made the claim that intelligence was heritable. Such slouches as Stephen Jay Gould (a Jew by the way) have roundly rejected the idea.
It’s definitely not settled biology, but it’s widely controversial and some of the world’s most prominent biologists have dismissed those conclusions. Gould specifically mentioned in the early 1980s how those who were advocating the idea of heritable intelligence specifically disregarded any evidence that meaningfully contradicted their conclusions
To me what is particularly telling are the studies done between identical twins that have found a greater difference in the IQ scores of a pair of identical twins when the twins are raised separately than when they are raised together. In other words two identical twins who are raised together are more likely to have a similar/same IQ score than two identical twins who are raised apart.
However I think that’s all pretty much a massive aside, as this thread is about stereotypes and not scientific arguments about the heritability of IQ.
Stereotypes are overgeneralizations, but they are overgeneralizations of what is often true.
It is not true that all Jews are intelligent. It is true that the average IQ of Ashkenazic Jews is about 112. It is not true that all blacks are good athletes. It is true that blacks dominate many sports, such as basketball and boxing.
However, I am unaware of any evidence that Jewish businessmen tend to be less honest than gentile businessmen, or that Jewish money lenders usually charge higher interest rates. The stereotype that Jews are greedy seems to be caused by resentment over the fact that they are often successful.
I’d imagine exactly how one does with any other theory about anything - claim that there is good, supported evidence for the one, and not for the other. By defining the topic using terms like “deeply-entrenched”, “distortion”, “frequently … based on lies” you appear to be pre-judging it as essentially untrue.
I think the problem here is that you are asserting that some folks believe “positive” stereotypes because they are positive. That may or may not be the case. Most people, if asked, would say they believe positive stereotypes because the evidence supports them. Perhaps if cross-examined, some would admit that they believe positive stereotypes because it flatters their egos - but that’s really a variant on the old ad hom argument: just because it is in someone’s self-interest to believe something flattering may explain their partiality, but it does not in and of itself negate whatever evidence they may have dredged up to support their opinion.
For example:
“I think Jews are, as a group, smarter than the average folks.”
“Yeah, but you are yourself a Jew. You are not partial.”
“That may be the case - but look at this evidence, which proves I’m right”
… logically, it is no answer to the evidence (unless it is purely based on personal opinion evidence or anecdote) to say that the person presenting it is partial. The only answer is to disprove the validity of the evidence.
Allo, dear!
But if “Jews are smart” is supported by some data, it’s not so much as stereotype as a generalization. It becomes more of a sterotype when you apply it to an individual without any kind of prior knowledge of that person. Like, if I know that a majority of Latino undocumented immigrants are Mexican and I automatically assume an undocumented Latino I meet is Mexican, I just applied a stereotype.
**Argent **was talking about a whole-group generalization. It’s not something I would have said, but I don’t agree that all generalizations are bad. We make generalizations or assumptions on what a Republican voter thinks based on the Republican platform, but that voter could be pro-choice and gay. It’s when someone refuses to deviate from their perceptions or takes the stereotype further is when it’s harmful.
I don’t think that intelligence is a uniquely quantifiable trait, nor do I think that IQ tests are fair. But some things, such as spatial skills & reasoning, do help you in certain academic areas. It’s been theorized that “Chinese & Japanese kids are so good at math” because of 1.) cultural influence and 2.) written language. Similar conclusions have been made about pre-lingual deaf kids who grow up singing ASL: they have the upper hand in some areas.
That is not surprising. I don’t think anyone advocated an inherent trait that automatically made you a genius.
I wish people would stop the nature v. nurture fight.
When the OP questions a so-called stereotype about Jews being smart, then IQ becomes an issue if it’s been documented. No one has said that IQs are inherited, but you keep insisting on refuting a claim no one made.
Is this because you want to perpetuate the falsehood that I said that Jews were a super race?
Well stereotypes are only important in how they affect individuals. If I’m a black football player and it is a stereotype that I’d be a great running back, but I’m 6’5” and have been playing quarter back my entire life up until college and a college coach doesn’t thing I have the “intangibles” to take the snaps, that perceived positive stereotype (my race’s aptitude at the running back position) hurts me as an individual (I’m white of English and Scottish ancestry just so no one is confused by my hypothetical.)
I’m not really concerned with throwaway generalized statements, I’m fine with those. However what I’m seeing is people talking about them as though they have some greater validity than that. For example Argent Towers saying that if “any people could make it work it’d be the brainy Jews” that insults me as someone who has studied history. FWIW I’m a staunch opponent of the concept of exceptionalism in general; I’m not just picking on the Jews here.
Many European and American historians up through to the modern day (where it has become a little less acceptable) have talked about various reasons as to why the peoples of Europe were innately superior to the natives they conquered and subjugated. You had theories ranging from genetic superiority to people claiming that the increased competition for resources in Europe brought about by limited arable land and harsher winters created a “people forged by iron” who were more apt to rule over the world than blacks and Native Americans. I’m not overly offended by those theories because I recognize the time period in which they were born, but what you see even up to the modern day is the faulty teleological way of looking at things. That’s where the root of the problem is, and it is very shortsighted. Just three hundred years ago “brainy” would not have been a stereotype of Jews at all. That is a modern construct, for most of the history of European Jews they were more akin to the Amish than to our modern conception of Jews. It was actually only in the past 300 years or so that Jews really started to get more involved in the European societies in which they lived, and in many cases that actually meant Jews intentionally becoming as non-Jewish as possible. In Frederick the Great’s Prussia many Jews were advocating for their right to join the Prussian militias, and were doing their best to become part of the society of upper class Prussians, in so doing they adopted many of the mannerisms and styles of Prussians. This was repeated in many countries throughout Europe, this is also when you started to see the powerful Jews in banking and merchant houses because those were the fields open to them to become part of the mainstream European society. Prior to the Enlightenment Jews were much less likely to be heavily involved in the European society in which they lived, and many of these modern Jewish stereotypes come from post-Enlightenment era Europe. Likewise 1,000 years ago it would be hard to argue any sort of European exceptionalism, Europeans were backwards academically and scientifically when compared to the Muslims states, and in most cases they were weaker militarily as well. One thousand years from now who knows what will be going on, but I doubt it will be the same stuff that is going on today. So I reject any exceptionalist arguments in large part because they crop up in these little snap shots of history. American exceptionalism is another great example; Americans had a lot going for them in terms of natural resources and unique geographical location. However a thousand years from now people may laugh if we talk about American exceptionalism because North America may be the equivalent of the “backwater” in the year 3011, who knows. People are fooling themselves by focusing on the temporary peaks and troughs of their societies and are seriously drinking the Kool-Aid by buying into any talk about how their people are “exceptional.”
I mostly think national pride is stupid.
Well, for whatever reason despite being a proud Jew you are ashamed of the history of Jews because you don’t look at it honestly.
Jews have been permitted to exist by Christians and Muslims, period. This is because they viewed Jews as theological ancestors. While in the present day it is hard to believe, at one time Muslim leaders were more or less tolerant of Jews. While the holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, and various blood libels throughout European history make it seem like the history of Jews is one of barely avoiding intentional destruction, the truth of the matter is Jews flourished in Europe because Europeans wanted them there. The King of Poland strongly advertised his country to Jews, and wanted Jews to settle there. The King of Prussia hundreds of years ago actually agreed to set aside land for Jewish settlement to harbor Jews who had been expelled from another country at the time.
Are Jews a historical minority in Europe and the Middle East? Yep. Did they get persecuted? Yep. Did they survive only because they were special? No. They survived because they were treated in a manner that was special when compared to the treatment of other minorities in the same region over the same time span.
And I have long said the reason Jews are still around is because Christian and later Muslim rulers tolerated their existence. Does it offend your concept of “Jews as special people” to hear that the reasons Jews survived is because they were basically pitied and given refuge by European Christian Kings? Most of them actually looked at Jews as misguided fools who would eventually convert, and felt that by harboring God’s first chosen people they were doing a good deed and being good Christians.
Technological sophistication isn’t subjective, nor or is relative poverty. Native Americans didn’t have firearms, large sailing ships, various early industrial processes, they didn’t forge plate armor. That’s not to say they didn’t have Europeans beat on any issues, in some areas of agriculture Native Americans actually were doing things better than Europeans.
As for the Arabs living in the old Roman province of Judaea–they were definitely poor and not as technologically sophisticated as the Zionists that started arriving in the area in the late 19th century. As evidence of their poverty it should be known most of those Arabs who weren’t nomadic were living as perpetual tenants of wealthy Ottoman land lords who lived in Istanbul, those Arabs were very similar to poor Irish farmers who were perpetual tenants of absentee land lords whose families may have owned plots of lands for centuries without ever visiting them.
Well, it’s easy to just say “this is bad history and incorrect information.” However the real history of Israel is it was gradually settled by Jews who came to the area with far more money, technological knowledge, and physical technology than the locals possessed, creating a grave power imbalance.
To ignore that they received massive help from outside is absolutely wrongheaded. If you’ve read any history of the early 20th century you would know about the Zionist movement and you would know that many wealthy Jews who decided not to participate directly still supported it with massive financial contributions.
The support Jews received is no less than the level of support English colonists to the New World received. If you have read the history of both they are actually startlingly similar. In the beginning English colonists were primarily on their own, with small amounts of support back home. As things picked up they received more and more support from wealthy investors back in England, and eventually support from the government once it decided to take notice. Not entirely dissimilar from the early support Israelis received from Jews all around the world which was then eventually followed up by official support from major Western powers.
Well then you have no problem with me comparing English settlers to Jews, right? Aren’t the English settler’s achievements just as amazing as those of the Jews in Israel? In some ways I would say they were dramatically more impressive considering the English settlers were traveling vastly further distances across the dangerous Atlantic Ocean into an area unknown to Europeans, whereas Jews were essentially moving into an area where they were buying land from absentee land lords. The settlers of Jamestown would have loved such an arrangement.
I think that individual Jews have good luck that they are born into a culture that values raising children in an academically rigorous manner. The success and failure of individuals is going to be a combination of ambition, determination, and some degree of luck. As a small business owner I can tell you that any successful person has had a degree of luck, even if it is only that nothing *unlucky *happened to them.