# Why ARE so many high-level scientists Jewish? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 25, 2004, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973 "2004-09-25T00:18:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![AnalogSignal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/analogsignal/32/1085_2.png) [@AnalogSignal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AnalogSignal)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/121 "2012-03-02T07:30:43Z")
Jackie Mason pretty much nailed it in his Jews vs. Gentiles routine: “Every Jewish mother told her child, ‘You should work with your mind, not with your hands.’” In other words, scientists, doctors, and lawyers are highly respected jobs in Jewish culture whereas construction workers and truck drivers are not. I don’t think there is any genetic advantage and I know plenty of Jewish dummies. But the bright ones will usually be encouraged to enter fields, like science, where they can make full use of their brain power. In short, the answer is it’s cultural. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/122 "2012-03-02T10:53:26Z")
There is also the issue that once a profession becomes dominated by a specific social group its a hell of a lot easier for others of that group to enter into the profession. Its a lot of strong and subtle social pressues. Also science is a field that it takes a lot of “faith” to enter into, the amount of education and cost required demands family and community support. And they aren’t going to support such a long and costly endeavor unless they are confident it will pay off, and this confidence comes from personal examples they know of. ---
**Author:** ![objectivity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ccd318/32.png) [@objectivity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/objectivity)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/123 "2012-03-02T13:09:33Z")
I’ve read Lynn’s review and basically he says their IQ is 110, but I’ve seen so many methodological problems with his review that I wouldn’t even claim that he’s right even if I were of Jewish descent. First 3 of the studies, measure verbal IQ, with the same standard we’d say that women are more intelligent than men since they have higher verbal IQ and lower performance IQ. Secondly, the sample sizes are too small. Thirdly, There were only 4 researches cited, although there are several studies done, 1 being his own research. Fourthly, there were many old studies. ---
**Author:** ![objectivity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ccd318/32.png) [@objectivity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/objectivity)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/124 "2012-03-02T13:10:43Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Simply not true. As I already noted, DNA has already established that Ashkenazim are of the same stock as other Jews–all originating in the far West of Asia at the East end of the Mediterranean Sea, not in the “Eastern” part of Eurasia, and more closely related to other Middle Eastern peoples than to other groups. > [Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes - PMC](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18733/?tool=pmcentrez) By Eastern part of Eurasia, I meant outside Europe. ---
**Author:** ![objectivity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ccd318/32.png) [@objectivity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/objectivity)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/125 "2012-03-02T13:11:59Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Read the Harpending paper I [linked](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14827757&postcount=102). It discusses how this could arise. It’s just speculation without any actual evidence. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/126 "2012-03-02T13:31:55Z")
> [@objectivity](#): > > I wouldn’t even claim that he’s right even if I were of Jewish descent. So you think that Jews are engaged in some sort of active agenda to promote a view of our intellectual superiority, or we just happen to claim it individually? Meanwhile, you have yet to cite your original claims about income. You have not explained how income is a predictor or indicator of IQ. You have also not clarified why on Earth you’re talking about Khazars and Eurasia and what have you. P.S. Old studies are perfectly valid, and including things like “studies were old” reveals that your argument is flailing. ---
**Author:** ![objectivity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ccd318/32.png) [@objectivity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/objectivity)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/127 "2012-03-02T13:36:47Z")
Income is correlated with IQ, just like SAT scores are. I am not saying the correlation is very high, but it should give you an idea of their intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![objectivity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ccd318/32.png) [@objectivity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/objectivity)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/128 "2012-03-02T13:38:51Z")
Old studies often have some methodological biases. [http://www.isteve.com/IQ\_Table.htm](http://www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm) Moreover, the bigger the sample is the lower the average IQ tend to be. A small sample of 400 is not representative of a population of 10 million. Common sense would tell you that. ---
**Author:** ![objectivity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ccd318/32.png) [@objectivity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/objectivity)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/129 "2012-03-02T13:54:02Z")
Another statistic: 74.1% of Taiwanese have at least a bachelor degree, compared to 59% for American Jews. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/130 "2012-03-02T14:00:07Z")
> [@objectivity](#): > > Income is correlated with IQ, just like SAT scores are. You have no citation for this claim, nor an analysis of the metrics used to reach it. You have no analysis of how correlation would reveal income in any case (and correlation would require you to know the people’s IQ’s first in any case) You have no citation for your original claim about income. You have no analysis of what you’re trying to do with your “Khazars/Eurasians” angle, either. > [@objectivity](#): > > Old studies often have some methodological biases. Fallacy of division to go from that claim to an attempt to dispute individual studies because they are also old. Additionally, a well randomized sample of 400 can indeed be highly representative of the population at large. > [@objectivity](#): > > 74.1% of Taiwanese have at least a bachelor degree, compared to 59% for American Jews. Is this yet another statistic you’ve pulled from the aether without a citation? Further, what causative relationship is there between IQ and college attendance? Further, even if true, what does the fact of another group having higher attendance have to say about the intelligence of the first group, even if we accept that college attendance is indicative of intellect? All that we would be able to conclude is that Group A is smarter than Group B on average. Between racist blabber and nonsense, you’ve offered nothing to this debate. Try actually spelling out your position and making a coherent argument for it. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/131 "2012-03-02T14:12:10Z")
_This_ thread up again? Oy. ---
**Author:** ![objectivity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ccd318/32.png) [@objectivity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/objectivity)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/132 "2012-03-02T14:13:22Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > You have no citation for this claim, nor an analysis of the metrics used to reach it. > You have no analysis of how correlation would reveal income in any case (and correlation would require you to know the people’s IQ’s first in any case) > You have no citation for your original claim about income. > You have no analysis of what you’re trying to do with your “Khazars/Eurasians” angle, either. > > Fallacy of division to go from that claim to an attempt to dispute individual studies because they are also old. > > Additionally, a well randomized sample of 400 can indeed be highly representative of the population at large. > > Is this yet another statistic you’ve pulled from the aether without a citation? > Further, what causative relationship is there between IQ and college attendance? > Further, even if true, what does the fact of another group having higher attendance have to say about the intelligence of the first group, even if we accept that college attendance is indicative of intellect? All that we would be able to conclude is that Group A is smarter than Group B on average. > > Between racist blabber and nonsense, you’ve offered nothing to this debate. Try actually spelling out your position and making a coherent argument for it. You’ve never studied in math I assume, because statistically a sample of 400 is not representative of a group of 10 million. If you publish a medical research that has a small sample relative to the group studied, it won’t be taken seriously by the authorities, though years of research may confirm your conclusion in the end. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/133 "2012-03-02T14:31:25Z")
> [@objectivity](#): > > You’ve never studied in math I assume I see that you’re going to ignore all the massive holes in your argument and not actually put it forward. As it is, you’re the one who doesn’t understand statistical methodology. A properly randomized sample of 400 can indeed be a representative sample for a greater population group. But as you’re the one who’s made the bombastic claim, why don’t you provide a citation that a randomized group of 400 respondents isn’t valid? Unless, of course, it’s yet another claim you’re going to make without a cite. [Here’s a cite that you can use to see that, yah, it can be pretty accurate.](http://www.vanamburggroup.com/tool-statistical-validity.php) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/134 "2012-03-02T15:22:49Z")
> [@objectivity](#): > > You’ve never studied in math I assume, because statistically a sample of 400 is not representative of a group of 10 million. It can be. You can’t make a blanket statement like this. > [@](#): > > If you publish a medical research that has a small sample relative to the group studied, it won’t be taken seriously by the authorities, though years of research may confirm your conclusion in the end. That’s not necessarily true either. ---
**Author:** ![objectivity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ccd318/32.png) [@objectivity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/objectivity)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/135 "2012-03-02T16:04:35Z")
Sample sizes were 90, 100 150 and 400 Three of the tests administered were verbal or vocabulary test. Biased much. ---
**Author:** ![objectivity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ccd318/32.png) [@objectivity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/objectivity)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/136 "2012-03-02T16:06:59Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I see that you’re going to ignore all the massive holes in your argument and not actually put it forward. > As it is, you’re the one who doesn’t understand statistical methodology. A properly randomized sample of 400 can indeed be a representative sample for a greater population group. But as you’re the one who’s made the bombastic claim, why don’t you provide a citation that a randomized group of 400 respondents isn’t valid? Unless, of course, it’s yet another claim you’re going to make without a cite. > > [Here’s a cite that you can use to see that, yah, it can be pretty accurate.](http://www.vanamburggroup.com/tool-statistical-validity.php) Surveys often deal with boolean-type variables, IQ studies deal with quantitative data. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/137 "2012-03-02T16:10:16Z")
So you’re pretty much just going to move on with random errors on new subjects, every time you’re shown to be wrong on one point, and you’re not ever going to actually support your thesis. A thesis which, at this point, seems to be something about the Khazar myth and Jews. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/138 "2012-03-02T16:15:15Z")
So what level scientists are we talking about? Do they have any epic science feats yet? ---
**Author:** ![objectivity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ccd318/32.png) [@objectivity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/objectivity)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/139 "2012-03-02T16:44:57Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > So you’re pretty much just going to move on with random errors on new subjects, every time you’re shown to be wrong on one point, and you’re not ever going to actually support your thesis. A thesis which, at this point, seems to be something about the Khazar myth and Jews. When was I wrong and on what point? All I am saying is that it’s unlikely that they have an IQ of 115. In fact, the burden of proof is on you, since it’s like the most unlikely thing for which there is no proof at all. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2012, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973/140 "2012-03-02T17:27:03Z")
> [@objectivity](#): > > When was I wrong and on what point? All I am saying is that it’s unlikely that they have an IQ of 115. In fact, the burden of proof is on you, since it’s like the most unlikely thing for which there is no proof at all. You have yet to provide a link to your claims regarding family income of different ethnic groups in the US. Please provide one. Also please provide a link for your claim that 74 percent of all “Taiwanese” have college degrees. Thanks [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-so-many-high-level-scientists-jewish/265973.md?page=8)