What explains the SDMB's large Jewish membership?

Great Debates
81

Your proposals present us with two problems:

  1. Despite your persistent efforts to restate what you do mean, all of your definitions continue to come across as claims that Jews have higher IQs. Even when you open a statement with a disclaimer that that is not what you mean, your statment uses words that convey exactly that idea all over again.

  2. Your evidence suffers from a rather large number of preconceptions. Equating Nobel prizes with intellect is probably a valid beginning. However, stepping away from that raw observation to link the number of winners from any ethnic group that happens to supply winners ignores all the other factors that go into the selection process–factors which might skew the results rather badly. (We had a thread discussing some of those phenomena, just a few weeks ago.) The Nobel selection committee tends to choose people whose accomplishments have “stood the test of time.” For most of its history, the selection process was composed of white, Northern European males, submitting nominations from other white, Northern European males for accomplishments by white, Northern European and North American males. Women, who had generally been excluded from science education until around 30 years ago, have fewer representatives. Men and women from areas outside Northern Europe and North America were rarely nominated. (This does not have to be any example of malicious bias. It merely means that the network of people living in a particular part of the world were, prior to the explosion of telecommunication and rapid world travel, simply unaware of the accomplishments of people in more distant lands. (And to the extent that European colonialism suppressed the possibilites for non-white, non-European people to develop their talents, that would still not be the “fault” of the Nobel committee.))

So, when we look at the Nobel winners to draw conclusions about ethnic identity (or sex), we have to recognize that there was a built-in selection bias against many groups from the beginning. Any action that excludes one or more groups from a selection pool will exagggerate the effect on the “survivors” of that exclusion process.

So why have Jews dominated the (European/North American) selection process for the Nobels? The most likely preliminary explanation is that there are simply a lot of Jews employed in those fields that draw the attention of the Nobel committee. Then we move to why are so many Jews involved in those fields?

My assertion is that they have a culture that encourages investigation. (I may be wrong, but I have at least some evidence to support my hypothesis.)

In contrast, you provided

So what does “more skilled” mean? You stated that it is the ability to learn and reason, the capacity for knowldge and understanding. In what way is this not a description of an innate ability? In what way would you distinguish this from IQ? If you are not talking about an inborn characteristic, just what are you talking about?

And “more skilled” than whom? The general population? Some number of researchers and workers in similar fields of study? The fact that you make the claim that they are "more skilled’ (rather than better educated) clearly implies a belief that they have some innate characteristic that gives them “more skill.” What is it?

82

I like to think of it not as Jews being inherently smarter, but that non-Jews go out of their way to make themselves dumber.

83

More skilled than the average of the rest of the population.

Is it not possible for me to say that a group is good at stuff that involves thinking, without me having to decide what is the cause of this?

I don’t know if it’s inborn or not. As I see it, the better “thinking” abilities of jews could be caused by many things. For instance:

-Inborn ability

-A tradition for childraising that stimulates the children more.

-A tradition for intellectual discussion

-A larger thirst for knowledge and education

  • etc.

Btw. The definition I used was the dictionary definition of “intellect”. When I use that word in my daily language, I don’t consider it something that is necessarily inborn.
What I am trying to do is to state that jews are succesful in a lot of areas where you use your intellect. I don’t know whether this is caused by higher IQs or not. For instance, in winning a nobel prize many other factors would be helpful as well. Such as more education, a culture that encourages investigation, etc.

84

A possibly inherited capacity for high-throughput brainware?

85

No, it doesn’t. In the absence of other evidence, all it means is that they have won more nobel prizes. You are basing this extremely broad claim (Jews are more skilled at intellectual pursuits) on very limited and possibly flawed evidence (Jews have won a disproportionate number of nobel prizes and many chess champions are Jewish).

Earlier in the thread, I pointed out that black individuals have won proportionately fewer Nobel prizes. I’m not trying to bait you here, but I ask you–would it be fair to draw the conclusion that black people are less skilled at intellectual pursuits? If you agree with this statement, prepare for a shitstorm. If you disagree with this statement, can you see why it’s equally flawed when applying a positive characterization to a different ethnic group?

86

I am not saying it would be fair to draw that conclusion. It could be caused by many things. But among those possibilities is that they are less skilled in intellectual pursuits. So unless you have another obvious factor that explains the fewer nobel prizes fully, I think it’s fair to say that it is a weak indicator.

Apart from that, I also have other indicators that jews are more skilled intellectually. Chess, as you mention. Also they earn more money, and a disproportionate amount of succesful comedians are jews.

87

mr. jp writes:

> . . . a disproportionate amount of succesful comedians are jews.

Yes, and, as we all know, the smartest people in the world become comedians. Seriously, the percentage of (American) comedians who were Jewish was considerably greater around 1950 than it is today. This was largely because there was a culture of comedian training around New York City in the late nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century in which it was much easier to enter the field if you were Jewish. There were nightclubs in New York and resorts in the Catskills with largely Jewish customers and performers, much more so than in any other region with any other ethnic group. These places trained the comedians who became first the travelling vaudeville performers around all the U.S. and later the radio, TV, and movie writers and performers. It is no more interesting that a disproportionately large percentage of Jews in in the U.S. are comedians than that a disproportionately small percentage of Jews in the U.S. are NASCAR drivers. You tend to be drawn to the careers of the people you know, regardless of whether there are any formal boundaries on what jobs you can aspire to.

For that matter, why did I become a mathematician? I have several times on the SDMB talked about how hard it was for me to make it to getting two master’s degrees and becoming a mathematician, given that I came from a struggling working-class background. A mathematician was, in some sense, already beyond all aspirations that any relatives, teachers, classmates, or neighbors had for me as a child. In my community, where nearly all the fathers were farmers, factory workers, or both (like my father), the absolute best that anyone around me thought that I or anyone else from my community could aspire to was to go to a second-rate state university, scrape through, and come back to teach high school. When I told them that I wanted to go to some first-rate college and perhaps get a Ph.D. in math eventually, they made it clear that they thought I was a snob and a traitor for my aspirations. Only because I had an iron will and truly didn’t care about what other people thought about me was I able to make it.

It would have gone considerably worse for me though if I had wanted to go into some other field than a scientific one. I was in high school in the late 1960’s, and it seems to me that there was a greater respect for science among the American public back then than there is now. This was, after all, the height of the space race. The people in my community at least knew what a scientist was, and if they still thought of me as a snob and a traitor, they at least understood what a scientist was. If I had wanted to become an archeologist, a professor of philosophy, a writer for political magazines, a financial analyst for the S.E.C., an economics Ph.D. who compiles statistics for the Department of Education, a linguist who knows five languages who works as a translator for the U.N., a stockbroker, a ballet dancer, a French horn player in a top orchestra, a museum curator, or any of a host of other professions I could mention, the people I grew up with would simply have thought I was crazy. They may well have refused to believe that such jobs even exist. I probably didn’t even know such jobs existed when I was in high school.

Incidentally, why don’t you capitalize the word “Jew”?

88

NOTE: nameless is in Devil’s Advocate mode.

Okay. Is there a successful black chess player? I can’t think of one. Blacks have higher unemployment (cite), make less on average (cite), and blacks earn fewer graduate degrees (cite). By the standards you were applying above, this is a metric fuckton of evidence that suggests blacks are “less skilled in intellectual matters.” Right? Oh but there are some successful black comedians, so maybe that’s evidence in the other direction.

/Devil’s Advocate

So what is wrong with this reasoning? There are other variables in play, and I’m sure you can think of quite a few. Modern institutional racism, a very recent history of de jure racism, socioeconomic class, etc. I have presented the same type of evidence and drawn the same type of conclusion as you have been doing throughout this thread. Do you see now why this line of argument is defunct?

89

I had a feeling that this board was overrepresented by Jews.

I actually thought about making a thread if there was a “Zionist-mafia” here on the Dope :confused: :smiley:

I’m curious how many of the moderators who have Jewish background though ? This because I’ve noticed that two of the few thread that I started on great debate was stopped by the moderator - both threads that where critical to Israel.

90

Wow! Not only do they control international banking, the United States government, the Illuminati, higher education, and Hollywood, they’ve also infiltrated the SDMB. My god–when will they be satisfied?! :confused: :smiley: :dubious: :cool: :mad: :eek: :frowning:

But mostly, :rolleyes:

91

:eek: :eek: :eek:

92

There actually are a few Moderators who are Jewish.

Unfortunately for your speculation, the one Moderator who shut down your Pit rant inappropriately placed in Great Debates and your other odd thread (which was being pretty savagely mocked by other posters with no sign of a legitimate debate on your part), happens to be a Catholic with no knowledge of any Jewish ancestry extending back through at least six generations.

Sometimes a bad thread is just a poorly thought out thread and sometimes those Jew type persons have nothing to do with what is going on in the world.

93

Nope. As I see it you are making a perfectly functional argument here.

You are listing a number of intellectual pursuits in which black people are doing less good. Now that in itself might be partly explained by black people being less skilled in intellectual matters. But then you offer some other viable theories, the modern institutional racism, etc, which might fully explain why black people are doing less well in those mentioned areas. And if these theories explain it fully, then the data is no longer an indicator that black people are less skilled in intellectual matters (sorry about the long-winded phrase).

Similarly, if you can come up with another reason that will fully explain why Jews are doing well in the mentioned areas, then it is no longer indicated that they are more skilled in intellectual matters. But do you have such a reason?

94

Sloppiness. We don’t do that in my native language, so most often I forget.

95

And why do we have to discuss the issue of black people instead? It is basically the same issue, the only difference is that I sound more racist on that topic.

96

Edit: Not the only difference, but one of the important differences.

97

It’s that a lot of statistical data on the black demographic is available and that in this case we are dealing with a commonly made generalization that is negative (rather than the “Jews are smarter” one, which is positive).

98

This just might suggest to you why you are getting the responses you are. If the two issues are identical, then why would one make you “sound” more racist if–the issues being equal–your arguments did not “sound” racist to your audience?

99

Maurice Ashley.

But as to the question, “Why are their so many Jews on the boards”, are you sure it’s not just selection bias? I mean, in most threads, like “What’s your favorite movie with Brad Pitt”, or “Who invented the shotput”, you’re going to get a cross-section of board members, and you’re probably not going to know their religion. If you ask the question, “How do you kosher a plate”, that’s specific knowledge that Jews are more likely to know than non-Jews, so most of the people posting to the thread will be Jews. So you see that 9 out of the 10 posts were made by Jews, and you say, “Wow, there are a lot of Jews on the SDMB”, when really, you’re just going someplace on the board that Jews are likely to be.

100

Several have already been presented. Selection bias in the Nobel Prize committee, for example, or as tomndebb already mentioned, the possibility that Jewish culture places great emphasis on intellectual pursuit. One reason I continue to object to your absolute statements regarding Jewish intelligence is that your claim extends far beyond the evidence you’re using to support it. To me, this smacks of cherry-picking evidence to support a preexisting hypothesis, which is not intellectually rigorous, to say the least.

Really, I don’t mind people asking dangerous questions–and this line of questioning is controversial–but I do mind people making spurious arguments, especially when dealing with such loaded topics.