You know at this point, and with your previous statement that you refuse to even clarify what your position is I am done. You are wasting my time.
Some yes.
If you read that one you will realize that due to complex reasons, if either parent or both are near the, extremes as far as “smartness” goes, they tend to produce offspring near the mean.
Plus you have made no correlation between IQ and income anyhoo.
Do you really mean it this time?
Not some, the vast majority. The heritability of many traits is very high.
You really have a problem following along. What makes you think the average Jew is so far to the extreme in terms of intelligence to make this an issue? Adidionally, how do you explain the IQ gap between Jews and some others?
There are a number of studies that show that correlation.
Once again you don’t understand terms. Regression to the mean doesn’t preclude multiple generations of people who share certain propensities, skills, and attributes. It just mean two really, really smart people are less like to have a kid as smart or smarter in large part because such an occurance is rare to begin with. It doesn’t mean smart people have increasingly dumber kids particularly since the regression is to the mean of one’s group, not the global population.
“About 45 percent of billionaires are in the top one percent of cognitive ability, the study states. Billionaires were generally smarter than Fortune 500 CEOs, where 38.6 percent were in the top 1 percent of brains. Senators ranked just below that, with 41 percent, along with federal judges 41 percent. Members of the House were less smart, with 21 percent”
The relatively greater “success” of Ashkenazi Jews over Shephardic Jews suggests a genetic component for the overall greater success of Jews versus other populations.
Ashkenazi Jews have been reasonably well-show to demonstrate higher intelligence for a number of quantifiable skillsets. While Ashkenazi and Shephardic Jews might not have identical “cultures” (however one decides to quanitfy that), it makes sense that if a pattern of success were attributable to a higher frequency of genes coding for higher intelligence rather than some sort of Jewish “culture,” then the Ashkenazi would outperform the Shephardic Jews. And this is exactly what we find. There’s no question that culture is at play, but culture is superimposed upon genetic capability. I can’t have a culture driving pursuit of STEM fields without the baseline intelligence capacity to execute the cultural drive. If “Jewish” culture were an acceptable explanation, I’d still need an explanation why the Ashekenazi outperform the Shephardi.
I suspect the gaps between the two groups (in Israel, say) will be similar to other populations compared with one another such as the Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity groups used in the US. The gaps are never closed, and hopeful nurturing explanations always remain the most comfortably popular. Genetic intermixing gradually effaces some of the source population differences over time, and the margins of any population are always soft anyway.
I find the idea that intelligence does not correlate with success to be kind of silly…
CP, the differences between both the cultures and the circumstances of the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim, both historically and in modern Israel, are far greater than you seem to imply and to some degree dismiss, more than ample enough to explain the outcomes observed.
OTOH your genetic explanation would fail to explain why from 700 to 1400 and to a lesser degree 1700 the over-representation of Jews was almost exclusively from within the Sephardic populations. See here.
Howie Mandell is a Jew. So there goes all your theories.
The Shephardim used to do better than the Ashkenazim. The Jews of what is now Spain were Shephardic during the so-called “Golden Age”; Amsterdam in the 18th century had a famous community of very influential Shephardim - few in number but exceedingly successful in business and sciences.
Famous Jews like Spinoza came from that community.
At the same time, the Jews of the Ashkenazic Eastern Europe were mostly associated with poverty and ignorance (think “Fiddler on the Roof”).
If one was to associate superior intelligence with one community during the middle ages through early modern times based on success, it would have been with the Shephardic Jews.
This leads me to disbelieve in genetic explainations, since the genetic potential of groups should not change over such a short period.
Sephardim (or “Sepharadim”). Comes from “Sepharad” - סְפָרַד - “Spain”. Vs. “Ashkenaz” - אַשְׁכְּנַז - “Germany”.
Thanks. 
Well, but the way to check the relative performance of any two groups against one another is to give them approximately the same circumstances, right? So my point is that in the modern post WWII world, we can accomplish that to a greater degree than in the past.
If, in the modern world, the Ashkenazi are more successful than are the Shephardim, it might be either circumstance or a difference in the average frequency of genes underpinning skillsets. To the extent that the groups are either directly juxtaposed (Israel, e.g.) or that they have other similar opportunity, we can better parse out how much of a performance difference might be driven by nature and not nurture.
The Ashekenazi test quite a bit higher on certain quantitative intelligence skillsets. The expected pattern, then, would be for them to be more successful with certain outcomes dependent on those skillsets (such as STEM fields). The observed pattern is consistent with what would be predicted. This doesn’t mean the Shephardim are not in turn more successful than other populations at large.
I don’t pretend to be an expert on all these various populations. I do think it’s abundantly clear that differences in gene frequencies among disparate groups drive phenotypic outcomes, including intelligence and any secondary benefits of intelligence–at least one of which is a greater likelihood of “success.”
Could it be because when they refer to the Jew it is meant as a perjoratives?
I wonder if it the smartest who are able to survive all the persecution?
Given that the Sephardim in Israel are generally the children of those driven from Arab lands, who were mostly relatively poorly educated, and have been and to some degree continue to be by most all accounts subject to significant discrimination in Israel, compared to the the Ashkenazim, whose parents were mostly highly educated voluntary immigrants, and who have mostly controlled the reins of power in Israel, I would put forth that “similar opportunity” and “approximately the same circumstances” are a bit of a stretch.
You might as well claim Sephardic genetic advantage due to their accomplishments in other centuries while given oppotunities during the Golden Age whilst Europe’s Jews eked by in shtetls waiting for the next pogrom.
How did Jews have to learn to cooperate with each other within their families more than most other people in order to survive the last 1500 years of European culture? Wouldn’t they have to learn to repress petty disputes over trivia that less restricted people could allow to cause disunity but still survive?
psik
:p:p:p:):p:p:p
I’m reminded of the old gag about 2 Jews in a room = 3 political parties.
The saddest real-life version of this theme - the last two Jews in Afganistan.
Disproportionately successful when compared to whom? It seems smaller religious communities, operating outside of the dominant faith in a country, tend to produce extremely successful individuals. Look at the Quakers for instance: two of the UK’s big five banks, Lloyds and Barclays were founded by Quakers. They dominated manufacture in some sectors (Rowntree, Cadbury, Fry and Terry were all Quakers, which pretty much covers 100% of the British chocolate market, with Quakers seemingly over-represented in manufacture during the Industrial Revolution, especially of things like iron and brass) were a prominent driving force behind the abolition of slavery and prison reform, and seem over represented in the arts and politics even today.
I agree. Moreover, it doesn’t have to be religious - another example is overseas Chinese in Indonesia.
It seems there is a phenominon where certain minorities actually gain a competitive advantage from minority status that outweighs the obvious disadvantages.
Doesn’t happen with all minorities though. The minority must have certain charateristics. I’d suggest they were something like the following:
I’d predict that any minority that had these characteristics and was not crushed by majority disapproval would do well.
Not just Indonesia, but pretty much all over Southeast Asia. But that may be a different phenomenon since we’re talking about a group that is a minority in all of its home countries, but still with strong ties to the regional powerhouse-- China. Imagine Roman citizens in outposts throughout Europe around the time of Christ.
Quakers and Jews are also minority religious groups that have faced persecution. That’s a good way to develop a cohesive community.