Of course they are. If you are going to posit that Jewish superiority is due to genetics, you are implying they are a race of people (using race colloquially). Furthermore, this is not the first time this question has been asked here or elsewhere, and the idea that Jews are a race is not controversial as a non-scientific proposition. Even the Supreme Court once ruled Jews are a race in terms of anti discrimination. The fact that you try to pretend people aren’t arguing that is pretty surprising to me.
Which is obvious and doesn’t need to be said. However, the point is that you can’t accept as a predicate that Jews are more successful, etc. if you define the terms loosely in the way that is more advantageous to your side.
Why? At what point are their offspring no longer Jewish? Are they always Jewish? If I convert tomorrow, am I Jewish?
I disagree. Most who do self-identify as Jewish are those who are at least somewhat connected to the religion in terms of education, culture, or religious value and ceremonies. That is a relatively high barrier of entry given that often means Hebrew school, bat mitzvahs, etc. More importantly, self-identification means most who choose to do that will be in keeping with the expectations and criteria associated with the group membership. Did you look at the Slate article I linked to earlier? It stated the “Jewish global population shrunk from at least 5 million to as little as 1 million between the year 70 and 650”. Now let’s assume those 4 million people still have living progeny. Are they Jewish? Why or why not? And if you argue they are not Jewish because they couldn’t hack it, then how does Judaism become much more than a selective, and self-selecting club?
Correct. Which makes it less likely we are identifying all those who are actually “Jewish”, but instead those who fit into the community; those who are similar to the rest of the flock.
But you are accepting as a predicate that actual Jews are over represented when there is not as much evidence of that as you would think, and there is no consistent, meaningful definition of what a Jew is.
Your list is highly selective. The work Shechtman was awarded for was done at Johns Hopkins.
Did post docs in US at CMU and MIT. According to wiki, she was inspired to do the work for which she was awarded the prize at MIT under William Nunn Lipscomb.
Yes, but mostly educated in the US.
No arguments there. Although it’s worth noting they were collaborators.
Again, they are all plausibly connected to Israel in one form or another (hence the attribution), but the notion that Israel was integral to their success is strained in many of those cases.
And although you were not the one who made the initial point, this is a really stupid way to compare nations. If we had been having this discussion 20 years ago, no “Israelis” would have won. Would that have proved their death of talent?
It is customary for academics to go on sabbaticals to all kinds of places. If an Israeli professor on sabbatical to the US (like Shechtman or Yonath) makes a discovery that leads to Nobel Prize, they are still Israeli Nobel Prizes. I know that irks you for some reason, but that’s the fact.
Hey Ireland has 7 Nobel winners and only 4.5 million people.
But seriously, Ireland has a tiny Jewish population (currently roughly 2000 out of the aforementioned population) but the country has had several Jewish TDs (aka MPs or what I suppose Americans would call Senators) including a currently serving Minister and numerous other Irish Jews have done very well in their respective fields. And of course, perhaps the most famous fictional Irishman of all time, Leopold Bloom was Jewishish. Whatever overachievement that seems in evidence amongst American Jews also seems to be the case with Irish Jews.
It doesn’t irk me, and I agree that for most intents and purposes, that person is Israeli. My nitpick was in response to your supposition that it should not be based on birth country, but rather where you are educated and spent most of your career.
Sorry but that is a load of crap. “Race” is a very controversial term and about as ill-defined one as is possible, even colloquially. A sub-population that shares some genes in greater frequency than the general population does is not equal to a race. No way no how and I find your use of the term in this context to be foolish and your claim that I am implying such to be offensive.
I may be Jewish but I have no side in this discussion, other than leaning towards the cultural explanations. The op is clear: there are 5.4 million Jews in this country as defined as born to Jewish parents or converted and 6.7 million if you include a looser definition of Jewish heritage. In the world 13.7 million. Out of 316 million Americans and over 7 billion people in the world. So at best 2% of the US and 0.2% of the world. Why is such a small percent of the population (as defined by such identification) over represented as described by the op? Same definition both sides.
Why? Because that is what the religious law states. Matrilineal line, by law, always Jewish, whether they know it or not. And yes, by Jewish law they always are. Even if they convert. Can you convert out of being an Apache? (And no, Apache is not a race.)
Nice but you are wrong. Many Jews have only nominal religious training and are completely secular yet identify strongly as Jews. None of what you claim is required even if some do them, even if most did them. My best friend growing up was Jewish, never went to Temple, family was not members of one, had a Christmas tree, had no Jewish cermonies growing up, but clearly identifies as Jewish. His first Jewish ceremony was his wedding because of who he married. Becoming Jewish if you are not is a high barrier. But once Jewish, such as by birth and being raised by people who say they are, becoming not Jewish is very difficult.
For the purposes of this thread what matters is self-identification, so even though by Jewish law the direct matrilineal line is Jewish all the way down no matter how far removed from identification as such, they do not count for the purposes of this thread … unless they discovered that fact and claimed the identity. Then yes. They are. Even with no Jewish education or rituals. They can claim the identy and have that claim accepted by most other Jews. Dems da rules.
Does not follow at all. If I am raised in Chicago I share some cultural similarities with other Chicagoans. I am not raised there because I fit the Chicago mold; I have some cultural commonality because we shared experiences growing up.
I am accepting a set of observations: the number of people who call themselves Jews is small compared to the population of the United States and infintessimal compared to the population of the world yet that group, so defined, makes up a fairly sizable number of the highest levels of achievement in various areas, such as science and literature. That is an observable fact. I highly doubt that you are actually wanting to claim that Jews actually represent 20% of the world population, not 0.2%, so that Nobel laureate representation is just in keeping with their true numbers if only we weren’t so squishy with our definition … The perennial discussion is about why.
Your argument about Israeli Nobel laureates is strange beyond belief. The claim was made that “Israel does not deliver more then the average number of Nobel prize winners.” and using the cite that poster provided, using the criteria of that cite, the typical means of attribution of country, Israel does. The claim made was simply false. Arguing otherwise is at best a very strange thing to do. If you weant to offer up another means of attribution and apply it to all the countries and then see if the claim is true under those terms, the terms of your particucar sense of a what country atribution should be, go at it. Of course defning the terms as requiring the individuals to have been born and raised in the country may limit the pool somewhat for a country that is only 65 years old.
Ireland’s numbers by the way are quite impressive as well!
Honest opinion, I suspect the greatest percent of intellectual outliers from an inate potential POV are wasting away in Africa for lack of a culture that finds and develops that talent. And in absolute numbers China and India have the best odds of having the greatest number of geniuses. I discount any potential gentic factor as inconsequential to the outcomes we are discussing.
Nonsense. You are either ignorant or naive. How else would you plausibly define race beyond a sub-population that shares genes at a greater frequency? And I don’t want to get into a side debate about the usefulness or validity of the term, but when people use the term, that is usually what they are talking about. Don’t take my word for it, just google it. There are plenty of people who back that notion. For example:
I don’t think there is such an inexplicable over representation in reality. How is that not clear? You keep harking back to using a definition of Jewish that by leaves out many many people. That’s what you keep missing. For example, if you go by religion, Hindus in the US are more educated than Jews. Nigerian-Americans are the most educated immigrant group in the country. Do you hear anybody talking about Nigerian or Hindu cultural superiority? It’s partly because those groups cannot hide their untalented and poor. This is why using your definition of Jewish is inherently unfair. As I asked before, are those millions of Jews who stopped being Jewish from 75 to 600 or so still Jewish?
That’s absurd. Most of those people would never even know they were considered Jewish, have no affiliation with the religion, and are no more affected by Jewish culture than the average gentile.
Right, because your anecdotes trump mind for some reason :dubious:?
Bullshit. Those rules don’t actually give any insight to the question being asked. I don’t know how else to explain a very basic concept to you. Read the Chosen Few if you need more clarification.
Geeez. Are you deliberately misunderstanding? If someone asks the average lapsed Catholic if they are Catholic, their answer would largely be dependent on whether they want to be identified with that group. Similarly, if you moved from Chicago to CA 40 years ago, you might not consider yourself a Chicagoan. That answer is (again) dependent upon your connection to the place. You are confusing a factual biographical question (eg. are you from Chicago?), with what most consider a subjective question (eg. are you a Chicagoan?). Nobody, especially those who are not religious, cares about what Jewish law states. It’s not if that means anything in the grand scheme of things.
Right, but what does that mean? Are the people who call themselves Jews the only Jewish people by any reasonable definition?
Please list the other countries who make a habit of claiming people who were neither born in the country, nor largely educated in said country are in fact products of that country. I think the US is the only other country that might do such things. The point of my objection was not that the fact is wrong. I acknowledged that in my first post. It was that the number are greatly inflated in large part because Israel often treats any Jews as a de facto Israeli. Can you imagine a situation where a Nobel prize winner born to Swedish parent who grew up in Japan would be considered Japanese? I don’t.
O.K., let’s say for the moment that we consider Jews who stopped being Jewish prior to 600 to be Jews. I’ll go further – let’s say that anyone who would have been considered Jewish prior to the founding of the U.S. in 1776 is Jewish. You’re just moving the question back a step. Now we’re asking, why is it that those people who still consider themselves Jewish, and are still generally accepted by society as Jewish today, disproportionately successful? And now you’re getting right back to the cultural issues. Because you certainly don’t have to be a religious Jew to have been raised with many of the cultural elements of Judaism that we’re discussing, such as emphasis on education and certain professions.
So why do you think that people who have retained some connection, religious or otherwise, to their Jewish roots, are disproportionately successful?
That Fey isn’t Jewish is why she was included in the comparison. YOU try to find an attractive, funny woman people have heard of and who’s not Jewish. And Silverman’s, or anyone’s, actual beliefs are as irrelevant to this discussion as they would have been…no, I’m not going there.
re: genetics. In the broadest sense, we can reason that it could be genetics; nobody with a cat’s genes ever got rich.
But to what (if any) degree are Jews even genetically distinguishable from, uh, gentiles? If the answer is, “you can’t tell a Jew by looking at his genes”, then that’s it for the genetic argument. Otherwise we’d have to take a look at all the Jewish genes and see if any of them contribute to the OP’s question.
But I hope people don’t turn this into an exercise in determining the ‘best’ race. To the best of my knowledge, ‘race’ isn’t really applicable to humans i.e. there may be rare genetic traits but there aren’t any unique ones. And if there were unique, extra-useful genetic traits, (and maybe you ought to shoo any small children away from the screen before they read this) they probably wouldn’t stay unique for long.
As I skimmed the thread, I was surprised that Darwin’s Natural Selection was never hinted at. The Jewish people had severe survival problems during their diaspora; that this led to improvement of fitness is widely hypothesized. Yet, posters seemed to embrace some Lamarckian view!
Finally, Wesley Clark stated the obvious. But he was immediately rebuked:
One might imagine studies to explore the question. Seems pointless though, given “political correctness.”
I’ll try to be as sufficnt as I can as I am on my phone. Jewish culture plays a big part as I have noted all along. Jewish societal norms and values push members towards certain occupations, and educational paths. That however is not sufficient to create the disproportinate outcomes we see. The outcomes are more so due to cultural expectations being high enough to push people out rather than to just push people towards successful outcomes. It has both effects, but the disparity is not nearly as stark or apparent if you can’t trim the fat generation after generation. When Jewishness is essentially defined by success, of course a disprotionate amount of the adherents will be successful.
That’s not to say that there isn’t a lot to admire about Jewish culture. Just that on average, it’s no more exceptional at churning out successful members than Nigerian-American culture or Hindu culture in the US. The reason those two are spoken about less is largely because Nigerian-Americans don’t have the luxury of redefining terms to exclude those who don’t fit a certain mold.
You believe that any sub-population that shares genes at a greater frequency, such as Jews as a group, are best described as a race, and that my disagreeing with you makes me “either ignorant or naive.” I will leave this at that I disagree. Strongly. More would be a hijack that would deserve its own thread, but having read those threads before I can tell you that few would agree with you. And please note your cite claiming the term race as something that “used to be” used to describe a sub-group with some shared genetic factors … note the past tense. Yes, and the British used to considered a race. The term is not now used like that.
You believe that there is no “inexplicable over representation in reality.” Yes, that is clear. You believe that. Your explanation for the fact that the world identified Jewish population is 0.2% and much larger numbers in areas cited by the op is merely that Jews are … hiding their uneducated and poor? That there actually are perhaps 100 times more Jews in the world but they are not being counted? Those 99 out of 100 Jews by race don’t identify as Jewish because being Jewish is too much work? Because they do not fit the stereotype so they say they are not Jewish?
I am not sure if you are constructing an argument that claims that the over-representation is a cultural one, that there are 99 out 100 people fail to meet the values of the culture and stop self-identifying and being identified … or a long term genetic one of a selection bias. I am not sure if your belief is that only religiously observant Jews (and if so by whose terms of religiously observant) should count as the n of Jews in the world, or that the n should include these Jews made of dark matter, who are not part of the religion or the culture, who do not identify as Jews, who we cannot see or observe, but you are sure exist in numbers far greater than the numbers of Jews we can observe and measure.
As to the rest of this, I am beginning to experience the sensation of conversing with a brick wall, brickbacon. Yes, I believe that the religious Law can be referred to to answer the question of who is a Jew in a religious sense, and pertinent to this thread, who will be accepted as a Jew by the group without question if they so claim such identity.
You claim that there is high barrier to maintianing a Jewish identity. Yet 37% of those in America who self-identify as Jews consider themselves as only culturally Jewish and do not consider themselves religiously observant at all. Amazingly this 37% are still accepted as Jews by other Jews and by society at large. And those who are poor and unemployed or uneducated are not kicked out. Compared to the American population at large Jews are less likely to be religiously observant. Further my WAG would be that the most religiously observant, those who most maintain the high barrier of continued membership (not entry btw) by being very observant, are the least represented in the “over-achieving” numbers.
And accepted by others as such? Yes. That is how social group identity works.
As to the hijack about Israel and Nobel Prizes. So Abba Eban, Moshe Dyan, Menachem Begin, Golda Meier, Shimon Perez, etc. should not count as Israeli because they were not born or primarily educated in Israel? Your basic belief is that those who immigrate to the United States and obtain American citizenship are not really American?
As to your American Hindu and American Nigerian examples (if you deign to accept these immigrants as American). Let’s play this out … in both those case the reason for the high success rate of those in America is straight forward enough: selection bias. The wealthier more highly educated Hindus can afford to immigrate here and as you article points out -
And the next generation will be raised by highly educated parents who will push/support their kids and make sure they have every oportunity to fully dvelop whatever potential they have. Something most Hindus in India do not get; something Nigerians seem to be doing a better job at than most of Africa. And in the modern world lots of exposure to ideas and willingness to question and develop new ways of doing things, more so perhaps when you are within a few generations of immigration.
These are newer populations though. Give it a generation or two. People will be asking why the over-representation of Hindus and Nigerians too. (Assuming they maintain the identities through generations.)
Let me also note - when they start to ask that the same nature nuture debate will be had. Did those with the genes for greater “intelligence” or creativity manage to migrate here from India and Nigeria, giving rise to smarter group of American Hindus and Nigerians? Or did those of a particular set of cultural values migrate here and pass on those values? And perhaps you’ll be then saying that nah its just that those who could not meet the expectation stopped calling themselves Hindu or Nigerian.
I guess no one is going for theological explanation, so let’s consider the question a little more closely. It would more accurate to ask why are the people who identify themselves as Jews so disproportionately successful, using selective definitions of success, limited to the past hundred years or so, leaving aside the large percentage of Jews who were so unsuccessful they died by the millions within that time frame?
No, I am saying that loosely speaking, that’s what people mean.
No, I am saying that you are either naive or ignorant to think that people don’t often consider Jews a race. I am not saying it is without controversy for various reasons. Just that your shock that someone would describe them that way colloquially is odd to me.
Because race is typically not used in a scientific sense any more. That’s why I specified common usage.
No, I am saying that those who were once Jewish, but found the costs were too high, or that the expectations and norms were not things they could comply with for one reason or another, stopped being Jewish. This is not in doubt. I already linked to a book discussing this very thing in detail. Moreover, you can just look at the basic discrepancy that a religion that’s been around for thousands of years only has 15 million adherents. A religion that at one point claimed 10% of the people in the Roman empire and 25% of Roman population in Eastern Mediterranean. Even considering the famines, antisemitism, etc., the population drop is not explainable by anything other than large number of Jews deciding not to be Jewish. Now why would they do that? As the book I linked to explains, being Jewish back then often meant being an educated man in an agrarian world that didn’t value that. You have to expend great effort and money for little reward. Many people didn’t want to bother. Now those that did, through their faith, developed skills and values that were passed down from generation to generation. Now we see the decedents reaping the rewards.
How is it amazing that society accepts people for who they say they are? Besides, you are again missing the point. Do you think those 37% are multiple generations from being raised in a observant Jewish household? Of course not. They likely just stopped bothering in the past generation or so. A few generations from now, if the trend continues, I seriously doubt their great grandkids will consider themselves culturally or religiously Jewish.
And despite you naive protestations, the fact is there is a high barrier relatively speaking to maintaining a Jewish identity. Don’t take my word for it. See here:
Notice the part about creating an elitist Jewish community. Here’s another cite:
Notice she refers to it as a choice. Another cite:
Now I know you are gonna say, “well, you don’t have to do all of those things”. You are right, you can just be a cultural Jew. The problem is that over time, the culture fades as one typically assimilates into the larger culture. That why immigrant groups of all stripes see the high educational standards and parochial norms vanish in a few generations. Today’s “agnostic cultural Jews” are the parents and grandparents of people who do not identify as Jewish. The result is the same selection bias you see at play with other immigrant groups.
They don’t have to. If you can’t find a woman to marry you, peers to relate to, and comfort in your environment, you will likely remove yourself from the community.
No, I am saying with the exception of the US and Isreal, I know of no other country that makes a habit of claiming people who were neither born or largely educated in a given place are of that place. If David Beckham got US citizenship, would it really be accurate to call him an American? Is Arnold Schwarzenegger American? What about David Ortiz the baseball player? Yes, they would be considered Americans in terms of citizenship, but I don’t think if you casually asked if one of them was American, most would say they are from X country.
As I said, it’s clearly a padded list that does little to prove Jewish exceptionalism either way. I mean, would it make sense for someone having this discussion in 1993 to claim that Israeli are dumb because none have won Nobel prizes?
Correct. They same basic principles apply to Judaism as well. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Jews are disproportionately successful not only because of culture, but also because we weeded out all of those less likely to be successful.
If by some wave of a magic wand, we viewed Nigerian-Americans as utterly distinct from Nigerians in their native country, don’t you think people would be saying the same things about them as people do about Jews? Yes, culture matters. There is a reason some groups do better than others. But you can’t accurately assess such a thing with a group whose membership “requirements” serves to weed out those who do not match certain criteria.
People in those groups typically didn’t make it here unless they were more intelligent and/or creative than average in the first place. They also often don’t get to stay here unless they are wealthy, educated, well-connected, employed, and/or have wanted job skills. In all likelihood, they will raise smart successful kids that share their values and can take advantage of their parents accumulated wealth.
This “what are Jews?” question comes up every single time Jews are discussed.
The answer is this: Jews are neither a race nor a religion - they are a tribe.
Proof: Jews are not a “race” because they do not of necessity share a genetic heritage - it is possible to convert. Sammy Davis Jr. is as much a “Jew” as I, although he is visibly Black and I am not. More to the point, Ashkenazic Jews and Ethiopian Jews are not particularly genetically similar.
Jews are not a “religion” because belief in a god is not necessary to be a Jew. There are plently of athiest Jews, who are, nonetheless, Jews.
Being Jewish is also not totally arbitrary - you can’t just call yourself one and be accepted as one by other Jews. You have to be a legitimate member of the tribe.
The rules are pretty simple (though not uncontroversial): you are a member of the tribe if you are born to a member (traditionally, only through the female line - Reform accepts descent through the male line too). Otherwise, you must convert - meaning, get a Jewish congrigation to accept you.
Most congrigations believe you lose Jewish status if you accept another religious identity that conflicts with Judaism. If you accept Jesus as your lord and saviour, you are outta the tribe. Being an athiest, agnostic, or (non-devotional) Buddhist is okay, because that doesn’t contradict Judaism.
What is a tribal identity and how does it differ from race or religion? The main point is theat tribal identity is based on ‘the rules’ for being a member, not simply and wholly on who you are and what you believe (although, as pointed out above, both can be important). The tribe sets its own rules for membership, while “race” is something set by one’s genetic heritage, and “religion” is formal adherence to a set of beliefs.