# What explains the SDMB's large Jewish membership? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 17, 2006, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049 "2006-08-17T04:15:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/121 "2006-08-20T17:52:16Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Not at all. What it suggests is that your arguments are couched in terms that may make sense to you, but for which you have found no way to clearly delineate to us. If we line up your points regarding Jews side by side with discussions about racial superiority or inferiority, we see a direct parallel. Even you have noted that the issues appear to be the same. I suspect that you actually believe there is some difference between the beliefs you hold and the arguments of race, but you have not found a way to express those differences. At this point, I would suggest that you need to examine what you actually do believe. Not because I believe you are a racist, but because I think you have not clearly identified what you actually believe, what that means, and how that works. [/QUOTE] I don’t know much about other arguments of race. So I can’t tell you what the difference is, if there is any. I am saying that there is data that indicates that Jews are more skilled in one area, on average. I don’t think it’s fair to say that this makes them “superior”. In the same way that I don’t think a person is superior to me just because he can perform some tasks better than me. Anyway, I would like to know, is it in your opinion possible to make an argument about a race that is consistent, and still be a racist based on that? ---
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/122 "2006-08-20T18:09:56Z")
[QUOTE=mr. jp] I probably did ignore your point. That is because I thought you followed my random-person argument from before, and agreed with it. But it seems you didnt. I didn’t say anything about a task that measures intellectual ability, and I don’t really know what you mean about a representative sample. [/quote] In statistics, it’s a given that you can pretty much never obtain all of the data for a demographic of interest, so you ask a question about a limited number of members of this demographic. This is a sample. Very small samples are not representative, because differences between individuals in a demographic can skew the data (variability within a demographic is therefore a very important piece of data in its own right). Non-random samples are also often not representative of the population as a whole (although a degree of non-randomness cannot be avoided in most studies). > [@](#): > > Anyway, I’ll make the argument again, and please stop me at the point where you disagree. > > 1. Take a university professor, and a random person from the rest of the population, and give them both a task that requires intellectual abilities). It is probably that the professor does better. Already we have a problem. I am not a university professor, but I can play Scrabble better than my old mathematics professor. I am not a university professor, but I am better at solving differential equations than my old psychology professor. I am not a university professor, but I can construct a recombinant DNA molecule, which my literature professor cannot do. Now certainly, these professors will perform better than me on a number of other tasks, but if I select the tasks I just outlined, I will outperform many university professors. Therefore, our choice of a task set influences the outcome of the data significantly, and the fact is there is no task set that is widely accepted as being an appropriate measure of intellectual ability suggests that _any_ broad conclusion about intellectual ability may be flawed. More limited conclusions will hold (i.e. mathematics professors solve differential equations with a greater degree of accuracy than the general population), but broader ones may not. > [@](#): > > 1. Look at two groups, A and B. People in group A are all better educated than people in group B. You don’t know anything else about the groups. You take a random person from each group and give them them a task that requires intellectual abilities. It is probable that the person from group A does better. > > 2. The same as 2., except that group A is better educated than group B on average, instead of all of them being better educated. > > 3. If 3. is fulfilled, then you can fairly say that group A is more skilled in intellectual matters. Statistically, this is where your argument fails. No, you cannot make this conclusion. Suppose that Group A and Group B are very large, population-wise. You cannot test every member of Group A and Group B–there are too many of them. Therefore, you examine a random sample, a small subset of each group that you hope represents the entire population. Suppose you find that Group A has an Arbitrary Mean Intelligence (a unit I just made up) of 4.5. Group B has an Arbitrary Mean Intelligence of 4.4. Therefore Group A has higher Arbitrary Mean Intelligence, right? And if Arbitrary Mean Intelligence Testing really _does_ measure intelligence, this means Group A is more intelligent, right? Well, maybe. This will depend on how much variability is present within in each population and on how large your sample is. If everyone in Group A scores a 4.5 and everyone in Group B scores a 4.4, there’s no variability and this 0.1 difference is significant. But that’s probably not what happens. Probably what happens is that there is enough variability in each group to completely ablate that mean difference–it does not rise above chance variation. If you sample a great many people, you increase the statistical power of your test, but in the process you may also destroy the mean difference you had. So your argument would hold on two additional conditions (well, probably three)– 1. Your measures of intellectual ability actually measure what you thnk they do. This is not as easy as it sounds. You continue to throw “measure of intellectual ability” around like it’s a triviality. Most experimental measures are suspect, and measuring intelligence is especially controversial. This first point is almost insurmountable. 2. The mean differences are statistically signficant. That is, they occur more frequently than would be expected by chance, since chance variation occurs in any experiment. 3. Your study is reproducible. I am not saying that it is not theoretically possible to use statistics to show that one ethnic group has greater “intellectual ability” than another. I am saying that for practical purposes it is probably impossible and that you are not even close to showing it. ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/123 "2006-08-20T18:50:56Z")
[QUOTE=nameless] Statistically, this is where your argument fails. No, you cannot make this conclusion. Suppose that Group A and Group B are very large, population-wise. You cannot test every member of Group A and Group B–there are too many of them. [/QUOTE] Hmm, I am not trying to suggest a statistical experiment. I am using a logical argument. I don’t care here what I can or cannot test, and indeed I don’t want to test anything. Which one exactly is you disagree with? Is it 4? If so, do you agree with 2 and 3? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/124 "2006-08-20T18:54:40Z")
[QUOTE=mr. jp] I am saying that there is data that indicates that Jews are more skilled in one area, on average. [/QUOTE] Really? What “area” is that? What is the evidence for that? What does “on average” mean in this statement? As noted, the Nobel prize is not a reliable data point. It has a number of problems associated with attempting to draw any conclusions about a group of people–particularly in regards to their abilities. Have you noted the actual discussion in which you are engaged with **nameless**? The assessment of intelligence (or “skill in intellect”) is way too vague to be meaningful and we have no reliable way to measure a thing that we have, so far, failed to successfully define. The most that we can say about the information we glean by looking at the roster of nobel winners is that among the limited number of candidates nominated (secretly, so we do not know what bias occurs in the nomination process), some apparently disproportionate number of Jews have been selected for their work in theoretical explorations in a limited number of sciences. Based on a similar examination, we would have to conclude that Japanese “are more skilled” in Sumo wrestling than other people. Is this a meaningful statement? If only a few dozen persons from outside Japan have ever attempted the sport and if the typical Sumo wrestler in the highest division weighs something like three times as much as nearly every non-Sumo wrestliing Japanese person, what does “Japanese are more skilled in Sumo” mean? Yet, if we randomly picked Japanese and U.S. citizens off the street and put them in a Sumo ring, it is entirely possible the the (typically larger) U.S. citizens would be able to force their Japanese opponents from the ring (even if their style was judged coarse by Japanese standards). If the Jewish community provides more scholars who enter fields which are more likely to be examined by the Nobel selection committee, does a prevalence of Jewish winnners say anything at all about the Jewish community in terms of the overall “skills” of that community? Or does it simply indicate that a certain group of people have, coincidentally, shown up in a decidedly non-random selection process? ---
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/125 "2006-08-20T19:09:43Z")
[QUOTE=mr. jp] Hmm, I am not trying to suggest a statistical experiment. I am using a logical argument. I don’t care here what I can or cannot test, and indeed I don’t want to test anything. Which one exactly is you disagree with? Is it 4? If so, do you agree with 2 and 3? [/QUOTE] If you can’t show that it’s statistically significant, you’re not showing it. You’ve referred to statistical data at times (Jews make more money on average, Jews are more educated on average), but now you don’t want the rules of statistics to apply to your argument when it comes to making conclusions? This isn’t geometry–you can’t prove that Jews have greater intellectual ability by way of some thought experiment. I disagree with 1 because you have not introduced a reliable measure of intellectual ability. I kind of disagree with 2 because it is an idealized hypothetical description of two populations that exhibit no within-groups variability. This very rarely occurs in the natural world. I do understand you are using it as a stepping stone towards your later points though, so whatever. I don’t really disagree with 3 because it approaches one of the fundamental tenets of statistics–that you can measure differences between two populations if the differences between them exceed the differences observed by random chance due to experimenter error and individual variability. I disagree with 4 because it does not follow unless the difference observed is statistically significant–that is, greater than would be expected by random chance. Again, the question you’re asking (Are Jews more skilled intellectually?) is not answerable by some linear proof that bizarrely relies on statistical data to make its point. You can generate evidence in favor of your hypothesis by conducting a rigorous statistical analysis, but you cannot deduce it logically. ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/126 "2006-08-20T19:25:25Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] As noted, the Nobel prize is not a reliable data point. It has a number of problems associated with attempting to draw any conclusions about a group of people–particularly in regards to their abilities. Have you noted the actual discussion in which you are engaged with **nameless**? The assessment of intelligence (or “skill in intellect”) is way too vague to be meaningful and we have no reliable way to measure a thing that we have, so far, failed to successfully define. [/QUOTE] There might be problems with the nobel prize thing, but that is only one of many factors I mentioned. Could you answer my question about the property of p1? ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/127 "2006-08-20T19:43:45Z")
[QUOTE=nameless] Already we have a problem. I am not a university professor, but I can play Scrabble better than my old mathematics professor. I am not a university professor, but I am better at solving differential equations than my old psychology professor. I am not a university professor, but I can construct a recombinant DNA molecule, which my literature professor cannot do. Now certainly, these professors will perform better than me on a number of other tasks, but if I select the tasks I just outlined, I will outperform many university professors. Therefore, our choice of a task set influences the outcome of the data significantly, and the fact is there is no task set that is widely accepted as being an appropriate measure of intellectual ability suggests that _any_ broad conclusion about intellectual ability may be flawed. More limited conclusions will hold (i.e. mathematics professors solve differential equations with a greater degree of accuracy than the general population), but broader ones may not. [/QUOTE] Well, you are probably a rather unlucky random person for the professor to be up against. Of course the professor might lose with the specific opponent or the specific task selected, all I am saying is that there is a larger probability that he would win. Lets say that I take all tasks that require intellectual ability that all humans has performed in the history of mankind, and select 20 of them at random. I give them to a random person, and to a university professor. Then suppose we made a bet, wouldn’t you put your money on the professor to do better overall? [QUOTE=nameless] This isn’t geometry–you can’t prove that Jews have greater intellectual ability by way of some thought experiment. [/QUOTE] No, but that is not what this line of reasoning is trying to prove. you will notice that the last point is this 5. If we suppose that Jews are better educated on average, can we call group A jews and group B gentiles. I still haven’t proven anything here, not if I don’t have those statistics. But I’m trying to leave the statistics out of it until we agree about the more fundamental issues. ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/128 "2006-08-20T19:53:21Z")
[QUOTE=nameless] I disagree with 4 because it does not follow unless the difference observed is statistically significant–that is, greater than would be expected by random chance. [/QUOTE] Hmm. In 4 it is given that “You take a random person from each group and give them them a task that requires intellectual abilities. It is probable that the person from group A does better.” This means that if you take all combinations of people from group A and people from group B and give them a task that requires intellectual abilities, then there will be more combinations where the person from group A does better. So I don’t think statistical significance is relevant here. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/129 "2006-08-20T20:15:04Z")
[QUOTE=mr. jp] I have another question first. Suppose we have a large bag with random tasks that require mental abilities. And we take out a number of tasks, and give them to two people, p1 and p2. In every one of those tasks p1 performs better. Now you take out another task from the bag. Would you then find it more likely that p1 performs better in this one too. If so what would you call that property of p1 that causes this? [/QUOTE] If the tasks were truly random and truly required mental abilities, then I would call the property of p1 intelligence. However, while it is clear that there are individual humans who are “smarter” or have “more intelligence” than other individual humans, when we attempt to extrapolate across all humans for all tasks, we run into intractable obstacles that have not been overcome. Once we begin going to the real world instead of imaginary bags, we find brilliant mathematicians who are incapable for performing minor car repairs, amazing linguists who cannot add two numbers and get the same answer twice, and people who have trouble filling out a job application who can figure out when to sow crops to get the best yield. There are, of course, some persons who can do all these tasks well and some persons who can do none of them well, but as we survey the population of humanity, we discover a lot of people who are both very good and very bad (or moderately good and moderately bad) at a wide variety of tasks that require intelligence. Despite the claims of people who make money by getting research grants to study “intelligence,” we have discovered no single measurement that actually addresses the issue in a way that can be defended from all challenges. [QUOTE=mr. jp] There might be problems with the nobel prize thing, but that is only one of many factors I mentioned. [/QUOTE] You have not mentioned “many” factors. You have pointed out a couple of interesting (but not representative) historical events–and you have come back to the Nobel prize on several occasions. > [@](#): > > Lets say that I take all tasks that require intellectual ability that all humans has performed in the history of mankind, and select 20 of them at random. I give them to a random person, and to a university professor. Then suppose we made a bet, wouldn’t you put your money on the professor to do better overall? I’d love to take your money doing that bet. Do you actually believe that a professor of 15th century European Economics has an innate advantage in stalking prey, planting and harvesting crops, diagnosing physical ailments in livestock, analyzing mechanical problems in a car, programming a computer, determining tides, or constructing a house than other people? Achieving a professorship indicates that the person has demonstrated some (minimum) capacity to learn one series of topics, lecture on them, and play college politics sufficiently well to acquire tenure. These tasks require intelligence, but they are hardly representative of twenty random tasks from human history also rqiring intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/130 "2006-08-20T20:31:12Z")
[QUOTE=mr. jp] Lets say that I take all tasks that require intellectual ability that all humans has performed in the history of mankind, and select 20 of them at random. I give them to a random person, and to a university professor. Then suppose we made a bet, wouldn’t you put your money on the professor to do better overall? [/quote] This is still not useful. Are we still in a thought experiment, or is this now your proposed measure of intelligence? You can’t possibly assemble ALL intellectual tasks, and many intellectual tasks defy objective measures. Measure how good this Monet is compared to this Picasso. If you’re trying to establish that some people are more intellectually skilled than others in certain fields and that we can measure these differences sometimes, I don’t disagree at all. It gets much harder for me to agree if you’re suggesting we can measure absolute intellectual skill for two people and compare them against one another. It becomes ludicrous when you suggest we can extrapolate extremely limited data (how many Nobel Prize laureates, how many chess players, etc.) to conclude that a certain ethnic group has more intellectual skill than another one. > [@](#): > > I still haven’t proven anything here, not if I don’t have those statistics. But I’m trying to leave the statistics out of it until we agree about the more fundamental issues. What issues are we to agree on? I said earlier that theoretically (and if we make a lot of implausible assumptions) it is possible to show that Jews are more intellectually skilled (I am really getting sick of saying that) than some other ethnic group(s) but that I think it’s practically impossible and ultimately an unlikely hypothesis. > [@](#): > > Hmm. In 4 it is given that “You take a random person from each group and give them them a task that requires intellectual abilities. It is probable that the person from group A does better.” > > This means that if you take all combinations of people from group A and people from group B and give them a task that requires intellectual abilities, then there will be more combinations where the person from group A does better. You propose taking a complete census of populations A and B. This is incompatible with your desire to equate A with Jews and B with Gentiles in step 5. It is practically unfeasable. It seems to me the direction your argument goes is like so– Assume two populations A and B. Assume we have a reliable metric for measuring intelligence. Assume A is, on average, more educated than B. Assume that education correlates positively with intelligence. Assume that Jews are better educated than Gentiles. Therefore, A=Jews and B=Gentiles. Therefore, on average, A performs better than B on the intelligence metric. Therefore, on average, A is more intelligent than B. Is this a fair characterization of your argument? ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/131 "2006-08-20T20:39:52Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] I’d love to take your money doing that bet. Do you actually believe that a professor of 15th century European Economics has an innate advantage in stalking prey, planting and harvesting crops, diagnosing physical ailments in livestock, analyzing mechanical problems in a car, programming a computer, determining tides, or constructing a house than other people? Achieving a professorship indicates that the person has demonstrated some (minimum) capacity to learn one series of topics, lecture on them, and play college politics sufficiently well to acquire tenure. These tasks require intelligence, but they are hardly representative of twenty random tasks from human history also rqiring intelligence. [/QUOTE] Yes I believe that. I also believe we have found the core of our disagreement. ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/132 "2006-08-20T20:41:39Z")
I don’t think stalking prey should be in the bag though. That would be largely dependent on physical abilities. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/133 "2006-08-20T22:00:45Z")
[QUOTE=mr. jp] I don’t think stalking prey should be in the bag though. That would be largely dependent on physical abilities. [/QUOTE] I think that **now** we have come to the core of our disagreement. I suspect that you are not aware of the actual amount of intellect required to perform any number of different tasks. (Note that I did not say “bringing down prey” but “stalking prey.”) (I also suspect that you have an inflated view of just how much intellect it takes (relative to other tasks) to be a professor. I am a big advocate of a liberal arts education for the preparation it gives (when done correctly) to take on a wide variety of challenges. However, I am also aware that it is possible to get through a liberal arts curriculum by avoiding a lot of challenges and the preparation that accompanies them. While I had brilliant teachers, I also had several instructors of whom the **best** that could said of them was that they were not as dumb as a box of rocks.) ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/134 "2006-08-20T22:11:17Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] I think that **now** we have come to the core of our disagreement. I suspect that you are not aware of the actual amount of intellect required to perform any number of different tasks. (Note that I did not say “bringing down prey” but “stalking prey.”) [/QUOTE] Sure it would require some intellect. But I think it would be better if we filled the bag with stuff that relies only on intellect, and not on physical abilities as well. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/135 "2006-08-20T22:20:07Z")
So, we should eliminate anything that requires such physical abilities as writing and typing? How about talking, which is only necessary to communicate the brilliant ideas we entertain? ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/136 "2006-08-20T22:25:12Z")
[QUOTE=nameless] It seems to me the direction your argument goes is like so– Assume two populations A and B. Assume we have a reliable metric for measuring intelligence. Assume A is, on average, more educated than B. Assume that education correlates positively with intelligence. Assume that Jews are better educated than Gentiles. Therefore, A=Jews and B=Gentiles. Therefore, on average, A performs better than B on the intelligence metric. Therefore, on average, A is more intelligent than B. Is this a fair characterization of your argument? [/QUOTE] Somewhat. I don’t see why we need “Assume we have a reliable metric for measuring intelligence” and “Therefore, on average, A performs better than B on the intelligence metric” ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/137 "2006-08-20T22:27:56Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] So, we should eliminate anything that requires such physical abilities as writing and typing? How about talking, which is only necessary to communicate the brilliant ideas we entertain? [/QUOTE] Well if the result of your work depends a lot on your skills in typing, then we should eliminate those. I would count talking as a mental ability, unless we are thinking about the tone of your voice, or similar. ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/138 "2006-08-20T22:34:54Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] I also suspect that you have an inflated view of just how much intellect it takes (relative to other tasks) to be a professor. [/QUOTE] Perhaps. So are you saying that there is some factor you can call “intellect”, which might be an advantage in becoming a professor? ---
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/139 "2006-08-20T22:36:07Z")
[QUOTE=mr. jp] Somewhat. I don’t see why we need “Assume we have a reliable metric for measuring intelligence” [/quote] Because we currently lack one, and it’s a major obstacle to your argument. Perhaps if you ignore the absence of one, it makes the argument more believable? > [@](#): > > “Therefore, on average, A performs better than B on the intelligence metric” How else do you establish that A is more intelligent? Do you just assume that they are because they are better educated? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2006, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049/140 "2006-08-20T22:44:03Z")
[QUOTE=mr. jp] Well if the result of your work depends a lot on your skills in typing, then we should eliminate those. I would count talking as a mental ability, unless we are thinking about the tone of your voice, or similar. [/QUOTE] Are you able to talk without exercising your lungs, vocal chords, tongue, and lips? Your only apparent objection to stalking was that it included a physical component. Unless you have achieved a mind meld capability, (counter-indicated by the disagreements on this thread), all mental exercises (aside from private ruminations) are accompanied by physical exercises. I suspect that this is a(n inadvertant) hijack, but I am willing to pursue it to demonstrate that your preconceived notions are interfering with your ability to get at your grasp of the object of your argument. To continue with stalking: imagine a device that will bear you effortlessly across any terrain. You are still required to demonstrate many mental faculties to successfully stalk prey. The knowledge and tactics required to stalk a wild boar in dense brush is different than the knowledge and tactics required to stalk a rhinoceros on a plain. The knowledge and tactics required to stalk a solitary tiger are significantly different than the knowledge and tactics required to stalk herd beasts such as bison or wildebeests. Which animals are more reliant on sight and which on hearing or smell? Which animals present a double or triple threat to your success (or your life) by having excellent vision and/or hearing and/or smell? Which animals sense vibrations in the ground? Can one approach an animal closely enough to thrust a spear into its side? Or must it be slain by an arrow or stone projected over a distance? What if its hide and head are too thick to suffer injury from a projectile hurled from a distance, but it is too aware of its surroundings to be approached with a thrusting spear? Will an animal go down when clubbed to the head? Or will it need to have a vital organ pierced? Do you really think that such questions are a matter of “some” intellect? Or are you, perhaps, dismissing an area of intellect because you do not have the experience to recognize how much is required? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-explains-the-sdmbs-large-jewish-membership/369049.md?page=8)