Then there’s the problem of Jews being overrepresented in the Obama administration. At least Cornel West thinks it’s a problem.
*"O.K., but did you also have to say that Obama “feels most comfortable with upper-middle-class white and Jewish men who consider themselves very smart”?
“It’s in no way an attempt to devalue white or Jewish brothers. It’s an objective fact. In his administration, he’s got a significant number of very smart white brothers and very smart Jewish brothers. You think that’s unimportant?”*
Of course it’s important. Bad enough that our President feels comfortable around white people, he’s compounding it by listening to Too Many Jews, thus betraying the principles on which he was elected.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I actually buy into your cultural explanation (the ultimate explanation is surely a mixture of several factors). On the other hand, the comparison with China is not one of an order of magnitude, it is one of two orders of magnitude (in terms of general population, for now). With their efforts to boost their scientific base we might soon see the same two orders of magnitude comparing fields in science and mathematics. The smartest of the smartest there will be --by definition-- questioning all truths presented to them. Unless you believe their cultural factor retards them in their endeavors by about two orders of magnitude, I think a Chinese “takeover” is bound to happen (not in a bad sense, mind you).
Only time will tell. It will depend what that Chinese aparatchiks will decide to do strategically. It still baffles me that they could pull this whole pseudo-communism thing off so far, anyway.
I don’t disagree, but for now you can apply your meaningful denominator eyes on China - What percent of Chinese citizens are getting a crack at higher education? Well out of the 1.3 billion plus in China there are, according to Wikipedia anyway, a mere 6 million enrolled in colleges and universities. And those numbers are a recent development; the Cultural Revolution had gutted their higher educational system. At this point the odds are that while the world Jewish population is a paltry 13 million, 1/1000th of the Chinese population, the number of Jews with college education or better is not all that much less than the number of Chinese with such. Yes, to be sure, the Chinese are, as much as they can, selecting the best and brightest of their 1.3 billion to get the opportunity of higher education, but there are many many innately bright people locked away in small villages, not getting the chance to advance very far.
I think a great amount of good science will come out of China, and given the numbers their share of Nobel level work will increase. But only part of what made Einstein Einstein was his IQ; another part of it was his cultural heritage to try argue with conventional wisdom. Not every scholar or academic does that. His attitude was this: “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.” And that was a product of his culture. China will produce some who have that combination as well, but per individual with an Einstein level IQ, they will produce fewer Einsteins … for now. I too expect that to change over time. Like the exposure to a wide variety of ideas, I think the tendency to question, doubt, and critically evaluate is also much more widespread across many cultures now, and it will gradually become the norm there as well.
[COLOR=black]I agree comparison with the world population overstates the case because [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]of historical and persisting differences in opportunity. However, the ratio [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]22% : 0.2% (110 to 1) is so enormous that it justifies investigation on an [/COLOR]
intuitive basis alone.
[COLOR=black]It is specious to limit the population from which the sample is drawn to PhDs, [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]reason for which I have drawn attention to, and will elaborate below. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]Did anyone say there were not?[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]For the second time: When are you going to tell us why the Law of large numbers [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]has failed so completely to account for past and present conditions? [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]What is debatable? I would think to start with that all PhD programs are [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]extremely selective, with only the best 10% or fewer BS/BA considered[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]for admission. And then there are those programs, like physics, requiring [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]mastery of advanced calculus, and probably other higher mathematics[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]such as the geometry of more than three dimensions. That would narrow [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]the field of potential applicants down to well under 1% of all BS/BA.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]I do not think the argument is worthwhile.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]This is an unreasonable number to ask for, since it is often forbidden to even [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]ask an applicant about his religious background. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]Yes, as you seem to acknowledge approvingly.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]In the interest of transparency I should relate that the 131 Jewish NP [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]for Chemistry-Physics-Medicine combined [/COLOR][COLOR=black]include 14 with one Jewish parent, [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]one with three Jewish grandparents, and [/COLOR][COLOR=black]one convert to Judaism. IMO [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]those with less than full Jewish ancestry should [/COLOR][COLOR=black]be considered fractionally. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]Since the list includes several whose parents converted [/COLOR]from Judaism
I am not sure it is consistent to include a convert to Judaism.
[COLOR=black]I think I have addressed this. Although Medical School might not be [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]as hard to get into as a Physics PhD program, it is nevertheless highly [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]selective. Therefore the poster you responded to would be making [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]the correct comparison. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]You already have one.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]I disagree any stat has been wasteful, although some may be useful only[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]as starting points for discussion.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]Speaking of context, I was referring not to the data, which is clear-cut, [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]I was referring to the reason underlying the data. I may have been guilty [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]of overdismissiveness of several quite believable if speculative suggestions[/COLOR]
made by other members.
[COLOR=black]I have already placed my bet on this. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]But consider how many more people have access to quality education [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]now than 100 years ago, and ask yourself why the Jews are still churning [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]NP at a rate of better than one per year for the last six decades. [/COLOR]
Because Jews are the 110:1 smartest, brightest, most influential, irresistibly handsome ueber-poeple. If only those two remaining bastards Newton and Mozart were Jewish, too… ah, they must have secretly been so, anyway!
You seem to be taking this a bit personally, as if you are being personally
slighted. Get over it. I don’t resent Jewish overachievement (I am not a Jew),
or any one else’s, nor should you.
Hahaha- You must realize you are using the bon mot of physics
NP winner Wolfgangi Pauli, of Exclusion Principle fame. When another
physicist proposed something that Pauli conisdered to be very poor
science he would say “that is so bad that it is not even wrong” or
some words to that effect.
Probably more like 20:1 or 30:1 as of now.
Christ? Marx? (even if their stars are suddenly waning). Come to think of it
probably so.
I would say 1:1 i.e. average-looking.
I think Jews were barred from the great universities of Europe
until well into the 19th century. Had educational emancipation
taken place earlier Newton might have had a run for his money.
Musicians? Hm; among classical composers all I can think of is Mendelsson.
Bob Dylan and Simon & Garfunkle are among the greats of Rock and Roll
(Dylan’s *Like a Rolling Stone *was picked by the magazine Rolling Stone as #1 of the 500 best songs of all time)
Median Household Income: 2009
Indians $88,538
Filipinos $75,146
Chinese $69,037
Japanese $64,197
American Jews $54,000
Koreans $53,025
Jewish intelligence = hype
It’s interesting to note that the Nobel Prize Laureates Richard Feynman and Francis Crick had respective IQs of 125 and 115. Richard Feynman is widely considered to be the last great scientist of the 20th century. Therefore, I’d say we can only rely on IQ statistics to approximate their average intelligence because statistics like the number of Nobel or Fields Medal laureates is really meaningless IQ-wise. It’s like approximating the average height of a race by calculating the number of NBA MVPs.
Last I checked, scientists were not paid as much as bankers - not even close. Does that mean that, as a group, scientists are not as intelligent as bankers?
If so, becomming a graduate student is a certain sign of stupidity.
Firstly, as Marley23 pointed out, the previous discussion dates back to 2004. So, yanno, not really an active topic.
Secondly, it could very well become an interesting and active discussion. But the definition of “interesting and active” around here relies upon actual fact, rational argument, and being able to support your claims.
So with that in mind, you might be well-served to construct a coherent point and be able to back it up.
Instead of comparing the number of Jews who has won the Nobel Prize we should be looking at the number of scientists who have been cited many times for a scientific paper, upward of, say, 40 000 times.
I wonder what those numbers would have been 50 years ago. In my town at least, we have a large population among these groups of the best and the brightest of people from their home countries, who excelled at university, came here to study, and got high salary engineering jobs. Many of these first generation immigrants are living in expensive houses. (I’m not complaining - they earn every penny of their salaries and have contributed tons to the country.) My great grandparents lived in tenements.
There was selection for people with guts coming here in the 1880s - 1910s, not necessarily those with the highest intelligence, and definitely not for those with money who often were doing just fine.
So, I don’t think your statistics say anything very interesting.
