All I am trying to say is that we need more data on Jews to better approximate their intelligence level, which is probably higher than gentile whites, but not as high as people have claimed.
That is a better attempt, but still not a proper hyperlink. It’s actually also not a proper citation in a research paper and I suspect that you cut and pasted it from somewhere you found it without realizing that it would have been listed as a proper citation in the Works Cited/Works Consulted section(s).
Further errors you’ve committed are that you’ve now shifted the discussion from sub-populations of Jews to “Jewish people […] as a group”, have substituted “certain types of spatial or perceptual problems” for “performance IQ” (itself not necessarily a sound match with G) and have yet to provide any actual evidence or supporting logic for your main position, which seems to be amorphous and slapdash.
You will, I’m sure, find that arguing with Dopers is “like talking to a wall” just as every other poster who posts YouTube videos, refuses to acknowledge/correct most of their mistakes, disdainfully refuses to provide citations to their own claims, supports crank views (e.g. phrenology) and believes that those who agree with them are open minded and those who do not must be closed minded. The fault, however, is not with the intellectual culture of the Dope.
You are, of course, welcome to change your argument at any point and actually provide a cogent, coherent premise which is supported by logic and (actual) facts which are well cited.
…owned.
Believe what you want. Seriously, I don’t care. Arguing with you was probably the most pleasurable experience I’ve ever had (sarcasm).
phrenology is stupid.
Just a hint, but finally providing a cite for something (which is behind a paywall in any case) does not earn you any sort of ‘points’.
Claiming that doing what you should have done initially, much later, also does not count as a victory. “I finally posted a cite, lol, I pwn3d u!” is, perhaps, not a particularly convincing rejoinder.
All you’ve actually done is provide a link to an abstract which states that Jews tend to have higher verbal intelligence than gentiles. If you have not figured it out yet, what you’re supposed to do is actually construct a cogent, coherent argument. You still haven not done so.
But if picking out isolated facts and claiming that you’ve “owned” someone is more your style, I guess you can try that and see how it works out for ya.
I seriously only read like the first 2 lines of every post you’ve made (including this one), so I wonder what point of contention you’ve brought forth this time.
Right now, the Chinese and Indians are far more overrepresented in science and engineering than American Jews. At least, that’s what the media suggest. I have yet to see concrete evidence of that. Jewish students, nowadays, are overrepresented in finance, laws and business in my knowledge.
Anyway, learn to use Google and read about the subject next time you argue with someone on this.
I trust that you believe you’re making a point. You’re not.
Further basic (tacit) logical and factual errors you seem to be making are that the WAIS does not just include “certain types of spatial or perceptual problems” but is designed to provide a broad sampling of visuo-spatial and reasoning problems. Saying that there is average performance in “certain types” of problems does not indicate that the class, as a whole, provides difficulty. You have also not addressed the fact that the WAIS in general, and its PIQ do not necessarily strongly match G.
You have, however, provided a link to a JPEG. With no elaboration, analysis or, indeed, comment from you.
This is perhaps not the best way to advance a cogent, coherent, well reasoned argument.
LOL!
A review by
MacDonald (1994,p.190) concludes that “taken together, the data suggest a mean IQ
in the 117 range for Ashkenazi Jewish children, with a verbal IQ in the range
of 125 and a performance IQ in the average range”.
Stop nitpicking and then providing all alternate possibilities to try make me look bad.
Well the question was not why they are over-represented in certain areas*, but why they are over-represented at the very top levels of creative accomplishment in those areas. Besides prizes you could also look at who have been the drivers of social and technological change: such as Sergey Brin and Larry Page of Google founding fame; Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook; Larry Ellison of Oracle; Calvin Klein and Ralph Lauren and many others who helped create the modern fashion industry; Howard Schultz of Starbucks fame;a whole slew of social and political activists of virtually every part of the social political spectrum, even anti-Semitic hate groups; oh the list can go on … on to the usual place of noting how Jews are over-represented in the movie, media, and financial industries as well … “Oh No! Jews have too much control! It’s a conspiracy!” Yeah, it always goes there.
The question is a fair one. I still reject genetics as a prime driver even though I can no longer claim, as I did in 2004, that there is “no” evidence of a genetically based IQ difference, still argue for the primacy of cultural factors, and still predict that the factors that drove these numbers are becoming less exceptional in today’s interconnected world. The future will much more likely see the bulk of these prizes going to individuals from China and India, I think.
*But btw they are:
I tend to look at things holistically instead of over-analyzing a certain point, so obviously you don’t look at the big picture and make pointless remarks on narrow points.
We’ve been over this, and this is not a proper hyperlink. Still, better than the nothing you’ve been providing up until now, I suppose.
You still, however, are committing several logical and factual errors. To begin with the WAIS is not necessarily strongly linked with G. You are also dramatically simplifying, to the point of error, the actual work that McDonald did.
I assure you, I am not trying.
Would you care to talk more about phrenology?
The young ones don’t study science or engineering, or so I’ve heard. I’ve heard that the engineering department of Harvard is literally littered with Indians and Chinese.
That’s one review.
There have nevertheless been a number of studies of the intelligence of Jews
in the United States. Among those who have discussed this question, there is a
general consensus on two points. First, that Jews have a higher average IQ
than gentile whites (this term is used for non-Jewish whites). Second, that Jews
are stronger on verbal ability than on visualization and visual-spatial
ability. Beyond this, there is a considerable range of conclusions. A review by
MacDonald (1994,p.190) concludes that “taken together, the data suggest a mean IQ
in the 117 range for Ashkenazi Jewish children, with a verbal IQ in the range
of 125 and a performance IQ in the average range”. Storfer (1990,p.314)
writes that “Jewish people, considered as a group, tend to excel in some cognitive
domains – for example, verbal and numerical ability – but not in others, as
witness their unexceptional performance on certain types of spatial or
perceptual problems. Storfer concludes that American Jews have an average IQ of about
112 on the Stanford-Binet, largely a test of verbal ability.
Herrnstein and Murray (1994, p.275) reach a similar conclusion “A fair
estimate seems to be that Jews in America and Britain have an overall IQ mean
somewhere between a half and a full standard deviation above the mean, with the
source of the difference concentrated in the verbal component” (1994, p.275). In
the sample they analysed, Jews had an average IQ of 112.6 in relation to
American whites on four verbal subtests (word knowledge, paragraph comprehension,
arithmetic and mathematics) of the AFQT (Armed Forces Qualification Test). Their
estimate of a Jewish advantage of between a half and a full standard
deviation is equivalent to an IQ range of 7.5 to 15 IQ points. The estimates proposed
by Storfer and Herrnstein and Murray are similar but much lower than that
suggested by MacDonald (1994).
Despite the widespread consensus on the high Jewish verbal ability, not all
studies have shown that Jews have a higher verbal IQ than gentiles.
Furthermore, virtually all the existing studies are unsatisfactory because the samples
have been unrepresentative, very small or for other reasons. An early study
carried out in the mid-1920s of 702 Jewish and 1030 non-Jewish white 9-13 year
olds tested with the Pintner-Cunningham test (a largely verbal test) by Hirsch
(1926) found the Jewish children obtained a mean IQ only 1.5 IQ points higher
than the gentiles. However, at this time a number of Jewish families spoke
Yiddish as their first language and this would have handicapped the children to an
unknown extent. A later study by Shuey (1942) of students entering Washington
Square College in New York in 1935-7 tested with the American Council
Psychological Examination, a test of verbal abilities (with subtests of completion,
arithmetic, artificial language, analogies and opposites) found that 764 Jewish
freshmen scored 1.2 IQ points below 236 non-Jewish whites. All the students
were native born, possibly suggesting that the performance of the Jewish
students was unlikely to have been depressed by unfamiliarity with the English
language although some of these may still have been speaking Yiddish as their first
language.
Jeremy Lin got a perfect score on the math portion of the SAT. He doesn’t look intelligent, yet he had very good grades. PROVING THAT WORK ETHICS CAN MAKE YOU SUCCESSFUL. Not saying that all Chinese are smart as a result of work ethics, but that a large portion of the population can become “smart”.
You are allowed to make a coherent set of logical claims in a cogent manner which inform and support an overall conclusion.
It might even be encouraged.
For serious, a claim that certain people “look intelligent” and that can be used as some sort of… something?
Please oh please tell me you’re finally willing to really talk about phrenology.
