The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Jared Diamond of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" Respectability Anticipated Some of Henry Harpending's "Ashkenazi Intelligence" Theory in 1994 in "Nature"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

As we’ve all been informed over the last days by the teeming members of the Volunteer Auxiliary Thought Police, it’s White Supremacy for gentile whites to notice that Ashkenazi Jews have a higher average IQ score than white gentiles have, much less to speculate that there could be Darwinian reasons for this important feature of the modern world.

And yet the impressive 2005 paper “Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence” co-authored by the much-denounced cultural and genetic anthropologist Henry Harpending has always been taken seriously by the very smartest public intellectuals. Here are articles responding to it by Steven Pinker in The New Republic, Charles Murray in Commentary, and Scott Alexander, the most impressive new public intellectual to emerge in our now-ending decade, on his Slate Star Codex blog.

Today, I learned that one of their peers, Jared Diamond, author of the celebrated 1997 Pulitzer Prize-winning Guns, Germs, and Steel, anticipated some of this theory in a brief article a quarter of a century ago. From Nature in 1994:

HUMAN GENETICS
Jewish lysosomes
Jared M. Diamond

News & Views
Published: 24 March 1994
Nature volume 368, pages 291–292(1994)

A LONG-standing puzzle of human population genetics has been the incidence of a dozen autosomal recessive diseases at high frequencies in eastern European (Ashkenazi) Jews. Best known are Tay-Sachs disease (which is always fatal) and Gaucher disease (which is often serious), both with heterozygote frequencies of several per cent. Why should Ashkenazi Jews, of all people, have been singled out by these genetic curses? …

One simple yet plausible explanation would be that Jews were singled out merely by chance. Deleterious genes may transiently rise to high frequencies in small populations through the founder effect or genetic drift. …

Yet it has always seemed suspicious that three of the common Ashkenazi diseases (Tay-Sachs, Gaucher and Niemann-Pick) all involve lipid storage resulting from defects in three separate lysosomal enzymes (hexosaminidase A, glucocerebrosidase and sphingomyelinase respectively). That seems to suggest that lightning has struck Jewish lysosomes too often to be a coincidence. But the argument is not conclusive, because three similar defects might have been encountered by chance in at least one human population if enough populations were scrutinized for enough diseases.

The case against coincidence would be strengthened if it could be shown that each of those lysosomal diseases in turn had several origins among Jews. In 1979, in the book Genetic Diseases among Ashkenazi Jews, the geneticist Victor McKusick pointed out that “If there are two or more different alleles for the hex-A [Tay Sachs] mutation, which achieved high frequency in the Ashkenazim, this finding would be a powerful argument for selection since chance would not be likely to raise two or more alleles to significant frequencies” (p. 313 of ref. 1).

In that same book several authors went on record as predicting that only a single allele would be found to account for the Ashkenazim’s high frequency of TaySachs or Gaucher disease. The first disease for which this prediction was proved wrong was Tay-Sachs, which is now known to be caused in Ashkenazi Jews by two distinct common mutations as well as by other rare ones. New studies have now reached a similar and even more striking conclusion for Gaucher, the commonest of all the storage diseases.

Five common mutations collectively account for about 97 per cent of Jewish Gaucher disease alleles. Each mutant allele has a measured or estimated heterozygote frequency of 0.05-2.8 per cent- far higher than could be sustained at equilibrium (in the face of deaths or debilitation from Gaucher) by recurrent mutations in the absence of any compensating selective advantage. Four of the mutant alleles occur in Jews in the context of only a single haplotype. That implies that the mutations arose in Jews recently, and only once, and have within a short time been pumped up to high frequencies by selection. Of those four mutations, all are rare or occur at much lower absolute frequencies in Jews than in non-Jews.

In effect, lightning has struck Jewish lysosomes not once, not three times, but at least eight times. If your house is hit by lightning while a neighbour’s house goes unscathed, you may curse your bad luck, but if it happens eight times you should seek causative factors. In genetic terms, that means seeking some compensating advantage of the deleterious gene, most likely in the heterozygote, as illustrated by the familiar example of sickle-cell haemoglobin conferring resistance to malaria. …

What selective force could be acting on eastern European Jews but not on their non-Jewish neighbours? Specifically, what features of Jewish living conditions or lifestyle during the past 700 years could have conferred compensatory value on the genes for Gaucher, Tay-Sachs, Niemann-Pick and factor XI deficiency?

This conundrum has stimulated much discussion in print and even more discussion not in print, The present stage is still one of speculative search for testable hypotheses, and not yet one of definitive hypothesis-testing. For instance, could being crammed into tuberculosis ridden urban ghettoes have placed eastern European Jews under much stronger selection for resistance to tuberculosis than their predominantly rural Gentile neighbours? …

A second hypothesis is selection in Jews for the intelligence putatively required to survive recurrent persecution, and also to make a living by commerce, because Jews were barred from the agricultural jobs available to the non-Jewish population.

A related third possibility is sexual selection for increased reproductive success, because men with the qualities required to become rabbis were prized as husbands and would have tended to marry wealthy women capable of nourishing many children.

Of course, these factors are hypothetical, and other explanations are possible. Identification of the selective factors responsible is unlikely to be easy.

Jared M. Diamond is in the Department of Physiology, University of California Medical School, Los Angeles, California 90024, USA. This is his one-hundredth News and Views article.

As Cochran, Hardy, and Harpending wrote in 2005:

Each of these gene frequencies is much higher than in the general European population. Each disease involves elevated frequencies of several different mutations of the same gene, especially Niemann-Pick. All result in the accumulation of sphingolipids. What can explain this? This question is of course not new: people have been arguing about this for decades (Chase and McKusick, 1972; Chakravarti and Chakraborty, 1978; Cavalli-Sforza, 1979; Motulsky, 1979; Jorde, 1992; Diamond, 1994; Risch et al., 2003; Zlotogora and Bach, 2003).

 
Hide 201 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “…the intelligence putatively required to survive recurrent persecution…”

    …and learn nothing from it.

    • Replies: @Jane Plain
    @Ozymandias

    What have Christians learned in 300 years of American history?

  2. Anon[337] • Disclaimer says:

    I can’t find it now, but there was a group of researchers in Israel who challenged the paper on the grounds that it misrepresented the type of work that Jews did. The idea that European Jews were mostly moneylenders and the like apparently isn’t true, according to a database created from historical records with considerable effort by this Israeli group. However, they came up with another explanation that basically comes to the same result as the Cochran, et al., paper. Does anyone have a cite to this Israeli paper, or an article about it?

    Here’s Pinker on YouTube discussing the “Jews, Genes, and Intelligence.”

    They request that the attendees not video the presentation!

    • Replies: @HA
    @Anon

    "The idea that European Jews were mostly moneylenders and the like apparently isn’t true..."

    No, according to Botticini and Eckstein, in large stretches of medieval France and Germany moneylending was pretty much the only thing that Jews did. Edward I "Longshanks" tried to put an end to their moneylending by offering them various other roles, including contract agriculture. It didn't work, and so he expelled them.


    In fact, [the historical records] show, Jews were often discriminated against precisely because of their emphasis on trade, such as in their expulsion from England in 1290, which only came after they were repeatedly told to give up the profession of money lending...
     
    While Jewish historians tend to fixate on the "they hate us because we're Jewish" meme, the history shows that other groups who practiced moneylending (B&E note that Jews never had a monopoly on the profession) were hated as well, and both Christian and Jewish religious leaders denounced the practice (and given some of the rates charged, the moneylending we're talking about would be outlawed even today). For example, the moneylending Lombards are depicted in medieval history as disgusting slime-trailing snails. B&E point out that when Jews were expelled from France for their moneylending by Louis the Pious, the Lombards stepped in. Eventually, they were kicked out too.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Jane Plain

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Anon


    The idea that European Jews were mostly moneylenders and the like apparently isn’t true...
     
    Carl Sagan's great-grandfather ferried passengers across a stream in the Ukraine or thereabouts-- on his back. Whatever color collar that is, it isn't white.

    Sagan had five children, but it took him three wives to do so. That's a TFR of 1.6.



    (Jeff Besos's autocorrect insists the man's name is "Satan". Make what you will of that.)
    , @SaneClownPosse
    @Anon

    "and also to make a living by commerce". Commerce is not limited to usurious money lending.

    The non money lenders were traders and merchants, dealing in whatever commodities that would bring profit. Purple dye from Canaan (Phoenicia), wool, gold, silver, gem stones, wood, tea, rubber, coffee, sugar, slaves, opium, what have you. There was profit in owning the ships that plied the trade routes.

    Replies: @jbwilson24

  3. Scott Alexander, the most impressive new public intellectual to emerge in our now-ending decade, on his Slate Star Codex blog

    https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/

    • Replies: @Morton's toes
    @Desiderius

    That stood out to me as well. I admire many of the things he has written but reading him requires massive quantities of skimming. His writing style is college student who gets good grades on his papers. The vast majority of his writing does nothing more than take up space.

    Needs a professional editor bad.

  4. A second hypothesis is selection in Jews for the intelligence putatively required to survive recurrent persecution ….

    Selection that would go hand in hand with other habits that provoked recurrent persecution?

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @The Alarmist

    "Selection that would go hand in hand with other habits that provoked recurrent persecution?"

    I suppose it could be seen as a form of group evolutionary strategy - after all, provoking group persecution could be a way of producing greater in-group cohesion - and the "habits" aren't mindless provocation - they're always cash-producing . Jews were never known AFAIK for physical vandalism of where they lived, or scrapping in the streets for fun. Tax-farming (arenda) and usury might be antisocial, but they were useful to some, and produced resources that would be of use in times of persecution. After all, the Jewish people are still here where the Medes, Hittites, Assyrians, Romans aren't.

  5. When Harvey Weinstein was trying to wriggle out of the metoo spotlight in 2017, he said he’d focus on taking down the NRA and Trump. His grand strategy of deflection failed miserably, and revealed the undeserved confidence some have in deceptive ways.

    Likewise, it takes a lot of shameless chutzpah to think that the world is stupid enough to be led astray on the Ashkenazi intelligence question, and that everyone will obediently stop noticing Ashkenazim because of a few point and sputter attacks.

    The horse has left the barn. Who are the Ashkenazim and what do they do with their intelligence is now a legitimate and growing subject of study.

    • LOL: IHTG
    • Replies: @SFG
    @Beavertales

    I think the goyim were going to figure it out after the 138th Nobel or so.

  6. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites. Given that whites are much more numerous and that they have a wider deviation (more people on the left and right edges) of IQ, the “cutting edge” is very much dominated by whites in raw IQ. But Ashkenazim do have the advantages of inherent pushiness and “Jewiness”, and are part of a community that imbues them with a communal desire to help each other out, support each other, and evince a concerted desire for their people to survive as a people, while whites usually come from very different backgrounds. Most really smart whites come from politically liberal and anti-White families.

    Maybe when whites are fewer, and cold, hungry and scared they will decide they want to survive and make the hard decisions necessary to do that, and maybe not.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    "Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites."

    Is there evidence that's _not_ true?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Bonner Tal, @Hypnotoad666, @Anonymous

    , @Jack D
    @Anonymous


    Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites.
     
    This shows a complete ignorance of statistics and the operation of the normal distribution. Once you concede than Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites, then by necessity they will have a higher IQ at all points on the curve including at the 99th percentile. This is a matter of pure mathematics and requires no further evidence.

    When the mean is shifted like that, the effects are magnified at the tail. A 1 SD shift will mean that out that the far right tail there are maybe 10x as many Jews as their prevalence in the population. Jews are 2% of the general US population but maybe 20% of those with IQ above say 150. Note however that there are still 4 non-Jewish geniuses for every Jewish one. (The same thing happens in reverse for blacks because of their lower population mean IQ - blacks are 15% of the population but maybe 1.5% of those above 150 IQ).

    But your original "no evidence" statement is utterly wrong. The smartest 1% of Jews (a group of 60,000 people in America) are far smarter on average than the smartest 1% of whites (a group of 2 million).

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow, @Technite78, @Faraday's Bobcat, @James B. Shearer, @res

  7. @Anonymous
    Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites. Given that whites are much more numerous and that they have a wider deviation (more people on the left and right edges) of IQ, the "cutting edge" is very much dominated by whites in raw IQ. But Ashkenazim do have the advantages of inherent pushiness and "Jewiness", and are part of a community that imbues them with a communal desire to help each other out, support each other, and evince a concerted desire for their people to survive as a people, while whites usually come from very different backgrounds. Most really smart whites come from politically liberal and anti-White families.


    Maybe when whites are fewer, and cold, hungry and scared they will decide they want to survive and make the hard decisions necessary to do that, and maybe not.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Jack D

    “Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites.”

    Is there evidence that’s _not_ true?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    Dr Manhattan ain't blue for nothing.

    Even though the Hungarian High School Science Project missed the deadline and had to submit their project at an East Asian venue, it was still an impressive accomplishment.

    Their control of the levers of control worldwide, if only for a century or so perhaps, it's easily as impressive. Most goy can't even comprehend that anyone could come up with a strategy like that let alone execute. Communism, Christianity, modern Judaism, Cultural Marxism. I think one underestimates the far right tail of the Jewish IQ bell curve at their peril.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @SFG

    , @Bonner Tal
    @Steve Sailer

    There is plenty of evidence that it IS true.

    Starting with that hundred year old result that almost all of the smartest pupils in New York were Jewish. In fact Ashkenazim are often overrepresented even after accounting for the IQ advantage, that's not what you get when the advantage shrinks to nothing north of IQ 135.

    And alternative theories for that overrepresentation also have to explain why roughly 50% of all chess worldchampions had Ashkenazi ancestry. That's hard to achieve with favoritism. In fact, if you know the life stories of Steinitz, Lasker, Fischer, Kasparov etc the idea that they were helped onto the chess throne by others is absurd.

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @Steve Sailer


    Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites.”

    Is there evidence that’s _not_ true?
     

     
    My guess is that the OP is asking which group produces the highest absolute number of extremely high IQ individuals.

    I've never heard that Jews have a lower SD of IQ than non-jewish whites. But whatever the means and SDs are, they could be plugged into an equation to see how many from each group meet any particular threshold for "super-smart" individuals.

    For example, if Jews are about 2% of the population with a mean IQ of around 110 and a SD around 15. And non-jewish Whites are around 65% with a mean IQ of 100 and an SD also around 15. Then someone could crunch the numbers and see how many "super-smart" individuals (say 145+ IQ), each group would be expected to produce.

    This is an interesting statistics "word problem." But it's beyond my limited math capabilities. It could also be run of course at different "supe-smart" thresholds.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    , @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    I suspect the very top fraction of Ashkenazim have some abilities that the very top percentage of white don't have on that level, and the reverse is also true. There is no evidence that the best Jewish aeronautical or electrical engineer are categorically way better than their goyische rivals, but there is evidence that the skills needed to dominate in Hollywood are specially Ashkenazi, aside from the open favoritism they display.

    Ben Rich and Gordon-wait for this-Israel were famous aeronautical engineers but neither were decisive as engineers. Paul Horowitz wrote the excellent The Art of Electronics, but the master analog designers are generally conceded to be Armstrong and Hazeltine early on and Widlar, Williams, Pease, Gilbert-not poseurs like Lee de Forest (he was famous enough that DeForest Kelley was named after him!) or the later 'Captain Catchfire' Tim de Paravicini, but none of those are Jewish anyway. In the computer science fields you have a lot of Jews of course-but Stallman and the rest of the crew out of MIT Media Lab (Symbolics, LMI, that sort of thing) early on were the last of the really famous ones on that level.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anonymous

  8. What’s the best argument against the fact (?) that Israeli ashkenazi don’t have high iqs like american ones do?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Guy De Champlagne

    They seem to be doing okay.

    , @J.Ross
    @Guy De Champlagne

    Is that true mathematically or are you getting lost in a bigger set of people? There is definitely a sense in Israel that high-IQ white-skinned European-descended people, many born to the "yekkes" fleeing Germany, run the show, with the Sephardim and Mizrahim being lower on the ladder, and some Israeli policies (especially in education) are literally lightly adapted German educational ideas. This shows up in grievances and pop cultural products. There's an Izzy TV show where a Mizrahi grumbles that a high-achieving white guy's parents were kibbutzniks, and they were superdemocratic commies on the kibbutz but now they come to Earth and tell everyone what to do.

    Replies: @Guy De Champlagne, @Anonymouse

    , @Bonner Tal
    @Guy De Champlagne

    The term "Ashkenazim" in Israel is often used for all European Jews. And apparently many Russians with rather weak genetic ties to the Ashkenazim took the opportunity to leave the USSR. So it is rather unclear how high the percentage of Ashkenazi genes is among the Israeli Ashkenazim.

    , @Unladen Swallow
    @Guy De Champlagne

    Ashkenazi Jews are now outnumbered by non-Ashkenazi Jews ( Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews ) in Israel, not to mention a significant portion of Israel is non-Jewish ( Moslems and Druze ). Israel is doing very well in technology as well as winning a bunch of Nobels this century. Israel's repeated victories over Arab countries lead to many non Ashkenazim emigrating there.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @bigdicknick
    @Guy De Champlagne

    a lot of people in israel have mixed heritage.

  9. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:

    Tay Sachs disease is commonly found in children who grow up in Jewish households. It is obvious that something about Jewish culture causes this disease, because muh blank slate says so!

    Nurture rules! Nature drools!

    Therefore Tay-Sachs is a cultural and social construct. All we need to do is change the socio-cultural matrix and the disease will vanish.

    This message approved by Trofim Lysenko and the entire Woke world that just luvs Science!

    • Replies: @Kronos
    @anon

    In this book, Arthur Jensen lightly discusses the various psychology/psychiatry hot shots at Harvard during the 1960s. One professor (if I recall correctly, I’m not going to purchase the $50 kindle edition to confirm) was a female that claimed that Schizophrenia was a social construct. It’s the kinda thing that Michel Foucault might’ve proposed. If only to help prevent his own institutionalization for certain bizarre behavior.


    https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Race-Genetics-Conversations-Arthur/dp/081334008X/ref=sr_1_2?crid=G6JG4J744UYN&keywords=arthur+jensen&qid=1577769042&sprefix=Arthur+jen%2Caps%2C246&sr=8-2

    https://youtu.be/GGWLmX5evPs

    Replies: @anon, @anonymous

    , @Anonymous
    @anon

    The only way Tay-Sachs will "vanish" is if Jewish folks only married gentiles.
    Prior to DNA testing technology, the only way a Jew could be sure that his offspring would be free of Tay-Sachs would be to procreate with a Gentile. Perhaps Tay-Sachs is Mother Nature's (or God's) way of telling them to marry outside their tribe, similar to how breeding with your close relatives (incest) increases the risk of birth defects. Interesting, French-Canadians are said to suffer from Tay-Sachs as well. Both groups share one thing in common; they both descend largely from a small settler population of a few thousand people but have now multiplied into the millions.

  10. A related third possibility is sexual selection for increased reproductive success, because men with the qualities required to become rabbis were prized as husbands and would have tended to marry wealthy women capable of nourishing many children

    Maybe the reason Cochran the plagiarist never liked that theory is because the Jew he stole it from got it a bit wrong. I really can’t see where sexual selection came in. Consider:-

    What is said in the Mishnah is simple How it is said is arcane …deep structure of difficult syntax and grammatical forms It takes many years to master the difficult argot (Neusner)

    The Mishnah has been described as a work in the Aristotelian tradition, but it is one whereby classification and logical relationships between categories are elaborated to a fantastic degree about subjects of no philosophic interests whatsoever. According to ‘A People That Shall Dwell Alone’ the prospective Ashkenazi father-in-law gave his future son-in -law an actual examination. An Ashkenazi noted as a scholar received a range of valuable emoluments.

    1. A wealthy man’s daughter as wife.
    2. Extremely high status in the community of a kind which brought economic benefits For example a ruling granted business monopolies on trade with gentiles to eminent scholars.
    3. Gifts, even if a scholar was well-off.
    4.Protection from anyone speaking against him. This was enforced by bans and fines.

    The supreme resource for obtaining a good marriage was having scholars in the family tree (yikhus) which many could trace back six generations A good scholar could marry very young to the daughter of a successful businessman and be supported with free room and board (kest) as well as a large dowry. Scholarship was more highly regarded than business success and although the two often went together businessmen supported the most eminent scholars to such an extent that many became wealthy in their own right.

    Clearly, the ace Talmudic scholar husband was not the only one of superior intelligence in these marriages, and by starting young the births could be many. It was not merely a matter of having more children surviving because you could care for them better.

    • Replies: @Lockean Proviso
    @Sean


    Protection from anyone speaking against him. This was enforced by bans and fines.
     
    A tradition continued now by Jewish SJWs who lead the movement to eliminate free speech and open debate...
    , @Anon
    @Sean


    Maybe the reason Cochran the plagiarist never liked that theory is because the Jew he stole it from got it a bit wrong.
     
    It's funny how you accuse Cochran of plagiarism, while you're so obsequious towards Peter Frost, who plagiarizes his material from hbdchick and others. Just because Cochran disagrees with you and Frost on certain things, you make unfounded attacks on him while be a total sycophant towards Frost.

    Replies: @Sean

    , @Pericles
    @Sean


    Maybe the reason Cochran the plagiarist never liked that theory is because the Jew he stole it from got it a bit wrong.

     

    That's a serious accusation.

    Replies: @Because reasons

  11. @Guy De Champlagne
    What's the best argument against the fact (?) that Israeli ashkenazi don't have high iqs like american ones do?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @J.Ross, @Bonner Tal, @Unladen Swallow, @bigdicknick

    They seem to be doing okay.

  12. So is it also White Supremacy to say that blacks tend to be faster and more muscular than whites?

    • Replies: @anon
    @Lockean Proviso

    So is it also White Supremacy to say that blacks tend to be faster and more muscular than whites?

    https://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/042/152/thats-racist.gif

    Replies: @Desiderius

  13. That Hungarian high school science fair project article was really good, but he makes the comment that there weren’t many Jews in Austria, and I certainly have the impression that Vienna was full of Jews at the time.

  14. @Sean

    A related third possibility is sexual selection for increased reproductive success, because men with the qualities required to become rabbis were prized as husbands and would have tended to marry wealthy women capable of nourishing many children
     
    Maybe the reason Cochran the plagiarist never liked that theory is because the Jew he stole it from got it a bit wrong. I really can't see where sexual selection came in. Consider:-

    What is said in the Mishnah is simple How it is said is arcane ...deep structure of difficult syntax and grammatical forms It takes many years to master the difficult argot (Neusner)
     
    The Mishnah has been described as a work in the Aristotelian tradition, but it is one whereby classification and logical relationships between categories are elaborated to a fantastic degree about subjects of no philosophic interests whatsoever. According to ‘A People That Shall Dwell Alone’ the prospective Ashkenazi father-in-law gave his future son-in -law an actual examination. An Ashkenazi noted as a scholar received a range of valuable emoluments.

    1. A wealthy man’s daughter as wife.
    2. Extremely high status in the community of a kind which brought economic benefits For example a ruling granted business monopolies on trade with gentiles to eminent scholars.
    3. Gifts, even if a scholar was well-off.
    4.Protection from anyone speaking against him. This was enforced by bans and fines.

    The supreme resource for obtaining a good marriage was having scholars in the family tree (yikhus) which many could trace back six generations A good scholar could marry very young to the daughter of a successful businessman and be supported with free room and board (kest) as well as a large dowry. Scholarship was more highly regarded than business success and although the two often went together businessmen supported the most eminent scholars to such an extent that many became wealthy in their own right.

    Clearly, the ace Talmudic scholar husband was not the only one of superior intelligence in these marriages, and by starting young the births could be many. It was not merely a matter of having more children surviving because you could care for them better.

    Replies: @Lockean Proviso, @Anon, @Pericles

    Protection from anyone speaking against him. This was enforced by bans and fines.

    A tradition continued now by Jewish SJWs who lead the movement to eliminate free speech and open debate…

  15. Syd Mead, the man who designed Blade Runner and therefore cyberpunk, has been retired.
    https://boingboing.net/2019/12/30/syd-mead-1933-2019.html

    Mead’s work powers the visionary qualities of movies such as Blade Runner, Tron, Star Trek The Motion Picture, Aliens and Elysium, but his work as a designer for automaker Ford and electronics company Philips are just as influential. His is a body of work truly without end.

  16. @anon
    Tay Sachs disease is commonly found in children who grow up in Jewish households. It is obvious that something about Jewish culture causes this disease, because muh blank slate says so!

    Nurture rules! Nature drools!

    Therefore Tay-Sachs is a cultural and social construct. All we need to do is change the socio-cultural matrix and the disease will vanish.

    This message approved by Trofim Lysenko and the entire Woke world that just luvs Science!

    Replies: @Kronos, @Anonymous

    In this book, Arthur Jensen lightly discusses the various psychology/psychiatry hot shots at Harvard during the 1960s. One professor (if I recall correctly, I’m not going to purchase the $50 kindle edition to confirm) was a female that claimed that Schizophrenia was a social construct. It’s the kinda thing that Michel Foucault might’ve proposed. If only to help prevent his own institutionalization for certain bizarre behavior.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Kronos

    One professor (if I recall correctly, I’m not going to purchase the $50 kindle edition to confirm) was a female that claimed that Schizophrenia was a social construct.

    Cool combo of liberalism and libertarianism. Wonder if she was a student of Szasz?
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Thomas_Szasz

    Wonder if she ever got to talk to a homeless bipolar guy in an alley at night, while he's holding onto an unknown, dark object ? I know cops who have to do that sometimes.

    Replies: @SFG

    , @anonymous
    @Kronos

    I remember Noam Chomsky said Richard Herrnstein was essentially a dullard.


    I was reminded of that when Pinker said something similar--but I don't think Pinker was really around for Herrnstein's heyday so maybe he just ported it directly from hearing Chomsky's opinion.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  17. @Guy De Champlagne
    What's the best argument against the fact (?) that Israeli ashkenazi don't have high iqs like american ones do?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @J.Ross, @Bonner Tal, @Unladen Swallow, @bigdicknick

    Is that true mathematically or are you getting lost in a bigger set of people? There is definitely a sense in Israel that high-IQ white-skinned European-descended people, many born to the “yekkes” fleeing Germany, run the show, with the Sephardim and Mizrahim being lower on the ladder, and some Israeli policies (especially in education) are literally lightly adapted German educational ideas. This shows up in grievances and pop cultural products. There’s an Izzy TV show where a Mizrahi grumbles that a high-achieving white guy’s parents were kibbutzniks, and they were superdemocratic commies on the kibbutz but now they come to Earth and tell everyone what to do.

    • Replies: @Guy De Champlagne
    @J.Ross

    Light skinned people run South America too but that doesn't mean they have ~115 (or even ~100) IQs.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @Anonymouse
    @J.Ross

    You got that all wrong. German jews fleeing Hitler played no part in pre-Israel politics. Zionists were Eastern European types. As teenagers in Poland, etc. they opted for Zionist summer school, argued with Socialists in high school, and then moved to Palestine where they died in droves from malaria in the agricultural communes. The Germans brought their pianos with them and served tea and, some of them, had Pritzker level architects to design their villas in leafy suburbs of Tel-Aviv. After independence all the prime ministers were Eastern European born or sabras born in country: Ben Gurion, Golda Meir (born in the US), Rabin, Peretz, Begin, Shamir, Sharon, Netanyahu. To this day, no German born Israeli is or was a politician.

    Understanding the Israel thing has been my hobby since 1947 when my father and I listened on the radio to the UN proceedings which were broadcast on WNYC the city-owned radio station held in Flushing before the UN building was built in Manhatten and partitition of Palestine was voted on and passed. Its like a Sinologist never visiting China. I write at length here to establish my credentials.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  18. @Lockean Proviso
    So is it also White Supremacy to say that blacks tend to be faster and more muscular than whites?

    Replies: @anon

    So is it also White Supremacy to say that blacks tend to be faster and more muscular than whites?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @anon

    The feeling (and it is a feeling, which ends up superior to argument/more congenial to their effeminacy for the nonfoundationalists who misrule us) is that only white supremacists are interested in talking about group differences. The missing premise being that they do so because it would highlight the actual white supremacy (in things that matter) that the ruling class (now nearly alone) still adheres to sub rosa.

  19. Anon[312] • Disclaimer says:

    Unlike a lot of people, I think it’s entirely possible these diseases ended up in Jews in high frequencies simply because of sheer circumstance. As has been noted, there is one big event that took place among European Jews in the last 700 years that had a dramatic effect on their gene frequencies. It was the Black Plague.

    The Plague made Jewish population numbers crash. Genetic researchers have noticed that Jewish genes appear to have undergone a bottleneck effect (but didn’t we all?) in the last 700 years, and the obvious culprit is the Plague. It is entirely possible that the above-mentioned genetic diseases were rare in the Jewish population before the plague, but a few of the survivors happened to carry them. As the Jewish population began to grow again, because it was growing from a small number of founders, the diseases are now found in higher frequency among the general Jewish population.

    A similar effect can be seen among the Amish. A gene for dwarfism was present among the small founding Amish population in America, and it pops up at greater frequency among their descendants.

    The founder effect should not be underestimated. It can have both good and bath influences.

  20. @Anon
    I can't find it now, but there was a group of researchers in Israel who challenged the paper on the grounds that it misrepresented the type of work that Jews did. The idea that European Jews were mostly moneylenders and the like apparently isn't true, according to a database created from historical records with considerable effort by this Israeli group. However, they came up with another explanation that basically comes to the same result as the Cochran, et al., paper. Does anyone have a cite to this Israeli paper, or an article about it?

    Here's Pinker on YouTube discussing the "Jews, Genes, and Intelligence."

    They request that the attendees not video the presentation!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GexZF5VIMU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTyWYcxVIA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDM7yQVU4ZE
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz5igS5n720
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLj9lzKr1lA

    Replies: @HA, @Reg Cæsar, @SaneClownPosse

    “The idea that European Jews were mostly moneylenders and the like apparently isn’t true…”

    No, according to Botticini and Eckstein, in large stretches of medieval France and Germany moneylending was pretty much the only thing that Jews did. Edward I “Longshanks” tried to put an end to their moneylending by offering them various other roles, including contract agriculture. It didn’t work, and so he expelled them.

    In fact, [the historical records] show, Jews were often discriminated against precisely because of their emphasis on trade, such as in their expulsion from England in 1290, which only came after they were repeatedly told to give up the profession of money lending…

    While Jewish historians tend to fixate on the “they hate us because we’re Jewish” meme, the history shows that other groups who practiced moneylending (B&E note that Jews never had a monopoly on the profession) were hated as well, and both Christian and Jewish religious leaders denounced the practice (and given some of the rates charged, the moneylending we’re talking about would be outlawed even today). For example, the moneylending Lombards are depicted in medieval history as disgusting slime-trailing snails. B&E point out that when Jews were expelled from France for their moneylending by Louis the Pious, the Lombards stepped in. Eventually, they were kicked out too.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @HA

    How did the Lombard moneylenders get around the Catholic Church's ban on lending money for interest?

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Dieter Kief, @HA, @HA

    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    @HA


    Edward I “Longshanks” tried to put an end to their moneylending by offering them various other roles, including contract agriculture. It didn’t work, and so he expelled them.

     

    Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together, though all but verbotten in the West, is a fair and rather even-handed book. Anyway, he very lengthily recalls all the efforts the Tsars of the late 1800s made to turn the Jews into productive rural citizens, but, the Jews weren't having any of that. Russia never expelled the Jews, however, and Solzhenitsyn even shows that the resultant pogroms of the late 1800s and thereabouts were anything but state-sanctioned.

    Replies: @HA

    , @Jane Plain
    @HA

    It really would help if you named the Botticini and Eckstein book itself.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chosen_Few_(book)

    It got a lot of criticism.


    Writing in The Journal of Economic History, Philip Ackerman-Lieberman points out that Botticini and Eckstein support their theoretical model with, "assumptions about the historical record which are by no means warranted.

    Historians have been scathing.
     

    The fact is that for most of their history in Europe, Jews weren't moneylenders, and where they did become prominent (Venice) they were quickly usurped by local non-Jews. It's a typical story, explicated well in Amy Chua's World on Fire.

    That said, I don't think this disproves Cochran/Harpending. Ashkenazi Jews did what we would call middle class non-farming occupations for most of their history. The C/H theory is validated and overriden by much more than that one mistake.

    But that's not enough for such as HA, who have an obsession with proving that Jews are damned and evil.

    Your crowd, Jack D!

    Replies: @HA, @Not Raul

  21. anon[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kronos
    @anon

    In this book, Arthur Jensen lightly discusses the various psychology/psychiatry hot shots at Harvard during the 1960s. One professor (if I recall correctly, I’m not going to purchase the $50 kindle edition to confirm) was a female that claimed that Schizophrenia was a social construct. It’s the kinda thing that Michel Foucault might’ve proposed. If only to help prevent his own institutionalization for certain bizarre behavior.


    https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Race-Genetics-Conversations-Arthur/dp/081334008X/ref=sr_1_2?crid=G6JG4J744UYN&keywords=arthur+jensen&qid=1577769042&sprefix=Arthur+jen%2Caps%2C246&sr=8-2

    https://youtu.be/GGWLmX5evPs

    Replies: @anon, @anonymous

    One professor (if I recall correctly, I’m not going to purchase the $50 kindle edition to confirm) was a female that claimed that Schizophrenia was a social construct.

    Cool combo of liberalism and libertarianism. Wonder if she was a student of Szasz?
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Thomas_Szasz

    Wonder if she ever got to talk to a homeless bipolar guy in an alley at night, while he’s holding onto an unknown, dark object ? I know cops who have to do that sometimes.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @anon

    While you're correct otherwise, bipolar means manic-depressive, not schizophrenic. You can have both--it's called schizoaffective disorder.

  22. Anon[286] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    A related third possibility is sexual selection for increased reproductive success, because men with the qualities required to become rabbis were prized as husbands and would have tended to marry wealthy women capable of nourishing many children
     
    Maybe the reason Cochran the plagiarist never liked that theory is because the Jew he stole it from got it a bit wrong. I really can't see where sexual selection came in. Consider:-

    What is said in the Mishnah is simple How it is said is arcane ...deep structure of difficult syntax and grammatical forms It takes many years to master the difficult argot (Neusner)
     
    The Mishnah has been described as a work in the Aristotelian tradition, but it is one whereby classification and logical relationships between categories are elaborated to a fantastic degree about subjects of no philosophic interests whatsoever. According to ‘A People That Shall Dwell Alone’ the prospective Ashkenazi father-in-law gave his future son-in -law an actual examination. An Ashkenazi noted as a scholar received a range of valuable emoluments.

    1. A wealthy man’s daughter as wife.
    2. Extremely high status in the community of a kind which brought economic benefits For example a ruling granted business monopolies on trade with gentiles to eminent scholars.
    3. Gifts, even if a scholar was well-off.
    4.Protection from anyone speaking against him. This was enforced by bans and fines.

    The supreme resource for obtaining a good marriage was having scholars in the family tree (yikhus) which many could trace back six generations A good scholar could marry very young to the daughter of a successful businessman and be supported with free room and board (kest) as well as a large dowry. Scholarship was more highly regarded than business success and although the two often went together businessmen supported the most eminent scholars to such an extent that many became wealthy in their own right.

    Clearly, the ace Talmudic scholar husband was not the only one of superior intelligence in these marriages, and by starting young the births could be many. It was not merely a matter of having more children surviving because you could care for them better.

    Replies: @Lockean Proviso, @Anon, @Pericles

    Maybe the reason Cochran the plagiarist never liked that theory is because the Jew he stole it from got it a bit wrong.

    It’s funny how you accuse Cochran of plagiarism, while you’re so obsequious towards Peter Frost, who plagiarizes his material from hbdchick and others. Just because Cochran disagrees with you and Frost on certain things, you make unfounded attacks on him while be a total sycophant towards Frost.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Anon

    If Peter Frost can be accused of taking from anyone it is Darwin who wrote a book on sexual selection. Peter cited him and added new explanations. I have absolutely no idea what Diamond was talking about when he mentioned sexual selection in relation to the scholars marrying daughters of rich men theory. The daughters of successful businessmen are not going to be stupid, Peter's theory of Ashkenazi intelligence relates to cottage industry, and it is certainly very original. I have always been impressed with the verbal and social cognition abilities of Jews. From the X chromosome (ie mother) in men I think.

    As I understand it you are supposed to cite people for ideas, and if Cochran didn't cite Diamond his only defence is that he was unaware of the article. Diamond supposedly read Norbert Weiner rather than Kevin MacDonald's A People that Shall Dwell Alone (1994) for the Talmudic scholarship theory. MacDonald had published on the consanguinity prohibition by the Western church and Western marriage practices, long before HBDperson thought up a name so non credible that it could not be cited in a peer reviewed publication, then complained.

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow

  23. Anonymous[278] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    "Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites."

    Is there evidence that's _not_ true?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Bonner Tal, @Hypnotoad666, @Anonymous

    Dr Manhattan ain’t blue for nothing.

    Even though the Hungarian High School Science Project missed the deadline and had to submit their project at an East Asian venue, it was still an impressive accomplishment.

    Their control of the levers of control worldwide, if only for a century or so perhaps, it’s easily as impressive. Most goy can’t even comprehend that anyone could come up with a strategy like that let alone execute. Communism, Christianity, modern Judaism, Cultural Marxism. I think one underestimates the far right tail of the Jewish IQ bell curve at their peril.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonymous


    Most goy can’t even comprehend that anyone could come up with a strategy like that let alone execute.
     
    What is the strategy?
    , @SFG
    @Anonymous

    I don't think Communism, Christianity, modern Judaism, and Cultural Marxism are part of some huge master plan. (You could add neoliberalism/Chicago School free marketry in there too.)

    Most likely you're going to get Jews going for right-wing elitism (free market), left-wing elitism (Cultural Marxism), and left-wing populism (Communism) based on their personal inclinations because right-wing populism tends to be anti-Semitic (outside Israel, anyway). You go where they'll take you, and there were a few people in that quadrant--Gottfried and the Breitbart crowd for instance.

    Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism two millennia ago and doesn't really fit the same schema.

  24. @J.Ross
    @Guy De Champlagne

    Is that true mathematically or are you getting lost in a bigger set of people? There is definitely a sense in Israel that high-IQ white-skinned European-descended people, many born to the "yekkes" fleeing Germany, run the show, with the Sephardim and Mizrahim being lower on the ladder, and some Israeli policies (especially in education) are literally lightly adapted German educational ideas. This shows up in grievances and pop cultural products. There's an Izzy TV show where a Mizrahi grumbles that a high-achieving white guy's parents were kibbutzniks, and they were superdemocratic commies on the kibbutz but now they come to Earth and tell everyone what to do.

    Replies: @Guy De Champlagne, @Anonymouse

    Light skinned people run South America too but that doesn’t mean they have ~115 (or even ~100) IQs.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Guy De Champlagne

    But aren't there proportionately more Ashkenazim in Israel than here?

  25. Anonymous[199] • Disclaimer says:

    “Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites.”

    Is there evidence that’s _not_ true?

    Things are pretty clearly — even in the top 1% cohort — in favor of Jewish smarts overall. But it varies by discipline and niche. Also the white ethnys are not all equal.

    The issue that muddies the waters is the .01% to .0001% of whites who are giants. The huge talents. The scary talents. Auster used to talk about the very best white gentiles as vexing to the Jewish psyche.

    The white vs Jewish IQ comparison is very different from other group IQ comparisons because there are so many unmatched white gentile giants to be reckoned with. So there is a duality in the comparison of the two groups.

  26. @Sean

    A related third possibility is sexual selection for increased reproductive success, because men with the qualities required to become rabbis were prized as husbands and would have tended to marry wealthy women capable of nourishing many children
     
    Maybe the reason Cochran the plagiarist never liked that theory is because the Jew he stole it from got it a bit wrong. I really can't see where sexual selection came in. Consider:-

    What is said in the Mishnah is simple How it is said is arcane ...deep structure of difficult syntax and grammatical forms It takes many years to master the difficult argot (Neusner)
     
    The Mishnah has been described as a work in the Aristotelian tradition, but it is one whereby classification and logical relationships between categories are elaborated to a fantastic degree about subjects of no philosophic interests whatsoever. According to ‘A People That Shall Dwell Alone’ the prospective Ashkenazi father-in-law gave his future son-in -law an actual examination. An Ashkenazi noted as a scholar received a range of valuable emoluments.

    1. A wealthy man’s daughter as wife.
    2. Extremely high status in the community of a kind which brought economic benefits For example a ruling granted business monopolies on trade with gentiles to eminent scholars.
    3. Gifts, even if a scholar was well-off.
    4.Protection from anyone speaking against him. This was enforced by bans and fines.

    The supreme resource for obtaining a good marriage was having scholars in the family tree (yikhus) which many could trace back six generations A good scholar could marry very young to the daughter of a successful businessman and be supported with free room and board (kest) as well as a large dowry. Scholarship was more highly regarded than business success and although the two often went together businessmen supported the most eminent scholars to such an extent that many became wealthy in their own right.

    Clearly, the ace Talmudic scholar husband was not the only one of superior intelligence in these marriages, and by starting young the births could be many. It was not merely a matter of having more children surviving because you could care for them better.

    Replies: @Lockean Proviso, @Anon, @Pericles

    Maybe the reason Cochran the plagiarist never liked that theory is because the Jew he stole it from got it a bit wrong.

    That’s a serious accusation.

    • Replies: @Because reasons
    @Pericles

    If this Sean is the same Sean that Cochran tarred and feathered in his blog for misinterpreting/misremembering sources (look up their exchanges in Google), then Sean is accusing Cochran of whatever out of spite.

    Which is a good strategy I guess, since it's less likely that Cochran will show up himself here and bother to reply than at his own blog lol.

    OTOH, it's not as smart a strategy as not mentioning him at all, like the NYT who meticulously avoided making a direct mention of him in the recent Bret Stephens article brouhaha.

  27. @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    Dr Manhattan ain't blue for nothing.

    Even though the Hungarian High School Science Project missed the deadline and had to submit their project at an East Asian venue, it was still an impressive accomplishment.

    Their control of the levers of control worldwide, if only for a century or so perhaps, it's easily as impressive. Most goy can't even comprehend that anyone could come up with a strategy like that let alone execute. Communism, Christianity, modern Judaism, Cultural Marxism. I think one underestimates the far right tail of the Jewish IQ bell curve at their peril.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @SFG

    Most goy can’t even comprehend that anyone could come up with a strategy like that let alone execute.

    What is the strategy?

  28. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    "Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites."

    Is there evidence that's _not_ true?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Bonner Tal, @Hypnotoad666, @Anonymous

    There is plenty of evidence that it IS true.

    Starting with that hundred year old result that almost all of the smartest pupils in New York were Jewish. In fact Ashkenazim are often overrepresented even after accounting for the IQ advantage, that’s not what you get when the advantage shrinks to nothing north of IQ 135.

    And alternative theories for that overrepresentation also have to explain why roughly 50% of all chess worldchampions had Ashkenazi ancestry. That’s hard to achieve with favoritism. In fact, if you know the life stories of Steinitz, Lasker, Fischer, Kasparov etc the idea that they were helped onto the chess throne by others is absurd.

  29. @Guy De Champlagne
    What's the best argument against the fact (?) that Israeli ashkenazi don't have high iqs like american ones do?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @J.Ross, @Bonner Tal, @Unladen Swallow, @bigdicknick

    The term “Ashkenazim” in Israel is often used for all European Jews. And apparently many Russians with rather weak genetic ties to the Ashkenazim took the opportunity to leave the USSR. So it is rather unclear how high the percentage of Ashkenazi genes is among the Israeli Ashkenazim.

  30. An often neglected fact is that the Ashkenazic people isn’t exactly ancient. It was created relatively “recently” as a hybrid with a small founding population.

    We don’t know the exact circumstances, be we can easily imagine that it happened in prosperous times in Italy in such a way that the founders already were rich and smart.

    As a small group, the founders certainly were not statistically constrained to have been average folks. Assuming they started out near the non-average place they eventually ended up in, to me looks like a simple hypothesis favored by Occam’s razor.

  31. I think we’re at a crossroads now where if you cannot see just how butt-flipping retarded this entire theory is, then no words of mine or of anybody else’s is going to convince you of anything. This is basically the Alt-Right’s equivalent of, “African-Americans visit national parks with less frequency because they’re afraid of trees, because their ancestors used to hang in them.”

  32. @Kronos
    @anon

    In this book, Arthur Jensen lightly discusses the various psychology/psychiatry hot shots at Harvard during the 1960s. One professor (if I recall correctly, I’m not going to purchase the $50 kindle edition to confirm) was a female that claimed that Schizophrenia was a social construct. It’s the kinda thing that Michel Foucault might’ve proposed. If only to help prevent his own institutionalization for certain bizarre behavior.


    https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Race-Genetics-Conversations-Arthur/dp/081334008X/ref=sr_1_2?crid=G6JG4J744UYN&keywords=arthur+jensen&qid=1577769042&sprefix=Arthur+jen%2Caps%2C246&sr=8-2

    https://youtu.be/GGWLmX5evPs

    Replies: @anon, @anonymous

    I remember Noam Chomsky said Richard Herrnstein was essentially a dullard.

    I was reminded of that when Pinker said something similar–but I don’t think Pinker was really around for Herrnstein’s heyday so maybe he just ported it directly from hearing Chomsky’s opinion.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @anonymous

    Uhh - why would Steven Pinker make such a remark about Herrnstein? - That could be interesting.

  33. @HA
    @Anon

    "The idea that European Jews were mostly moneylenders and the like apparently isn’t true..."

    No, according to Botticini and Eckstein, in large stretches of medieval France and Germany moneylending was pretty much the only thing that Jews did. Edward I "Longshanks" tried to put an end to their moneylending by offering them various other roles, including contract agriculture. It didn't work, and so he expelled them.


    In fact, [the historical records] show, Jews were often discriminated against precisely because of their emphasis on trade, such as in their expulsion from England in 1290, which only came after they were repeatedly told to give up the profession of money lending...
     
    While Jewish historians tend to fixate on the "they hate us because we're Jewish" meme, the history shows that other groups who practiced moneylending (B&E note that Jews never had a monopoly on the profession) were hated as well, and both Christian and Jewish religious leaders denounced the practice (and given some of the rates charged, the moneylending we're talking about would be outlawed even today). For example, the moneylending Lombards are depicted in medieval history as disgusting slime-trailing snails. B&E point out that when Jews were expelled from France for their moneylending by Louis the Pious, the Lombards stepped in. Eventually, they were kicked out too.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Jane Plain

    How did the Lombard moneylenders get around the Catholic Church’s ban on lending money for interest?

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Steve Sailer

    Telling the Church that Jane Alice Peters won't change her name to Carole Lombard?

    , @Dieter Kief
    @Steve Sailer


    How did the Lombard moneylenders get around the Catholic Church’s ban on lending money for interest?

     

    One way was to open pawnshops because they were allowed by the church, whereas interest was forbidden. That's how the Jews and the Jesuits started the money- and jewelry (!) business in medieval Italy -with the help of pawnshops. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombard_banking 

    Another way was, to move to the periphery of the Catholic Church's influence and start a money-lending business with the local (and quite needy) aristocracy, as the Italian Lombards did from 1300 on until 1450 in the prospering Upper Rhine region (in the Middle Rhine region too, from ca. 1350 on). The Lombards had been working in the money-business in Italy before and moved as a group of specialists to the Upper and later Middle Rhine and started their new money-lending business in and around Cologne, Münster, and Aachen. They helped the local aristocracy to establish something new and - as it turned out - quite useful: A financial bureaucracy.

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombarden_(Bankiers)  

    Then Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and - the Fuggers dominated the scene (cf. Dieter Forte's great and very insightful play: Luther, Thomas Münzer und die Einführung der Buchhaltung, Basel 1970 - Luther, Thomas Münzer and the Introduction of Accounting - no English translation. A pity - and a loss of insights!)

    Replies: @HA, @Old Palo Altan, @Anonymous

    , @HA
    @Steve Sailer

    How did the Lombard moneylenders get around the Catholic Church’s ban on lending money for interest?

    B&E don't mention that, but they do note that Poles were also a group, along with Lombards, that had a reputation for loansharking, and they note that even monasteries were in the business of lending money, so it must have been an issue.

    I'm guessing that then as now, the rates charged were what differentiated loaning money (which was encouraged) and profiting from the practice (which was condemned). I would also guess that the brutality of manner in which collateral was extracted from desperately failing farmers (not to mention those trying to raise funds to buy back relatives sold into Muslim slavery -- another industry where Jews played also played a major role) played a part. B&E note that the rates that moneylenders charged could be %130 at the high end, which as I've already noted is the kind of thing that could get you arrested even today.

    B&E also list at least one instance in which Jews were able to get around moneylending laws by simply paying the crown an extra high kickback, which I'm guessing also didn't help boost their popularity among the common folk. However much Jack D wants us to believe that being called "Christ-killers" and allegedly having horns on their head was what caused Jews to be hated, and however often he and other other hucksters like him repeat the still-popular (but, according to B&E, long since academically discredited) notion that Jews were forced into moneylending because agriculture was not sufficiently available to them, or because they needed portable wealth to escape the pogroms, or some other such lame excuse, the actual evidence shows that Jews coveted moneylending positions and dispersed themselves widely to obtain them, despite the hatred they engendered and despite the steep kickbacks to the crown that were required in order to secure them (and the consequent risk of royal extortion that being rich posed for anybody, not just Jews --- I mean, look what happened to the Knights Templar and Henry VIII, though no one thinks to call those pogroms.) In one area of medieval Spain (Castille, I believe, but you can look it up), moneylending profits were about a quarter of the crown's revenue, but given the how immoral the practice was regarded, I maintain that kickback is the more accurate terminology.

    Replies: @HA

    , @HA
    @Steve Sailer

    And while I’m on the topic of Botticini & Eckstein, let me also note what they (indirectly) say about Jewish IQ, though unlike their second-hand retelling of medieval Jewish moneylending, their thesis on that is much more controversial. (They are, for example, accused of having grossly miscounted the population of Jews in the Roman empire; moreover, as economists, they are seen as interlopers among the historians, so there maybe some political rivalry going on.)

    Anyway, B&E propose that it was the rabbis/Pharisees who, after the destruction of the Second Temple in the first century AD, transformed Judaism from a largely agrarian tribe (much like the Samaritans who have stayed largely agrarian to this day) into a tribe of largely literate businessmen. These rabbis, through their emphasis on literacy and scholarship, and through the high taxes needed to pay for all that (in some cases, their yeshivas were funded from the general accounts, so that they were tuition-free), they over time wound up expelling the Jews (esp. the poor farmers among them who couldn't afford to take their sons out of the field and into school for months at a time) that weren’t sufficiently prosperous and who couldn’t pay the temple fees, and left them to drift off to become Christians and Muslims. (Later on, after Jews got crowded into the Pale, and after the number of Jewish boys greatly outpaced the number of available money-lending and liquor-industry jobs, it became easier for a poor Jew to stay Jewish, but by then, this great filtration had already happened.)

    In other words, Jewish IQ is a little like Episcopalian IQ. It’s specious to offer it as something significant if you don’t also note that as people become rich, they tend to convert to Episcopalianism, whereas they tend to convert back to being Pentacostals, Evangelicals and Catholics once their fortunes decline. You have to consider all the ones that got kicked out, or couldn’t stay in, if you want a fair count. Otherwise, you might as well get all tied up in knots about how the members of the ritzy golf club in your town seems to be inordinately prosperous. Big deal. They, like the Episcopalians, and like post-exile Judaism (to a large extent), are rich boys’ clubs.

    Replies: @Jack D

  34. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    "Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites."

    Is there evidence that's _not_ true?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Bonner Tal, @Hypnotoad666, @Anonymous

    Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites.”

    Is there evidence that’s _not_ true?

    My guess is that the OP is asking which group produces the highest absolute number of extremely high IQ individuals.

    I’ve never heard that Jews have a lower SD of IQ than non-jewish whites. But whatever the means and SDs are, they could be plugged into an equation to see how many from each group meet any particular threshold for “super-smart” individuals.

    For example, if Jews are about 2% of the population with a mean IQ of around 110 and a SD around 15. And non-jewish Whites are around 65% with a mean IQ of 100 and an SD also around 15. Then someone could crunch the numbers and see how many “super-smart” individuals (say 145+ IQ), each group would be expected to produce.

    This is an interesting statistics “word problem.” But it’s beyond my limited math capabilities. It could also be run of course at different “supe-smart” thresholds.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Hypnotoad666

    The story of the success of the Ashkenazim might be not only about the total number of high IQ individuals, but also a strategic one of group-consciousness and group-strategies.

    Replies: @Bert, @Brás Cubas

    , @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    @Hypnotoad666

    Scientific calculators (like the Texas Instruments TI-83 or TI-84) have a built in function normalcdf that calculates the proportion normalcdf(lo,hi,mean,stdev) of individuals in a population having a mean IQ "mean" and a standard deviation "stdev" who have an IQ between "lo" and "hi". Thus the proportion of people in a population of mean IQ 100 and standard deviation 15 who have an IQ of 145 or more is normalcdf(145,9E99,100,15) = .0013499672 = about one person in 1/0013499672 = 741. And the proportion of people in a population of mean IQ 110 and standard deviation 15 who have an IQ of 145 or more is normalcdf(145,9E99,110,15) = .0098153068 = about one person in 102.

    In a population of N persons, 2% from the mean IQ=110 population ("Jews") and 65% from the mean IQ=100 population ("whites"), the number of supersmart Jews will be .02N*normalcdf(145,9E99,110,15) = .0001963061369N, and the number of supersmart whites will be .65N*normalcdf(145,9E99,100,15) = .0008774786945N. With N=1,000,000 persons, this yields 196 supersmart Jews and 877 supersmart whites.
    To play with this function a little more, the number, per million population, of supersmart individuals among a 12.7% subpopulation of mean IQ 85 comes to .127*1,000,000*normalcdf(145,9E99,85,15) = 4. (Check my math!)

    Replies: @Anonymous, @blake121666, @Hypnotoad666

  35. @anonymous
    @Kronos

    I remember Noam Chomsky said Richard Herrnstein was essentially a dullard.


    I was reminded of that when Pinker said something similar--but I don't think Pinker was really around for Herrnstein's heyday so maybe he just ported it directly from hearing Chomsky's opinion.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Uhh – why would Steven Pinker make such a remark about Herrnstein? – That could be interesting.

  36. @Hypnotoad666
    @Steve Sailer


    Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites.”

    Is there evidence that’s _not_ true?
     

     
    My guess is that the OP is asking which group produces the highest absolute number of extremely high IQ individuals.

    I've never heard that Jews have a lower SD of IQ than non-jewish whites. But whatever the means and SDs are, they could be plugged into an equation to see how many from each group meet any particular threshold for "super-smart" individuals.

    For example, if Jews are about 2% of the population with a mean IQ of around 110 and a SD around 15. And non-jewish Whites are around 65% with a mean IQ of 100 and an SD also around 15. Then someone could crunch the numbers and see how many "super-smart" individuals (say 145+ IQ), each group would be expected to produce.

    This is an interesting statistics "word problem." But it's beyond my limited math capabilities. It could also be run of course at different "supe-smart" thresholds.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    The story of the success of the Ashkenazim might be not only about the total number of high IQ individuals, but also a strategic one of group-consciousness and group-strategies.

    • Replies: @Bert
    @Dieter Kief

    That auxillary hypothesis for Jewish domination of Western economics, culture and politics was developed by Kevin MacDonald in his three books on Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy.

    I accept the Cochran-Hardy-Harpending hypothesis that Ashkenazi higher IQ was selected for by the professions they practiced in Central and Eastern Europe.

    I further believe that those same professions must have selected for xenophobia, specifically for reduced empathy toward the Caucasian counterparties in business dealings. Group-consciousness has two psychological components, prosocial attitudes toward the ingroup and antisocial attitudes toward the outgroup. The former component should be subject to directional selection in any endogamous group (due to kin selection). However, the latter component should be subject to directional selection only in a human group specializing in professions which were economically predatory. Ashkenazi apparently met this criterion.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Anonymouse

    , @Brás Cubas
    @Dieter Kief


    The story of the success of the Ashkenazim might be not only about the total number of high IQ individuals, but also a strategic one of group-consciousness and group-strategies.
     
    Considering that group-consciousnes and the ability for devising group-strategies is probably favored by high IQ, there is a positive feedback between both phenomena. Furthermore, if one takes into consideration the following hypothesis:

    A second hypothesis is selection in Jews for the intelligence putatively required to survive recurrent persecution
     
    then it becomes possible that this strategy is ampler than just that of one group, encompassing the out-groups as well. It makes sense evolutionwise for humans to have very intelligent people among them.
  37. @Steve Sailer
    @HA

    How did the Lombard moneylenders get around the Catholic Church's ban on lending money for interest?

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Dieter Kief, @HA, @HA

    Telling the Church that Jane Alice Peters won’t change her name to Carole Lombard?

  38. @Guy De Champlagne
    @J.Ross

    Light skinned people run South America too but that doesn't mean they have ~115 (or even ~100) IQs.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    But aren’t there proportionately more Ashkenazim in Israel than here?

  39. @Steve Sailer
    @HA

    How did the Lombard moneylenders get around the Catholic Church's ban on lending money for interest?

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Dieter Kief, @HA, @HA

    How did the Lombard moneylenders get around the Catholic Church’s ban on lending money for interest?

    One way was to open pawnshops because they were allowed by the church, whereas interest was forbidden. That’s how the Jews and the Jesuits started the money- and jewelry (!) business in medieval Italy -with the help of pawnshops. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombard_banking 

    Another way was, to move to the periphery of the Catholic Church’s influence and start a money-lending business with the local (and quite needy) aristocracy, as the Italian Lombards did from 1300 on until 1450 in the prospering Upper Rhine region (in the Middle Rhine region too, from ca. 1350 on). The Lombards had been working in the money-business in Italy before and moved as a group of specialists to the Upper and later Middle Rhine and started their new money-lending business in and around Cologne, Münster, and Aachen. They helped the local aristocracy to establish something new and – as it turned out – quite useful: A financial bureaucracy.

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombarden_(Bankiers)  

    Then Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and – the Fuggers dominated the scene (cf. Dieter Forte’s great and very insightful play: Luther, Thomas Münzer und die Einführung der Buchhaltung, Basel 1970 – Luther, Thomas Münzer and the Introduction of Accounting – no English translation. A pity – and a loss of insights!)

    • Replies: @HA
    @Dieter Kief

    "They helped the local aristocracy to establish something new and – as it turned out – quite useful: A financial bureaucracy."

    The movement, spearheaded by the Italian banks (though note the Venetians had no problem contracting with Jews to manage some of the Eastern properties), of lending strictly to royals (as opposed to vulnerable poor people) was what really helped turn around the reputation of bankers into (somewhat) respected professionals, though in a story about, say, failing family farms, the bankers still play the role of evil villain, Jewish or not, even today.

    That, too, suggests that it was the exploitation of the vulnerable as opposed to "qualified investors" that the moralists were against more so than just the interest, though the dividing line is a fuzzy one even today with payday loans and the like being debated as to whether or not they do more harm than good (or at least better than nothing).

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @Old Palo Altan
    @Dieter Kief

    I was just about to say something like this, Dieter, when you beat me to it.

    I can add that it continued rather longer than your sources intimate: two direct ancestors of mine were born in Piedmont in the middle of the 16th century, one is even referred to in contemporary documents in the region they went to (the Netherlands) as "de lombart", and they were both "tafelhouders van leeninghe", i.e. money lenders and, inevitably, bankers. It seemed to be monopolistic: one of them held the post in Alkmaar, and bought the same position (while keeping the first) in two other towns nearby. Although they went to the northern Netherlands, they were Catholic, and one married into an important legal family which had remained Catholic at the same time as it had remained, too, something like hereditary advisors (Raadsheren) to the famously Protestant Princes of Orange.
    But then the Dutch have always been tolerant where money is concerned. As late as the 18th century the richest family in the very wealthy city of Amsterdam was Catholic.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    , @Anonymous
    @Dieter Kief

    Spot on! Fun fact: the Russian noun for pawn shop is "lombard" (indicating that the influence of Lombards was far-reaching and long-lasting).

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  40. @J.Ross
    @Guy De Champlagne

    Is that true mathematically or are you getting lost in a bigger set of people? There is definitely a sense in Israel that high-IQ white-skinned European-descended people, many born to the "yekkes" fleeing Germany, run the show, with the Sephardim and Mizrahim being lower on the ladder, and some Israeli policies (especially in education) are literally lightly adapted German educational ideas. This shows up in grievances and pop cultural products. There's an Izzy TV show where a Mizrahi grumbles that a high-achieving white guy's parents were kibbutzniks, and they were superdemocratic commies on the kibbutz but now they come to Earth and tell everyone what to do.

    Replies: @Guy De Champlagne, @Anonymouse

    You got that all wrong. German jews fleeing Hitler played no part in pre-Israel politics. Zionists were Eastern European types. As teenagers in Poland, etc. they opted for Zionist summer school, argued with Socialists in high school, and then moved to Palestine where they died in droves from malaria in the agricultural communes. The Germans brought their pianos with them and served tea and, some of them, had Pritzker level architects to design their villas in leafy suburbs of Tel-Aviv. After independence all the prime ministers were Eastern European born or sabras born in country: Ben Gurion, Golda Meir (born in the US), Rabin, Peretz, Begin, Shamir, Sharon, Netanyahu. To this day, no German born Israeli is or was a politician.

    Understanding the Israel thing has been my hobby since 1947 when my father and I listened on the radio to the UN proceedings which were broadcast on WNYC the city-owned radio station held in Flushing before the UN building was built in Manhatten and partitition of Palestine was voted on and passed. Its like a Sinologist never visiting China. I write at length here to establish my credentials.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Anonymouse

    German jews fleeing Hitler played no part in pre-Israel politics

    Not what I wrote.

  41. @Hypnotoad666
    @Steve Sailer


    Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites.”

    Is there evidence that’s _not_ true?
     

     
    My guess is that the OP is asking which group produces the highest absolute number of extremely high IQ individuals.

    I've never heard that Jews have a lower SD of IQ than non-jewish whites. But whatever the means and SDs are, they could be plugged into an equation to see how many from each group meet any particular threshold for "super-smart" individuals.

    For example, if Jews are about 2% of the population with a mean IQ of around 110 and a SD around 15. And non-jewish Whites are around 65% with a mean IQ of 100 and an SD also around 15. Then someone could crunch the numbers and see how many "super-smart" individuals (say 145+ IQ), each group would be expected to produce.

    This is an interesting statistics "word problem." But it's beyond my limited math capabilities. It could also be run of course at different "supe-smart" thresholds.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Scientific calculators (like the Texas Instruments TI-83 or TI-84) have a built in function normalcdf that calculates the proportion normalcdf(lo,hi,mean,stdev) of individuals in a population having a mean IQ “mean” and a standard deviation “stdev” who have an IQ between “lo” and “hi”. Thus the proportion of people in a population of mean IQ 100 and standard deviation 15 who have an IQ of 145 or more is normalcdf(145,9E99,100,15) = .0013499672 = about one person in 1/0013499672 = 741. And the proportion of people in a population of mean IQ 110 and standard deviation 15 who have an IQ of 145 or more is normalcdf(145,9E99,110,15) = .0098153068 = about one person in 102.

    In a population of N persons, 2% from the mean IQ=110 population (“Jews”) and 65% from the mean IQ=100 population (“whites”), the number of supersmart Jews will be .02N*normalcdf(145,9E99,110,15) = .0001963061369N, and the number of supersmart whites will be .65N*normalcdf(145,9E99,100,15) = .0008774786945N. With N=1,000,000 persons, this yields 196 supersmart Jews and 877 supersmart whites.
    To play with this function a little more, the number, per million population, of supersmart individuals among a 12.7% subpopulation of mean IQ 85 comes to .127*1,000,000*normalcdf(145,9E99,85,15) = 4. (Check my math!)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)


    With N=1,000,000 persons, this yields 196 supersmart Jews and 877 supersmart whites.
     
    Jews seem relatively ambitious and curious. Do IQ tests fully capture ambition and curiosity?
    , @blake121666
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Your calculator is merely calculating the integral of the normal distribution.

    A fuller answer to the man's question would be to simply graph a normal distribution scaled by 65, centered at 100 and with a SD of 15. And then plot on the same axis a normal distribution scaled by 2, centered at 110 with a SD of 15. Then you can see exactly how those 2 distributions compare - throughout the entire axis - and in particular past 145 if you like.

    Replies: @blake121666

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)


    With N=1,000,000 persons, this yields 196 supersmart Jews and 877 supersmart whites. To play with this function a little more, the number, per million population, of supersmart individuals among a 12.7% subpopulation of mean IQ 85 comes to .127*1,000,000*normalcdf(145,9E99,85,15) = 4. (Check my math!)
     
    The specific statistical calculations are beyond me, but according to your results, plus my elementary school division and multiplication skills, the number and percentage of 145+IQ individuals in the U.S. would break down * as follows:

    Roughly Estimated 145+ IQ Population of U.S.

    Whites: 289,474 = 81.43%
    Jews: 64,705 = 18.199%
    Blacks: 168 = .371%


    * Note: This assumes a total U.S. population of 330 Million and resulting sub-populations of: 214M whites (330M x 65%); 6.6M Jews (330M x 2%); and 42M Blacks (330M x 12.7%). For present purposes, we are simply ignoring the 20% of "other" ethnicities - basically Asians and Hispanics.
  42. @Dieter Kief
    @Hypnotoad666

    The story of the success of the Ashkenazim might be not only about the total number of high IQ individuals, but also a strategic one of group-consciousness and group-strategies.

    Replies: @Bert, @Brás Cubas

    That auxillary hypothesis for Jewish domination of Western economics, culture and politics was developed by Kevin MacDonald in his three books on Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy.

    I accept the Cochran-Hardy-Harpending hypothesis that Ashkenazi higher IQ was selected for by the professions they practiced in Central and Eastern Europe.

    I further believe that those same professions must have selected for xenophobia, specifically for reduced empathy toward the Caucasian counterparties in business dealings. Group-consciousness has two psychological components, prosocial attitudes toward the ingroup and antisocial attitudes toward the outgroup. The former component should be subject to directional selection in any endogamous group (due to kin selection). However, the latter component should be subject to directional selection only in a human group specializing in professions which were economically predatory. Ashkenazi apparently met this criterion.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Bert

    "Xenophobia" = paranoia = the psychological costs of "acting predatory". Could be a sound equation.

    , @Anonymouse
    @Bert

    America changed the personal calculus for 50% of the world's jews who live here. Second and later generations have abandonned historic distrust of the non-jewish world because they have been accepted as Americans. Frequent reference to jewish attitudes of the 19th century and before are anachronistic and are simply wrongheaded. American Jews are no longer suspicious of the non-jewish world.

    References here of viewpoints no longer held by American jews no longer apply.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Gabe Ruth

  43. What is the rabbis with higher reading and verbal reasoning skills were given multiple wives?

  44. @Guy De Champlagne
    What's the best argument against the fact (?) that Israeli ashkenazi don't have high iqs like american ones do?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @J.Ross, @Bonner Tal, @Unladen Swallow, @bigdicknick

    Ashkenazi Jews are now outnumbered by non-Ashkenazi Jews ( Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews ) in Israel, not to mention a significant portion of Israel is non-Jewish ( Moslems and Druze ). Israel is doing very well in technology as well as winning a bunch of Nobels this century. Israel’s repeated victories over Arab countries lead to many non Ashkenazim emigrating there.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Unladen Swallow


    Israel’s repeated victories over Arab countries lead to many non Ashkenazim emigrating there.
     
    Why would that cause emigration?

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow

  45. @HA
    @Anon

    "The idea that European Jews were mostly moneylenders and the like apparently isn’t true..."

    No, according to Botticini and Eckstein, in large stretches of medieval France and Germany moneylending was pretty much the only thing that Jews did. Edward I "Longshanks" tried to put an end to their moneylending by offering them various other roles, including contract agriculture. It didn't work, and so he expelled them.


    In fact, [the historical records] show, Jews were often discriminated against precisely because of their emphasis on trade, such as in their expulsion from England in 1290, which only came after they were repeatedly told to give up the profession of money lending...
     
    While Jewish historians tend to fixate on the "they hate us because we're Jewish" meme, the history shows that other groups who practiced moneylending (B&E note that Jews never had a monopoly on the profession) were hated as well, and both Christian and Jewish religious leaders denounced the practice (and given some of the rates charged, the moneylending we're talking about would be outlawed even today). For example, the moneylending Lombards are depicted in medieval history as disgusting slime-trailing snails. B&E point out that when Jews were expelled from France for their moneylending by Louis the Pious, the Lombards stepped in. Eventually, they were kicked out too.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Jane Plain

    Edward I “Longshanks” tried to put an end to their moneylending by offering them various other roles, including contract agriculture. It didn’t work, and so he expelled them.

    Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together, though all but verbotten in the West, is a fair and rather even-handed book. Anyway, he very lengthily recalls all the efforts the Tsars of the late 1800s made to turn the Jews into productive rural citizens, but, the Jews weren’t having any of that. Russia never expelled the Jews, however, and Solzhenitsyn even shows that the resultant pogroms of the late 1800s and thereabouts were anything but state-sanctioned.

    • Replies: @HA
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    "Anyway, he very lengthily recalls all the efforts the Tsars of the late 1800s made to turn the Jews into productive rural citizens,"

    Good point. While people like Jack D want us to never forget all those Jews who worked as goldsmiths (without ever apparently asking himself as to how all the gold needed to build up a tradition of goldsmithing was initially amassed), it's more accurate to recall that for a while most Jews in imperial Russia "earned their livelihood by the sale of liquor." Like moneylending, that presumably didn't endear them to the health-and-wellbeing advocates of the day (much like those horns on their head).

    Which is all very convenient, because then any much-needed attempts to crack down on Russian liquor guzzling can be portrayed as a pogrom and reduced to sheer antisemitism..

    Likewise, it means you can can engage in knee-slappers like "Shikker is the goy". Keep that one in mind the next time Jack D goes off on that "local drunken peasantry" jealous of the success of their economic superiors, and recall that attitudes like his have a long history -- far longer than 200 years, as a matter of fact.

    Replies: @Jack D

  46. @Anon
    @Sean


    Maybe the reason Cochran the plagiarist never liked that theory is because the Jew he stole it from got it a bit wrong.
     
    It's funny how you accuse Cochran of plagiarism, while you're so obsequious towards Peter Frost, who plagiarizes his material from hbdchick and others. Just because Cochran disagrees with you and Frost on certain things, you make unfounded attacks on him while be a total sycophant towards Frost.

    Replies: @Sean

    If Peter Frost can be accused of taking from anyone it is Darwin who wrote a book on sexual selection. Peter cited him and added new explanations. I have absolutely no idea what Diamond was talking about when he mentioned sexual selection in relation to the scholars marrying daughters of rich men theory. The daughters of successful businessmen are not going to be stupid, Peter’s theory of Ashkenazi intelligence relates to cottage industry, and it is certainly very original. I have always been impressed with the verbal and social cognition abilities of Jews. From the X chromosome (ie mother) in men I think.

    As I understand it you are supposed to cite people for ideas, and if Cochran didn’t cite Diamond his only defence is that he was unaware of the article. Diamond supposedly read Norbert Weiner rather than Kevin MacDonald’s A People that Shall Dwell Alone (1994) for the Talmudic scholarship theory. MacDonald had published on the consanguinity prohibition by the Western church and Western marriage practices, long before HBDperson thought up a name so non credible that it could not be cited in a peer reviewed publication, then complained.

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    @Sean

    I give Diamond credit for treading into a possible genetic explanation, but his reasons for why those genes became favored is not the same as for the CHH paper. The rabbinical student marrying the rich guys daughter, persecution made them smart, blah, blah, etc... Cochran thinks and Harpending thought thinks those explanations are/were silly.

    Replies: @Sean

  47. @Steve Sailer
    @HA

    How did the Lombard moneylenders get around the Catholic Church's ban on lending money for interest?

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Dieter Kief, @HA, @HA

    How did the Lombard moneylenders get around the Catholic Church’s ban on lending money for interest?

    B&E don’t mention that, but they do note that Poles were also a group, along with Lombards, that had a reputation for loansharking, and they note that even monasteries were in the business of lending money, so it must have been an issue.

    I’m guessing that then as now, the rates charged were what differentiated loaning money (which was encouraged) and profiting from the practice (which was condemned). I would also guess that the brutality of manner in which collateral was extracted from desperately failing farmers (not to mention those trying to raise funds to buy back relatives sold into Muslim slavery — another industry where Jews played also played a major role) played a part. B&E note that the rates that moneylenders charged could be %130 at the high end, which as I’ve already noted is the kind of thing that could get you arrested even today.

    B&E also list at least one instance in which Jews were able to get around moneylending laws by simply paying the crown an extra high kickback, which I’m guessing also didn’t help boost their popularity among the common folk. However much Jack D wants us to believe that being called “Christ-killers” and allegedly having horns on their head was what caused Jews to be hated, and however often he and other other hucksters like him repeat the still-popular (but, according to B&E, long since academically discredited) notion that Jews were forced into moneylending because agriculture was not sufficiently available to them, or because they needed portable wealth to escape the pogroms, or some other such lame excuse, the actual evidence shows that Jews coveted moneylending positions and dispersed themselves widely to obtain them, despite the hatred they engendered and despite the steep kickbacks to the crown that were required in order to secure them (and the consequent risk of royal extortion that being rich posed for anybody, not just Jews — I mean, look what happened to the Knights Templar and Henry VIII, though no one thinks to call those pogroms.) In one area of medieval Spain (Castille, I believe, but you can look it up), moneylending profits were about a quarter of the crown’s revenue, but given the how immoral the practice was regarded, I maintain that kickback is the more accurate terminology.

    • Replies: @HA
    @HA

    Sorry, I should have written "look at what happened to the Knights Templar and the monasteries under Henry VIII"

  48. @HA
    @Steve Sailer

    How did the Lombard moneylenders get around the Catholic Church’s ban on lending money for interest?

    B&E don't mention that, but they do note that Poles were also a group, along with Lombards, that had a reputation for loansharking, and they note that even monasteries were in the business of lending money, so it must have been an issue.

    I'm guessing that then as now, the rates charged were what differentiated loaning money (which was encouraged) and profiting from the practice (which was condemned). I would also guess that the brutality of manner in which collateral was extracted from desperately failing farmers (not to mention those trying to raise funds to buy back relatives sold into Muslim slavery -- another industry where Jews played also played a major role) played a part. B&E note that the rates that moneylenders charged could be %130 at the high end, which as I've already noted is the kind of thing that could get you arrested even today.

    B&E also list at least one instance in which Jews were able to get around moneylending laws by simply paying the crown an extra high kickback, which I'm guessing also didn't help boost their popularity among the common folk. However much Jack D wants us to believe that being called "Christ-killers" and allegedly having horns on their head was what caused Jews to be hated, and however often he and other other hucksters like him repeat the still-popular (but, according to B&E, long since academically discredited) notion that Jews were forced into moneylending because agriculture was not sufficiently available to them, or because they needed portable wealth to escape the pogroms, or some other such lame excuse, the actual evidence shows that Jews coveted moneylending positions and dispersed themselves widely to obtain them, despite the hatred they engendered and despite the steep kickbacks to the crown that were required in order to secure them (and the consequent risk of royal extortion that being rich posed for anybody, not just Jews --- I mean, look what happened to the Knights Templar and Henry VIII, though no one thinks to call those pogroms.) In one area of medieval Spain (Castille, I believe, but you can look it up), moneylending profits were about a quarter of the crown's revenue, but given the how immoral the practice was regarded, I maintain that kickback is the more accurate terminology.

    Replies: @HA

    Sorry, I should have written “look at what happened to the Knights Templar and the monasteries under Henry VIII”

  49. This, I am afraid, summarizes the whole “Jewish intelligence” discussion. There’s a hundred goys analyzing the words of a Jew. The Jew, as usual, says something Jewocentric. He mentions founder effect in order to reject it with the logical equivalent of hand-waving. He mentions clotting diseases are also common in Jews (and he could do well to mention that lysosomal diseases are seen in other consanguineous groups), but he chooses to focus on the coupling “Jew – lysosomes”. He is reinterpreting a sign of degeneracy, caused by hatred for others, into some sort of big advantage which you goys don’t understand.

    He isn’t necessarily smart, but definitely smarter than his fans.

  50. @anon
    @Lockean Proviso

    So is it also White Supremacy to say that blacks tend to be faster and more muscular than whites?

    https://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/042/152/thats-racist.gif

    Replies: @Desiderius

    The feeling (and it is a feeling, which ends up superior to argument/more congenial to their effeminacy for the nonfoundationalists who misrule us) is that only white supremacists are interested in talking about group differences. The missing premise being that they do so because it would highlight the actual white supremacy (in things that matter) that the ruling class (now nearly alone) still adheres to sub rosa.

  51. @Dieter Kief
    @Steve Sailer


    How did the Lombard moneylenders get around the Catholic Church’s ban on lending money for interest?

     

    One way was to open pawnshops because they were allowed by the church, whereas interest was forbidden. That's how the Jews and the Jesuits started the money- and jewelry (!) business in medieval Italy -with the help of pawnshops. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombard_banking 

    Another way was, to move to the periphery of the Catholic Church's influence and start a money-lending business with the local (and quite needy) aristocracy, as the Italian Lombards did from 1300 on until 1450 in the prospering Upper Rhine region (in the Middle Rhine region too, from ca. 1350 on). The Lombards had been working in the money-business in Italy before and moved as a group of specialists to the Upper and later Middle Rhine and started their new money-lending business in and around Cologne, Münster, and Aachen. They helped the local aristocracy to establish something new and - as it turned out - quite useful: A financial bureaucracy.

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombarden_(Bankiers)  

    Then Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and - the Fuggers dominated the scene (cf. Dieter Forte's great and very insightful play: Luther, Thomas Münzer und die Einführung der Buchhaltung, Basel 1970 - Luther, Thomas Münzer and the Introduction of Accounting - no English translation. A pity - and a loss of insights!)

    Replies: @HA, @Old Palo Altan, @Anonymous

    “They helped the local aristocracy to establish something new and – as it turned out – quite useful: A financial bureaucracy.”

    The movement, spearheaded by the Italian banks (though note the Venetians had no problem contracting with Jews to manage some of the Eastern properties), of lending strictly to royals (as opposed to vulnerable poor people) was what really helped turn around the reputation of bankers into (somewhat) respected professionals, though in a story about, say, failing family farms, the bankers still play the role of evil villain, Jewish or not, even today.

    That, too, suggests that it was the exploitation of the vulnerable as opposed to “qualified investors” that the moralists were against more so than just the interest, though the dividing line is a fuzzy one even today with payday loans and the like being debated as to whether or not they do more harm than good (or at least better than nothing).

    • Agree: Dieter Kief
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @HA

    Cosimo de' Medici didn't make the family fortune (and Capo di Tutti i
    Capi Frank della Rovere didn't have his grandson whacked for it) by not charging interest.

    Replies: @HA, @HA

  52. Yet it has always seemed suspicious that three of the common Ashkenazi diseases (Tay-Sachs, Gaucher and Niemann-Pick) all involve lipid storage

    The human brain is 60% lipids, and neurotransmitters are based on cholesterol.

    • Replies: @JimB
    @JimB

    Hormones are also cholesterol based so maybe rapid development of faster, bigger brains requires lipid chemistry that causes greater rates of Tay Sachs and hormone sensitive cancers.

    , @Dacian Julien Soros
    @JimB

    I am sorry, can you name a neurotransmitter based on cholesterol?

  53. @HA
    @Dieter Kief

    "They helped the local aristocracy to establish something new and – as it turned out – quite useful: A financial bureaucracy."

    The movement, spearheaded by the Italian banks (though note the Venetians had no problem contracting with Jews to manage some of the Eastern properties), of lending strictly to royals (as opposed to vulnerable poor people) was what really helped turn around the reputation of bankers into (somewhat) respected professionals, though in a story about, say, failing family farms, the bankers still play the role of evil villain, Jewish or not, even today.

    That, too, suggests that it was the exploitation of the vulnerable as opposed to "qualified investors" that the moralists were against more so than just the interest, though the dividing line is a fuzzy one even today with payday loans and the like being debated as to whether or not they do more harm than good (or at least better than nothing).

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Cosimo de’ Medici didn’t make the family fortune (and Capo di Tutti i
    Capi Frank della Rovere didn’t have his grandson whacked for it) by not charging interest.

    • Replies: @HA
    @Desiderius

    "Cosimo de’ Medici didn’t make the family fortune ...by not charging interest."

    True enough, but I'm guessing he focused more on richer marks. Also, as B&E note, monasteries were themselves big-time credit providers. The issue is therefore one of what exactly constitutes exploitation and excessive profit, and while it's definitely a gray area, in the case of medieval Jews, where moneylending was such a large (at times almost exclusive) component of their cash flow, it doesn't take a financial genius to link the evident growing wealth of that community to the subsequent increased poverty of those desperate enough to resort to moneylending. And then to loudly cry foul and call for the pitchforks, which I'm not endorsing.

    That being said, Christian histories on antisemitism tend to pride themselves on the (presumably rich) bishops who spoke up for the Jews. Alas, I suspect some of those cases were simply of well-off churchmen from wealthy families who had relatives employing those Jews (or else were raking in kickbacks from Jewishs moneylenders and tax-farmers themselves). I.e. not something to be that proud of, really. Whereas the lower clergy tended to be the most murderous and evil when it came to dredging up antisemitism, though I'm guessing part of the reason for that is they were the ones who were close enough to the poor to see the effects that usury had on the most vulnerable of their flock.

    So yeah, there are some difficult grey areas to cross here.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @HA
    @Desiderius

    Oh yeah, and given that you brought up the Medici, I forgot the most important point: I very much doubt that the unsavory reputation the Medici enjoyed can be disentangled from all that money they made from banking. That's as true of them as it is of the Jews and Lombards.

    I mean, despite all that Renaissance tabloid-fodder about poisonings and incest and whatnot, were they really any dirtier than the Sforzas or the Orsinis?

    It seems that medieval moneylending has a pretty high correlation with hatred and resentment regardless of whether or not one is Jewish.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  54. Anonymous[116] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    Tay Sachs disease is commonly found in children who grow up in Jewish households. It is obvious that something about Jewish culture causes this disease, because muh blank slate says so!

    Nurture rules! Nature drools!

    Therefore Tay-Sachs is a cultural and social construct. All we need to do is change the socio-cultural matrix and the disease will vanish.

    This message approved by Trofim Lysenko and the entire Woke world that just luvs Science!

    Replies: @Kronos, @Anonymous

    The only way Tay-Sachs will “vanish” is if Jewish folks only married gentiles.
    Prior to DNA testing technology, the only way a Jew could be sure that his offspring would be free of Tay-Sachs would be to procreate with a Gentile. Perhaps Tay-Sachs is Mother Nature’s (or God’s) way of telling them to marry outside their tribe, similar to how breeding with your close relatives (incest) increases the risk of birth defects. Interesting, French-Canadians are said to suffer from Tay-Sachs as well. Both groups share one thing in common; they both descend largely from a small settler population of a few thousand people but have now multiplied into the millions.

  55. @Beavertales
    When Harvey Weinstein was trying to wriggle out of the metoo spotlight in 2017, he said he'd focus on taking down the NRA and Trump. His grand strategy of deflection failed miserably, and revealed the undeserved confidence some have in deceptive ways.

    Likewise, it takes a lot of shameless chutzpah to think that the world is stupid enough to be led astray on the Ashkenazi intelligence question, and that everyone will obediently stop noticing Ashkenazim because of a few point and sputter attacks.

    The horse has left the barn. Who are the Ashkenazim and what do they do with their intelligence is now a legitimate and growing subject of study.

    Replies: @SFG

    I think the goyim were going to figure it out after the 138th Nobel or so.

  56. @Sean
    @Anon

    If Peter Frost can be accused of taking from anyone it is Darwin who wrote a book on sexual selection. Peter cited him and added new explanations. I have absolutely no idea what Diamond was talking about when he mentioned sexual selection in relation to the scholars marrying daughters of rich men theory. The daughters of successful businessmen are not going to be stupid, Peter's theory of Ashkenazi intelligence relates to cottage industry, and it is certainly very original. I have always been impressed with the verbal and social cognition abilities of Jews. From the X chromosome (ie mother) in men I think.

    As I understand it you are supposed to cite people for ideas, and if Cochran didn't cite Diamond his only defence is that he was unaware of the article. Diamond supposedly read Norbert Weiner rather than Kevin MacDonald's A People that Shall Dwell Alone (1994) for the Talmudic scholarship theory. MacDonald had published on the consanguinity prohibition by the Western church and Western marriage practices, long before HBDperson thought up a name so non credible that it could not be cited in a peer reviewed publication, then complained.

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow

    I give Diamond credit for treading into a possible genetic explanation, but his reasons for why those genes became favored is not the same as for the CHH paper. The rabbinical student marrying the rich guys daughter, persecution made them smart, blah, blah, etc… Cochran thinks and Harpending thought thinks those explanations are/were silly.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Unladen Swallow

    So you can find my reply

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/jared-diamond-of-guns-germs-and-steel-respectability-anticipated-the-harpending-ashkenazi-intelligence-theory-in-1994-in-nature/#comment-3635666

  57. @anon
    @Kronos

    One professor (if I recall correctly, I’m not going to purchase the $50 kindle edition to confirm) was a female that claimed that Schizophrenia was a social construct.

    Cool combo of liberalism and libertarianism. Wonder if she was a student of Szasz?
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Thomas_Szasz

    Wonder if she ever got to talk to a homeless bipolar guy in an alley at night, while he's holding onto an unknown, dark object ? I know cops who have to do that sometimes.

    Replies: @SFG

    While you’re correct otherwise, bipolar means manic-depressive, not schizophrenic. You can have both–it’s called schizoaffective disorder.

  58. @Steve Sailer
    @HA

    How did the Lombard moneylenders get around the Catholic Church's ban on lending money for interest?

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Dieter Kief, @HA, @HA

    And while I’m on the topic of Botticini & Eckstein, let me also note what they (indirectly) say about Jewish IQ, though unlike their second-hand retelling of medieval Jewish moneylending, their thesis on that is much more controversial. (They are, for example, accused of having grossly miscounted the population of Jews in the Roman empire; moreover, as economists, they are seen as interlopers among the historians, so there maybe some political rivalry going on.)

    Anyway, B&E propose that it was the rabbis/Pharisees who, after the destruction of the Second Temple in the first century AD, transformed Judaism from a largely agrarian tribe (much like the Samaritans who have stayed largely agrarian to this day) into a tribe of largely literate businessmen. These rabbis, through their emphasis on literacy and scholarship, and through the high taxes needed to pay for all that (in some cases, their yeshivas were funded from the general accounts, so that they were tuition-free), they over time wound up expelling the Jews (esp. the poor farmers among them who couldn’t afford to take their sons out of the field and into school for months at a time) that weren’t sufficiently prosperous and who couldn’t pay the temple fees, and left them to drift off to become Christians and Muslims. (Later on, after Jews got crowded into the Pale, and after the number of Jewish boys greatly outpaced the number of available money-lending and liquor-industry jobs, it became easier for a poor Jew to stay Jewish, but by then, this great filtration had already happened.)

    In other words, Jewish IQ is a little like Episcopalian IQ. It’s specious to offer it as something significant if you don’t also note that as people become rich, they tend to convert to Episcopalianism, whereas they tend to convert back to being Pentacostals, Evangelicals and Catholics once their fortunes decline. You have to consider all the ones that got kicked out, or couldn’t stay in, if you want a fair count. Otherwise, you might as well get all tied up in knots about how the members of the ritzy golf club in your town seems to be inordinately prosperous. Big deal. They, like the Episcopalians, and like post-exile Judaism (to a large extent), are rich boys’ clubs.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @HA

    There is really very little known about the early post-Temple period - there is a reason why the Dark Ages are called that. But the Ashkenazi Jews that we have today appear to be descended not from the general Jewish population of Palestine but from a small group of Jewish merchants who ended up in Rome or Greece and took wives from the local population. It's true that most of the agrarian population that never left home eventually ended up being Muslim. It's well known among the Palestinians which of their tribes have Jewish origins.

  59. @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    Dr Manhattan ain't blue for nothing.

    Even though the Hungarian High School Science Project missed the deadline and had to submit their project at an East Asian venue, it was still an impressive accomplishment.

    Their control of the levers of control worldwide, if only for a century or so perhaps, it's easily as impressive. Most goy can't even comprehend that anyone could come up with a strategy like that let alone execute. Communism, Christianity, modern Judaism, Cultural Marxism. I think one underestimates the far right tail of the Jewish IQ bell curve at their peril.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @SFG

    I don’t think Communism, Christianity, modern Judaism, and Cultural Marxism are part of some huge master plan. (You could add neoliberalism/Chicago School free marketry in there too.)

    Most likely you’re going to get Jews going for right-wing elitism (free market), left-wing elitism (Cultural Marxism), and left-wing populism (Communism) based on their personal inclinations because right-wing populism tends to be anti-Semitic (outside Israel, anyway). You go where they’ll take you, and there were a few people in that quadrant–Gottfried and the Breitbart crowd for instance.

    Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism two millennia ago and doesn’t really fit the same schema.

  60. @Dieter Kief
    @Hypnotoad666

    The story of the success of the Ashkenazim might be not only about the total number of high IQ individuals, but also a strategic one of group-consciousness and group-strategies.

    Replies: @Bert, @Brás Cubas

    The story of the success of the Ashkenazim might be not only about the total number of high IQ individuals, but also a strategic one of group-consciousness and group-strategies.

    Considering that group-consciousnes and the ability for devising group-strategies is probably favored by high IQ, there is a positive feedback between both phenomena. Furthermore, if one takes into consideration the following hypothesis:

    A second hypothesis is selection in Jews for the intelligence putatively required to survive recurrent persecution

    then it becomes possible that this strategy is ampler than just that of one group, encompassing the out-groups as well. It makes sense evolutionwise for humans to have very intelligent people among them.

  61. Hmm… gentile… intellectual…

    Insults posing as compliments.

    Tay-Sachs, Gaucher and Niemann-Pick

    Where are the PSAs, the telethons, the decorative stamps for these afflictions?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Reg Cæsar

    These diseases are rare (they were always recessive genes so that even if both parents were carriers there was only a 1 in 4 chance of a child having the disease) and becoming even more rare due to genetic screening. And as genetic diseases, there is never going to be a vaccine found as there was for polio. There are lots of rare diseases for which there are no telethons though every one (including these) usually has some foundation that supports research.

  62. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    @Hypnotoad666

    Scientific calculators (like the Texas Instruments TI-83 or TI-84) have a built in function normalcdf that calculates the proportion normalcdf(lo,hi,mean,stdev) of individuals in a population having a mean IQ "mean" and a standard deviation "stdev" who have an IQ between "lo" and "hi". Thus the proportion of people in a population of mean IQ 100 and standard deviation 15 who have an IQ of 145 or more is normalcdf(145,9E99,100,15) = .0013499672 = about one person in 1/0013499672 = 741. And the proportion of people in a population of mean IQ 110 and standard deviation 15 who have an IQ of 145 or more is normalcdf(145,9E99,110,15) = .0098153068 = about one person in 102.

    In a population of N persons, 2% from the mean IQ=110 population ("Jews") and 65% from the mean IQ=100 population ("whites"), the number of supersmart Jews will be .02N*normalcdf(145,9E99,110,15) = .0001963061369N, and the number of supersmart whites will be .65N*normalcdf(145,9E99,100,15) = .0008774786945N. With N=1,000,000 persons, this yields 196 supersmart Jews and 877 supersmart whites.
    To play with this function a little more, the number, per million population, of supersmart individuals among a 12.7% subpopulation of mean IQ 85 comes to .127*1,000,000*normalcdf(145,9E99,85,15) = 4. (Check my math!)

    Replies: @Anonymous, @blake121666, @Hypnotoad666

    With N=1,000,000 persons, this yields 196 supersmart Jews and 877 supersmart whites.

    Jews seem relatively ambitious and curious. Do IQ tests fully capture ambition and curiosity?

  63. @Unladen Swallow
    @Guy De Champlagne

    Ashkenazi Jews are now outnumbered by non-Ashkenazi Jews ( Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews ) in Israel, not to mention a significant portion of Israel is non-Jewish ( Moslems and Druze ). Israel is doing very well in technology as well as winning a bunch of Nobels this century. Israel's repeated victories over Arab countries lead to many non Ashkenazim emigrating there.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Israel’s repeated victories over Arab countries lead to many non Ashkenazim emigrating there.

    Why would that cause emigration?

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    @Anonymous

    The Arab countries needed to avenge their defeats on someone, the local Jews were obviously to blame.

  64. I don’t see in The 10000 Year Explosion book where the 1994 article of Diamond is being cited. Cochran cites Diamond in The 10000 Year Explosion for other things right back to the 80’s, but that 1994 piece in Nature appears to not be cited. The book Genetic Diseases among Ashkenazi Jews, where the geneticist Victor McKusick seems to have originated the argument Diamond makes is not cited either that I can see.

    Cochran has always scoffed at the scholarship argument, he thinks it was business success. Diamond missed the intelligence of a successful businessman’s daughter (the X chromosome from a father is handed down intact to a daughter). Anyway, I think Cochran’s argument is essentially the same as Diamond’s or McKusick’s in relation to the clustering of diseases.

  65. @Anonymous
    Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites. Given that whites are much more numerous and that they have a wider deviation (more people on the left and right edges) of IQ, the "cutting edge" is very much dominated by whites in raw IQ. But Ashkenazim do have the advantages of inherent pushiness and "Jewiness", and are part of a community that imbues them with a communal desire to help each other out, support each other, and evince a concerted desire for their people to survive as a people, while whites usually come from very different backgrounds. Most really smart whites come from politically liberal and anti-White families.


    Maybe when whites are fewer, and cold, hungry and scared they will decide they want to survive and make the hard decisions necessary to do that, and maybe not.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Jack D

    Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites.

    This shows a complete ignorance of statistics and the operation of the normal distribution. Once you concede than Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites, then by necessity they will have a higher IQ at all points on the curve including at the 99th percentile. This is a matter of pure mathematics and requires no further evidence.

    When the mean is shifted like that, the effects are magnified at the tail. A 1 SD shift will mean that out that the far right tail there are maybe 10x as many Jews as their prevalence in the population. Jews are 2% of the general US population but maybe 20% of those with IQ above say 150. Note however that there are still 4 non-Jewish geniuses for every Jewish one. (The same thing happens in reverse for blacks because of their lower population mean IQ – blacks are 15% of the population but maybe 1.5% of those above 150 IQ).

    But your original “no evidence” statement is utterly wrong. The smartest 1% of Jews (a group of 60,000 people in America) are far smarter on average than the smartest 1% of whites (a group of 2 million).

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    @Jack D

    Only 1 in 300 American blacks have an IQ at 120 or higher, so how could they constitute one in 67 of those two standard deviations ( 150 IQ) above that threshold in the total population?

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Technite78
    @Jack D

    Your assertion about all points on the curve being higher for the distribution with the higher mean is only true if the standard deviations of the two distributions are the same. If the lower mean distribution has a higher standard deviation it may cross above the higher one out on the right side tail.

    Of course, the standard deviations are probably close, but without stating that in your reply the jibe about ignorance seems a bit unfair, if not outright silly.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Faraday's Bobcat
    @Jack D


    This shows a complete ignorance of statistics and the operation of the normal distribution. Once you concede than Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites, then by necessity they will have a higher IQ at all points on the curve including at the 99th percentile. This is a matter of pure mathematics and requires no further evidence.
     
    No. For one thing, no population exactly fits the normal distribution, so if we're talking about 99th percentile comparisons, which are way out at the tail, it would be unwise to base claims solely on the mean and variance of the best-fit normal PDF to the population as a whole.

    Even if the populations were exactly normal, the variances also matter. Trivially, if the Ashkenazi parameters were mean 110 and SD 10, while the non-Ashkenazi parameters were mean 100 and SD 15, then the Ashkenazi 99%ile would be 133 while the non-Ashkenazi would be 135.

    Normality and the variances are both only verifiable empirically. It is not a matter of "pure mathematics."
    , @James B. Shearer
    @Jack D

    "This shows a complete ignorance of statistics and the operation of the normal distribution. Once you concede than Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites, then by necessity they will have a higher IQ at all points on the curve including at the 99th percentile. This is a matter of pure mathematics and requires no further evidence."

    There are a couple of problems with this. First the normal distribution curve is determined by two parameters, the average and the standard deviation (which determines the width). A group with a lower average but higher standard deviation will have more high scorers (if you set the bar high enough) because its scores are less tightly bunched around the average. Larry Summers got in trouble for noting the consequences of a higher standard deviation in ability among men (compared to women). Note a group with a lower average will be especially deficient in high scorers if it also has a lower standard deviation.

    The second problem is that the 'fact' that IQ is normally distributed is more of an assumption or convention than a law of nature. Given a test that rank orders people you can scale the scores so that they are normally distributed for any given group. This is done for IQ tests with respect to some reference population. But you can't necessarily do this in a consistent way for two different groups at the same time.

    , @res
    @Jack D

    As others have pointed out, you are ignoring two possible issues.
    1. Non-normal distributions.
    2. Different standard deviations.
    In any case, I suspect you are right about the 1% comparison.

    Where you miss badly is this:


    The same thing happens in reverse for blacks because of their lower population mean IQ – blacks are 15% of the population but maybe 1.5% of those above 150 IQ
     
    Using Emil's tail calculator at http://emilkirkegaard.dk/understanding_statistics/?app=tail_effects
    and assuming means of 100/85 and the same SD of 15 (evidence is black SD is a bit lower which makes this even worse) along with a population size of 70 (%) for whites and 15 for blacks we see that over a threshold of 150 whites will outnumber blacks 273 to 1!

    This is because the normal curve falls off incredibly fast in the extreme tails. Two good values to remember are that +3 SD is about 1 in 740 while +4 SD is about 1 in 30,000. Those points happen to correspond to 145 IQ for whites and blacks respectively so you can estimate the ratio above 145 as
    70 / 15 * 30,000 / 740 = 190
    Then IQ 150 is a third of an SD higher than 145.
  66. @Bert
    @Dieter Kief

    That auxillary hypothesis for Jewish domination of Western economics, culture and politics was developed by Kevin MacDonald in his three books on Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy.

    I accept the Cochran-Hardy-Harpending hypothesis that Ashkenazi higher IQ was selected for by the professions they practiced in Central and Eastern Europe.

    I further believe that those same professions must have selected for xenophobia, specifically for reduced empathy toward the Caucasian counterparties in business dealings. Group-consciousness has two psychological components, prosocial attitudes toward the ingroup and antisocial attitudes toward the outgroup. The former component should be subject to directional selection in any endogamous group (due to kin selection). However, the latter component should be subject to directional selection only in a human group specializing in professions which were economically predatory. Ashkenazi apparently met this criterion.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Anonymouse

    “Xenophobia” = paranoia = the psychological costs of “acting predatory”. Could be a sound equation.

  67. @Reg Cæsar
    Hmm... gentile... intellectual...

    Insults posing as compliments.

    Tay-Sachs, Gaucher and Niemann-Pick
     
    Where are the PSAs, the telethons, the decorative stamps for these afflictions?

    Replies: @Jack D

    These diseases are rare (they were always recessive genes so that even if both parents were carriers there was only a 1 in 4 chance of a child having the disease) and becoming even more rare due to genetic screening. And as genetic diseases, there is never going to be a vaccine found as there was for polio. There are lots of rare diseases for which there are no telethons though every one (including these) usually has some foundation that supports research.

  68. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    @HA


    Edward I “Longshanks” tried to put an end to their moneylending by offering them various other roles, including contract agriculture. It didn’t work, and so he expelled them.

     

    Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together, though all but verbotten in the West, is a fair and rather even-handed book. Anyway, he very lengthily recalls all the efforts the Tsars of the late 1800s made to turn the Jews into productive rural citizens, but, the Jews weren't having any of that. Russia never expelled the Jews, however, and Solzhenitsyn even shows that the resultant pogroms of the late 1800s and thereabouts were anything but state-sanctioned.

    Replies: @HA

    “Anyway, he very lengthily recalls all the efforts the Tsars of the late 1800s made to turn the Jews into productive rural citizens,”

    Good point. While people like Jack D want us to never forget all those Jews who worked as goldsmiths (without ever apparently asking himself as to how all the gold needed to build up a tradition of goldsmithing was initially amassed), it’s more accurate to recall that for a while most Jews in imperial Russia “earned their livelihood by the sale of liquor.” Like moneylending, that presumably didn’t endear them to the health-and-wellbeing advocates of the day (much like those horns on their head).

    Which is all very convenient, because then any much-needed attempts to crack down on Russian liquor guzzling can be portrayed as a pogrom and reduced to sheer antisemitism..

    Likewise, it means you can can engage in knee-slappers like “Shikker is the goy”. Keep that one in mind the next time Jack D goes off on that “local drunken peasantry” jealous of the success of their economic superiors, and recall that attitudes like his have a long history — far longer than 200 years, as a matter of fact.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @HA

    The Jews were never in Russia per se. Russia was not welcoming to the Jews and there was no place for them in their social or economic system. Jews lived in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. What happened was that Russia came to them when Poland was erased from the map. Even so, in the Pale of Settlement (the area where Jews were allowed to live, corresponding to the former Polish/Lithuanian territory) most of the local peasant population was Polish or Ukrainian or Lithuanian rather than Russian.

    Poland had a very extensive system of "tax farming" - the state had monopolies on various items - alcohol, tobacco, salt, etc. and the pre-modern state didn't have the bureaucracy needed to actually collect the taxes from each citizen. So what they would do was to "lease" the local monopoly to the highest bidder for a certain period and collect the revenue in a lump sum. The high bidder then had to go out and collect the tax himself by selling the taxed product, hopefully enough to cover his lease payments. These high bidders were often (but not always) Jewish. This system of leasing monopolies broke down over time. Ironically, one of the last ones, which lasted all the way into the Polish Republic, was over kosher meat. The Jewish community favored abolishing it but the (Jewish) lease holders (people who were literally "rent seekers") lobbied against it.

    This system of in effect privatizing tax collection seems strange and unfamiliar to us but was common in the past. It's difficult (at least for me) to attach a moral dimension to tax collectors - they are not evil, they are just doing their jobs. But as a practical matter, it didn't help the popularity of the Jews among the local populace for them to be in effect the local IRS. Tax collector, landlord, bill collector - these are not jobs that endear you to the locals, but these were the jobs that the Polish ruling class recruited Jews to do so they could keep their hands clean.

    There is no doubt that E. Europeans have an alcohol problem. However, it seems to me that they would have this problem with or without the Jews. Modern Poland has hardly any Jews remaining and none in the liquor trade AFAIK but alcohol remains a problem for them.

    Replies: @HA, @Anonymous, @nebulafox, @anon

  69. @HA
    @Steve Sailer

    And while I’m on the topic of Botticini & Eckstein, let me also note what they (indirectly) say about Jewish IQ, though unlike their second-hand retelling of medieval Jewish moneylending, their thesis on that is much more controversial. (They are, for example, accused of having grossly miscounted the population of Jews in the Roman empire; moreover, as economists, they are seen as interlopers among the historians, so there maybe some political rivalry going on.)

    Anyway, B&E propose that it was the rabbis/Pharisees who, after the destruction of the Second Temple in the first century AD, transformed Judaism from a largely agrarian tribe (much like the Samaritans who have stayed largely agrarian to this day) into a tribe of largely literate businessmen. These rabbis, through their emphasis on literacy and scholarship, and through the high taxes needed to pay for all that (in some cases, their yeshivas were funded from the general accounts, so that they were tuition-free), they over time wound up expelling the Jews (esp. the poor farmers among them who couldn't afford to take their sons out of the field and into school for months at a time) that weren’t sufficiently prosperous and who couldn’t pay the temple fees, and left them to drift off to become Christians and Muslims. (Later on, after Jews got crowded into the Pale, and after the number of Jewish boys greatly outpaced the number of available money-lending and liquor-industry jobs, it became easier for a poor Jew to stay Jewish, but by then, this great filtration had already happened.)

    In other words, Jewish IQ is a little like Episcopalian IQ. It’s specious to offer it as something significant if you don’t also note that as people become rich, they tend to convert to Episcopalianism, whereas they tend to convert back to being Pentacostals, Evangelicals and Catholics once their fortunes decline. You have to consider all the ones that got kicked out, or couldn’t stay in, if you want a fair count. Otherwise, you might as well get all tied up in knots about how the members of the ritzy golf club in your town seems to be inordinately prosperous. Big deal. They, like the Episcopalians, and like post-exile Judaism (to a large extent), are rich boys’ clubs.

    Replies: @Jack D

    There is really very little known about the early post-Temple period – there is a reason why the Dark Ages are called that. But the Ashkenazi Jews that we have today appear to be descended not from the general Jewish population of Palestine but from a small group of Jewish merchants who ended up in Rome or Greece and took wives from the local population. It’s true that most of the agrarian population that never left home eventually ended up being Muslim. It’s well known among the Palestinians which of their tribes have Jewish origins.

  70. Anonymous[918] • Disclaimer says:

    Take a look at the “talk show host” niche in the American media. This employment position is an excellent proxy for verbal IQ and IQ overall.

    Radio version of the job eliminates the physical appearance factor. But we can see that the TV version of the job is filled with physically average specimens because the audience requires talent above all.

    So look at the whole pool of top people in the field: It’s filled with gentiles and Jews struggle as second tier players. That is the pattern. And this is an incredibly lucrative, desirable and competitive field.

    Same pattern plays out on YouTube and the podcast/streaming industry.

    This talk show host niche is a microcosm of the “gentile giant” phenomenon. The raw IQ data that’s available should predict total domination in this niche by verbally talented Jews but it doesn’t happen.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonymous


    Radio version of the job eliminates the physical appearance factor. But we can see that the TV version of the job is filled with physically average specimens because the audience requires talent above all.
     
    What are the features of the talent required to be a talk show host?
  71. it’s White Supremacy for gentile whites to notice that Ashkenazi Jews have a higher average IQ score than white gentiles have

    I’ve always been intrigued by this IQ thing. Apart from scientific research, I presume that individuals test out of curiosity. I even heard of one guy who included his own IQ in his resumé. Well, this must be an American thing. Anyway, the best way for any group to get out of the radar is to have its members fake their IQ tests, that is, deliberately mark the wrong alternatives. This would probably be a sound group strategy, wouldn’t it?

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Brás Cubas

    Well, I can only offer my opinion, which is rather different from the dominant position here. So, just a c-p:

    It all boils down to unreliability of psychometry as such. And I’m not talking about geniuses, bursts of creativity & similar stuff.

    Simply, what those tests should measure is talent, gift, capability for some area. If limited to such, rather narrow field, psychometry tests could very well work.They could show that some people are gifted for numbers, or for engineering tasks, good with words, or good in space orientation etc.

    But it is absurd to derive (I know the argument of factor analysis, but it is bollocks) that some magical number, IQ, is the final product which will show a person’s success in life in general. What is “success”? How can we measure capability of an individual to attain”success” in a given field?

    The answer: we can’t.

    And it is even more absurd to try it with human collectives.

    We all see with our own eyes what different human collectives are capable of, and it is not some magical number that will give us varieties of human accomplishment & functionality of human collectives, given the historical moment, ideas, manners, environment, … and even more- hope, self-reliance, adaptability, stubbornness, morals..

    There are many problems with IQ ideology which remain insurmountable.

    We all use the word “intelligence” & even if we look at psychology dictionaries & agree with it, nonetheless the concept remains vague. Probably there are a few types of intelligence: verbal, arithmetic, geometrical & maybe a few others. Why would we lump these types if intelligence together is beyond my comprehension.

    As for musical ability, various types of talents in other fields…better not call this “intelligence” (social “intelligence, emotional “intelligence”,..). This is a misuse of the word. Ability, talent, whatever…

    Then, there remains the big, big elephant of creativity. Sorry, but creativity is something different & cannot be reduced to any psycho test; it, at its peaks, comes in flashes including intuition, dreaming, imagination,…

    I wanted to say that exceptional mental ability comes in many forms & IQ concept is too rudimentary, too reductionist, too shallow, too unnecessary, …

    Perhaps in some future we will be able to ascertain, experimentally, through neuro-imagining, neurophysiology, brain investigation …. some new aspects & dimensions of human cognition and behavior (emotion, impulse control, ethical development,..) and intuition and imagination and …

    Until then, IQ “wars” are like masturbation compared to real sex.


    And:

    https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country/mn-mongolia

    Mongolia: Avg. IQ 101

    GDP per capita: $ 12,551

    https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country/lt-lithuania

    Lithuania: Avg. IQ 91

    GDP per capita: $ 31,935

  72. Anonymous[918] • Disclaimer says:

    Weird fact: Jews do not dominate the Wonderlic test.

    The rest of the IQ testing data should predict that they would. But they do not.

    But the macro IQ data should predict Jewish domination in other top niches but it mostly doesn’t pan out at the very far end of the curve.

    The Jewish x 10 overrepresentation in the top 1% is observable. But something changes at the very extreme. This is the Gentile Giant phenomenon.

    • Replies: @res
    @Anonymous


    Weird fact: Jews do not dominate the Wonderlic test.
     
    Do you have data showing that? The Wonderlic is verbally focused and has a high enough ceiling I would expect Jews to be overrepresented at the high end. To give an idea of the ceiling (anyone know the true value?) a score of 45/50 qualifies for the Triple Nine Society (1 in 1000, or roughly speaking a little over IQ 145):
    http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/hiqarch/tnpsycom/tnsps896.html
  73. @HA
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    "Anyway, he very lengthily recalls all the efforts the Tsars of the late 1800s made to turn the Jews into productive rural citizens,"

    Good point. While people like Jack D want us to never forget all those Jews who worked as goldsmiths (without ever apparently asking himself as to how all the gold needed to build up a tradition of goldsmithing was initially amassed), it's more accurate to recall that for a while most Jews in imperial Russia "earned their livelihood by the sale of liquor." Like moneylending, that presumably didn't endear them to the health-and-wellbeing advocates of the day (much like those horns on their head).

    Which is all very convenient, because then any much-needed attempts to crack down on Russian liquor guzzling can be portrayed as a pogrom and reduced to sheer antisemitism..

    Likewise, it means you can can engage in knee-slappers like "Shikker is the goy". Keep that one in mind the next time Jack D goes off on that "local drunken peasantry" jealous of the success of their economic superiors, and recall that attitudes like his have a long history -- far longer than 200 years, as a matter of fact.

    Replies: @Jack D

    The Jews were never in Russia per se. Russia was not welcoming to the Jews and there was no place for them in their social or economic system. Jews lived in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. What happened was that Russia came to them when Poland was erased from the map. Even so, in the Pale of Settlement (the area where Jews were allowed to live, corresponding to the former Polish/Lithuanian territory) most of the local peasant population was Polish or Ukrainian or Lithuanian rather than Russian.

    Poland had a very extensive system of “tax farming” – the state had monopolies on various items – alcohol, tobacco, salt, etc. and the pre-modern state didn’t have the bureaucracy needed to actually collect the taxes from each citizen. So what they would do was to “lease” the local monopoly to the highest bidder for a certain period and collect the revenue in a lump sum. The high bidder then had to go out and collect the tax himself by selling the taxed product, hopefully enough to cover his lease payments. These high bidders were often (but not always) Jewish. This system of leasing monopolies broke down over time. Ironically, one of the last ones, which lasted all the way into the Polish Republic, was over kosher meat. The Jewish community favored abolishing it but the (Jewish) lease holders (people who were literally “rent seekers”) lobbied against it.

    This system of in effect privatizing tax collection seems strange and unfamiliar to us but was common in the past. It’s difficult (at least for me) to attach a moral dimension to tax collectors – they are not evil, they are just doing their jobs. But as a practical matter, it didn’t help the popularity of the Jews among the local populace for them to be in effect the local IRS. Tax collector, landlord, bill collector – these are not jobs that endear you to the locals, but these were the jobs that the Polish ruling class recruited Jews to do so they could keep their hands clean.

    There is no doubt that E. Europeans have an alcohol problem. However, it seems to me that they would have this problem with or without the Jews. Modern Poland has hardly any Jews remaining and none in the liquor trade AFAIK but alcohol remains a problem for them.

    • Replies: @HA
    @Jack D

    "There is no doubt that E. Europeans have an alcohol problem."

    They have a porn and brothel problem, too. And they are indeed chronically short of cash and ripe for loansharking. All that is indisputable. But to the extent a significant portion of one tribe or another is or was heavily involved in those industries, the more honest course is to admit that as being a significant reason for the resentment -- and general tendency of feeling exploited --that ensued. We're able to do that in the case of exploited blacks and Latinos, after all. It's also worth pointing out -- in light of all that involvement in the liquor industry -- how self-serving your cracks about drunken peasants and that little Yiddish ditty I linked to really are.

    That doesn't mean all the pogroms weren't horrifically disproportionate and evil or that Jews "deserved what they got" but trying to sway the emphasis towards "goldsmithing" like you do (check the conversations in the links I provided if you or anyone else doubts that), or perpetually scolding about how "whites" or "Christians" or "Europeans" have been so mysteriously and peculiarly awful to the Jews -- like most of the media does -- is not going to work with anyone who has bothered to look carefully. Even though, for the most part, we have to stay mum about what's really going on. And that's not going to help with the resentment issues either.

    , @Anonymous
    @Jack D


    Russia was not welcoming to the Jews and there was no place for them in their social or economic system.
     
    Why was Russia averse to having Jews settle there?

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @nebulafox
    @Jack D

    The basic layout up further north by the Baltic was: German aristocracy and professional class, Jewish tradesmen and businessmen, local Baltic peasants. Until the later 1800s when the autocracy embraced Russification, you only encountered actual ethnic Russians in the military, in the the government bureaucracy, and to a more limited extent, in the education system and through intermarriage.

    I can't speak for Ukraine, but my impression is that it was the same dynamic if you replace the Germans with Polish szlachta and the Balts with Ukrainians. Perhaps that's part of why Ukraine has had problems. The early 20th Century seems massively dsygenic: the only ethnic group that was left after the dust settled were the peasants, who then had to rebuild from scratch any industrial or food capacities. But I'm not sure that's the whole story: if it was, the Baltic states would be a lot worse off. Estonia is dominated by Estonians and Latvia by Latvians, who were similarly the "peasant ethnicity" in the Tsarist days, but they've developed pretty nicely. Matter of scale, maybe? Or a matter of the length and degree of Soviet control, before and after the war?

    >But as a practical matter, it didn’t help the popularity of the Jews among the local populace for them to be in effect the local IRS. Tax collector, landlord, bill collector – these are not jobs that endear you to the locals, but these were the jobs that the Polish ruling class recruited Jews to do so they could keep their hands clean.

    Were Judeans any more fond of their co-ethnics who worked for the Romans as tax collectors? That was one of the big things that led to the revolts.

    (Nobody likes a tax man, but give them their due: it keeps the state going. I wonder what's going to happen to America as tax revenue continues to not remotely cover expenditures in the coming decades?)

    >There is no doubt that E. Europeans have an alcohol problem. However, it seems to me that they would have this problem with or without the Jews. Modern Poland has hardly any Jews remaining and none in the liquor trade AFAIK but alcohol remains a problem for them.

    Can confirm that: the E. Europeans are teetotalers compared to the Koreans, who have no Jews among them to speak of. If the weather is cold, you are working your butt off, and you live in a deeply strict, organized culture that has one loop-hole for people to make up, let loose, sign deals, etc: you'll take that loop-hole.

    Northern Chinese also drink a lot. Interestingly, the southern Chinese, along with Taiwanese, Singaporeans, Malaysian Chinese, et all tend to look down on that. They'll drink, but the binge culture you'll see up north is noticeably absent. Alcohol plays a huge part in their stereotypes about the rough, rude Dongbeiers.

    , @anon
    @Jack D

    The Jews were never in Russia per se.

    Citation required.

    Consider this source: it states that there was a Jewish part of Kiev long before the Mongol invasion.

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9314-kiev

  74. “There is really very little known about the early post-Temple period…”

    Which B&E fully admit. The point they raised remains, however: most of the Jews around at the time of Christ eventually became Christian (or subsequently Muslim), so there was definitely some selection going on. That’s not really a controversial point.

    Likewise, anyone who doubts that the scholarship-emphasis of the Pharisees/rabbis (or the costs of staying Jewish, particularly in the case of cash-poor and labor-dependent farmers who couldn’t afford to spare their sons the time needed to develop into a scholar) had a heavy hand in shaping the Judaism that followed is likewise out on a limb, though doubtless other factors were involved, and we may never be able to pin down the particulars with any accuracy. B&E may be overplaying their hand somewhat, but that’s not something that is likely to be provable either.

    Finally, the path that Ashkenazi Judaism took, in contrast to the rest of Jewry, cannot be disentangled from the fact that — as B&E are able to retell with far more evidence — in large swathes of Europe, moneylending was their primary cash cow, not to mention all the other professions you’re bent on overlooking or de-emphasizing. It certainly played a bigger role than those horns you keep joking/not-joking about.

    • Replies: @Anonymouse
    @HA

    >Which B&E fully admit. The point they raised remains, however: most of the Jews around at the time of Christ eventually became Christian (or subsequently Muslim), so there was definitely some selection going on. That’s not really a controversial point.

    There was a theory proposed somewhere that the selection method promoting smart jews was their liturgical obligation that every male be able to read the Torah. Stupid jews who fell short in that task would tend to drift away from Judaism to follow other religions that did not require literacy such as the new Christian religion.

    Whatever was the selection method, I am ever so grateful. Thanks mom & dad.

    Replies: @HA

    , @Jack D
    @HA

    Jews in Poland were victims of their own success. Money lending, tavern keeping, etc. are all great occupations but you only need so many of them. But rich Jewish guys kept having more and more kids (BTW, have you noticed that even today, when the average woman has 1.5 children, rich guys still tend to have a large # of kids although not necessarily with the same wife). Maybe when Jews were 2 or 3% of the population they could all fill these slots, but when they became 10% of the population it was impossible - you don't need 1 banker for every 10 people.

    So, when you get to modern times (from the 18th century onward) , most Jews in E. Europe are neither money lenders nor tavern keepers (nor are most of them Bolsheviks). Mostly they are just poor shmucks like Tevye trying to scratch out a living from shoemaking or tailoring or some minor trade. Or fishermen like my grandfather. Whatever prosperity had ever existed in the family tree was a lost in the mists of history. Maybe my great-great-great, etc. grandfather was a money lender in France in 1090 but there was no historical memory of this at all. All they knew was poor.

    But somehow, in the mind of anti-Semites, ALL Jews were either bankers or Bolsheviks and guys like my grandfather had to take the rap for this even though he never saw (couldn't read) a promissory note in his life and didn't know Karl from Groucho.

    Replies: @anon, @HA

  75. @Jack D
    @HA

    The Jews were never in Russia per se. Russia was not welcoming to the Jews and there was no place for them in their social or economic system. Jews lived in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. What happened was that Russia came to them when Poland was erased from the map. Even so, in the Pale of Settlement (the area where Jews were allowed to live, corresponding to the former Polish/Lithuanian territory) most of the local peasant population was Polish or Ukrainian or Lithuanian rather than Russian.

    Poland had a very extensive system of "tax farming" - the state had monopolies on various items - alcohol, tobacco, salt, etc. and the pre-modern state didn't have the bureaucracy needed to actually collect the taxes from each citizen. So what they would do was to "lease" the local monopoly to the highest bidder for a certain period and collect the revenue in a lump sum. The high bidder then had to go out and collect the tax himself by selling the taxed product, hopefully enough to cover his lease payments. These high bidders were often (but not always) Jewish. This system of leasing monopolies broke down over time. Ironically, one of the last ones, which lasted all the way into the Polish Republic, was over kosher meat. The Jewish community favored abolishing it but the (Jewish) lease holders (people who were literally "rent seekers") lobbied against it.

    This system of in effect privatizing tax collection seems strange and unfamiliar to us but was common in the past. It's difficult (at least for me) to attach a moral dimension to tax collectors - they are not evil, they are just doing their jobs. But as a practical matter, it didn't help the popularity of the Jews among the local populace for them to be in effect the local IRS. Tax collector, landlord, bill collector - these are not jobs that endear you to the locals, but these were the jobs that the Polish ruling class recruited Jews to do so they could keep their hands clean.

    There is no doubt that E. Europeans have an alcohol problem. However, it seems to me that they would have this problem with or without the Jews. Modern Poland has hardly any Jews remaining and none in the liquor trade AFAIK but alcohol remains a problem for them.

    Replies: @HA, @Anonymous, @nebulafox, @anon

    “There is no doubt that E. Europeans have an alcohol problem.”

    They have a porn and brothel problem, too. And they are indeed chronically short of cash and ripe for loansharking. All that is indisputable. But to the extent a significant portion of one tribe or another is or was heavily involved in those industries, the more honest course is to admit that as being a significant reason for the resentment — and general tendency of feeling exploited –that ensued. We’re able to do that in the case of exploited blacks and Latinos, after all. It’s also worth pointing out — in light of all that involvement in the liquor industry — how self-serving your cracks about drunken peasants and that little Yiddish ditty I linked to really are.

    That doesn’t mean all the pogroms weren’t horrifically disproportionate and evil or that Jews “deserved what they got” but trying to sway the emphasis towards “goldsmithing” like you do (check the conversations in the links I provided if you or anyone else doubts that), or perpetually scolding about how “whites” or “Christians” or “Europeans” have been so mysteriously and peculiarly awful to the Jews — like most of the media does — is not going to work with anyone who has bothered to look carefully. Even though, for the most part, we have to stay mum about what’s really going on. And that’s not going to help with the resentment issues either.

  76. @Jack D
    @HA

    The Jews were never in Russia per se. Russia was not welcoming to the Jews and there was no place for them in their social or economic system. Jews lived in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. What happened was that Russia came to them when Poland was erased from the map. Even so, in the Pale of Settlement (the area where Jews were allowed to live, corresponding to the former Polish/Lithuanian territory) most of the local peasant population was Polish or Ukrainian or Lithuanian rather than Russian.

    Poland had a very extensive system of "tax farming" - the state had monopolies on various items - alcohol, tobacco, salt, etc. and the pre-modern state didn't have the bureaucracy needed to actually collect the taxes from each citizen. So what they would do was to "lease" the local monopoly to the highest bidder for a certain period and collect the revenue in a lump sum. The high bidder then had to go out and collect the tax himself by selling the taxed product, hopefully enough to cover his lease payments. These high bidders were often (but not always) Jewish. This system of leasing monopolies broke down over time. Ironically, one of the last ones, which lasted all the way into the Polish Republic, was over kosher meat. The Jewish community favored abolishing it but the (Jewish) lease holders (people who were literally "rent seekers") lobbied against it.

    This system of in effect privatizing tax collection seems strange and unfamiliar to us but was common in the past. It's difficult (at least for me) to attach a moral dimension to tax collectors - they are not evil, they are just doing their jobs. But as a practical matter, it didn't help the popularity of the Jews among the local populace for them to be in effect the local IRS. Tax collector, landlord, bill collector - these are not jobs that endear you to the locals, but these were the jobs that the Polish ruling class recruited Jews to do so they could keep their hands clean.

    There is no doubt that E. Europeans have an alcohol problem. However, it seems to me that they would have this problem with or without the Jews. Modern Poland has hardly any Jews remaining and none in the liquor trade AFAIK but alcohol remains a problem for them.

    Replies: @HA, @Anonymous, @nebulafox, @anon

    Russia was not welcoming to the Jews and there was no place for them in their social or economic system.

    Why was Russia averse to having Jews settle there?

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Anonymous

    For the overwhelming majority of Russian history, Orthodox Christianity played a deeply important role within the state. Unlike in Western Europe, where the earthly and spiritual centers of power were always competing and jockeying for position-no matter how theoretically sometimes-against each other, in Russia they were united, Byzantine style. This meant that the position of religious minorities within Russia was always bound to be complicated.

    Religious minorities that had been incorporated into the empire earlier-most prominently the Muslims to the south and the ethnic Germans which would provide a lot of the startup ground for Peter's modernization drive-had, by the late 1700s, gotten on board with the Tsarist project for the most part. That meant they were given a certain degree of protection within the system, which they'd be able to protect until the Russification policies of the 1880s. But the Catholic Poles and the Jews that had settled with the Commonwealth were latecomers, and were probably more distrusted by the Russians as a result. In the case of the Poles, this had a lot to do with a couple of centuries of nasty history: at one low point, the Poles occupied Moscow and planned on converting everybody to Catholicism. The resulting heavy-handed policies in occupied Poland would eventually erupt into several nationalist uprisings that would lead to a lot of slaughter, a lot of exile to Siberia, and intense Russification policies.

    As for the Jews, combine all this with Russia's lack of liberalization relative to Europe. That meant all the undiluted discrimination toward Jews you'd see throughout Europe in previous eras but which was dying out by the 1700s remained in full force in Russia, just as serfdom remained a thing until Alexander II. Peter the Great's reforms transformed the aristocracy and the state bureaucracy, but not the masses or the society as a whole. As the 1800s went on and radical left-wing movements began to sprout up and engage in terrorism-and predictably, there were a lot of Jews in these movements, partly because of how the Tsars treated them-state distrust intensified to enough paranoia that the Protocols got published toward the end. I guess, in a sense, the Jews didn't really fit in, which was a problem everywhere but in Russia moreso. The Russians could "get" the Poles and why they were hostile, even if they didn't like it. The Russians were used to the Muslims and the Asians and the Germans. The Jews were always something more alien and tricky and unresolved, maybe?

    Replies: @Jack D

  77. @JimB

    Yet it has always seemed suspicious that three of the common Ashkenazi diseases (Tay-Sachs, Gaucher and Niemann-Pick) all involve lipid storage
     
    The human brain is 60% lipids, and neurotransmitters are based on cholesterol.

    Replies: @JimB, @Dacian Julien Soros

    Hormones are also cholesterol based so maybe rapid development of faster, bigger brains requires lipid chemistry that causes greater rates of Tay Sachs and hormone sensitive cancers.

  78. @Desiderius
    @HA

    Cosimo de' Medici didn't make the family fortune (and Capo di Tutti i
    Capi Frank della Rovere didn't have his grandson whacked for it) by not charging interest.

    Replies: @HA, @HA

    “Cosimo de’ Medici didn’t make the family fortune …by not charging interest.”

    True enough, but I’m guessing he focused more on richer marks. Also, as B&E note, monasteries were themselves big-time credit providers. The issue is therefore one of what exactly constitutes exploitation and excessive profit, and while it’s definitely a gray area, in the case of medieval Jews, where moneylending was such a large (at times almost exclusive) component of their cash flow, it doesn’t take a financial genius to link the evident growing wealth of that community to the subsequent increased poverty of those desperate enough to resort to moneylending. And then to loudly cry foul and call for the pitchforks, which I’m not endorsing.

    That being said, Christian histories on antisemitism tend to pride themselves on the (presumably rich) bishops who spoke up for the Jews. Alas, I suspect some of those cases were simply of well-off churchmen from wealthy families who had relatives employing those Jews (or else were raking in kickbacks from Jewishs moneylenders and tax-farmers themselves). I.e. not something to be that proud of, really. Whereas the lower clergy tended to be the most murderous and evil when it came to dredging up antisemitism, though I’m guessing part of the reason for that is they were the ones who were close enough to the poor to see the effects that usury had on the most vulnerable of their flock.

    So yeah, there are some difficult grey areas to cross here.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @HA


    True enough, but I’m guessing he focused more on richer marks.
     
    Indeed. Rovere is better known to history as Pope Sixtus IV.
  79. @Desiderius
    @HA

    Cosimo de' Medici didn't make the family fortune (and Capo di Tutti i
    Capi Frank della Rovere didn't have his grandson whacked for it) by not charging interest.

    Replies: @HA, @HA

    Oh yeah, and given that you brought up the Medici, I forgot the most important point: I very much doubt that the unsavory reputation the Medici enjoyed can be disentangled from all that money they made from banking. That’s as true of them as it is of the Jews and Lombards.

    I mean, despite all that Renaissance tabloid-fodder about poisonings and incest and whatnot, were they really any dirtier than the Sforzas or the Orsinis?

    It seems that medieval moneylending has a pretty high correlation with hatred and resentment regardless of whether or not one is Jewish.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @HA

    The best banking family of that time in Europe were probably the Fuggers. They aren't as well known as the Medici, but they were *really* good at what they did. It took the total catastrophe of the Thirty Year's War to destroy them. They were plain old Germans with not a drop of Jewish blood in them, near as I can tell.

    (I'm not joking around when I label it a catastrophe: only January-May 1945 really compares with the Thirty Year's War when it came to destruction in Germany.)

    Replies: @HA, @Old Palo Altan

  80. @Bert
    @Dieter Kief

    That auxillary hypothesis for Jewish domination of Western economics, culture and politics was developed by Kevin MacDonald in his three books on Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy.

    I accept the Cochran-Hardy-Harpending hypothesis that Ashkenazi higher IQ was selected for by the professions they practiced in Central and Eastern Europe.

    I further believe that those same professions must have selected for xenophobia, specifically for reduced empathy toward the Caucasian counterparties in business dealings. Group-consciousness has two psychological components, prosocial attitudes toward the ingroup and antisocial attitudes toward the outgroup. The former component should be subject to directional selection in any endogamous group (due to kin selection). However, the latter component should be subject to directional selection only in a human group specializing in professions which were economically predatory. Ashkenazi apparently met this criterion.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Anonymouse

    America changed the personal calculus for 50% of the world’s jews who live here. Second and later generations have abandonned historic distrust of the non-jewish world because they have been accepted as Americans. Frequent reference to jewish attitudes of the 19th century and before are anachronistic and are simply wrongheaded. American Jews are no longer suspicious of the non-jewish world.

    References here of viewpoints no longer held by American jews no longer apply.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Anonymouse

    You're talking to the wall.

    , @Gabe Ruth
    @Anonymouse

    You must be new here.

  81. Anonymous[918] • Disclaimer says:

    Another elite IQ proxy niche where Jews underperform is POTUS candidate. Note: talking top tier candidates as a dataset — not exclusively the actual winners of the White House.

    This position is a great proxy not just for verbal IQ but also deception skills. And since Jews are supposedly underhanded schemers by nature then they should be slicing and dicing the gentile competition in this incredibly elite niche.

    But Jewish domination is not panning out. In fact the same pattern emerges as in the talk show host niche: Jews struggle in the second tier. And it’s not a matter of anything but lesser communication skills on display. Sorry but that’s what it is.

    There is no list of superstar Jewish politicians in America that should’ve been POTUS but were denied (because of fill-in-the-blank reason).

    And there is no list of superstar Jewish politicians in America that should be POTUS soon. The House, Senate and Governorships are not a stable of Jewish stars in the offing. It’s not happening. It’s a bunch of second tier candidates.

    Look at our impeachment circus. It’s run by Jews except Pelosi and they all fit the pattern.

    No stars. Instead there is a clear pattern of ho hum candidates. Bloomberg, Steyer, Sanders …these guys are representative of the group just like Lieberman was. Also look at Israel and the same kinds of candidates appear.

    … If Zuck ever runs it will be more of the same. Corporate world doesn’t break the pattern. Btw SCOTUS doesn’t break the pattern.

    POTUS is the world’s biggest “Who’s the Best Bullshitter?” contest and Jews underperform according to known verbal IQ test data.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonymous


    Another elite IQ proxy niche where Jews underperform is POTUS candidate. Note: talking top tier candidates as a dataset — not exclusively the actual winners of the White House.
     
    Your reasoning mistakenly assumes that Jews want, or should want, to be POTUS. In fact, they are deeply ambivalent about it.

    Is it not better to be the power behind the throne? Kings are often decapitated.
  82. @Anonymouse
    @J.Ross

    You got that all wrong. German jews fleeing Hitler played no part in pre-Israel politics. Zionists were Eastern European types. As teenagers in Poland, etc. they opted for Zionist summer school, argued with Socialists in high school, and then moved to Palestine where they died in droves from malaria in the agricultural communes. The Germans brought their pianos with them and served tea and, some of them, had Pritzker level architects to design their villas in leafy suburbs of Tel-Aviv. After independence all the prime ministers were Eastern European born or sabras born in country: Ben Gurion, Golda Meir (born in the US), Rabin, Peretz, Begin, Shamir, Sharon, Netanyahu. To this day, no German born Israeli is or was a politician.

    Understanding the Israel thing has been my hobby since 1947 when my father and I listened on the radio to the UN proceedings which were broadcast on WNYC the city-owned radio station held in Flushing before the UN building was built in Manhatten and partitition of Palestine was voted on and passed. Its like a Sinologist never visiting China. I write at length here to establish my credentials.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    German jews fleeing Hitler played no part in pre-Israel politics

    Not what I wrote.

  83. @Desiderius

    Scott Alexander, the most impressive new public intellectual to emerge in our now-ending decade, on his Slate Star Codex blog
     
    https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/

    Replies: @Morton's toes

    That stood out to me as well. I admire many of the things he has written but reading him requires massive quantities of skimming. His writing style is college student who gets good grades on his papers. The vast majority of his writing does nothing more than take up space.

    Needs a professional editor bad.

    • Agree: Dieter Kief
  84. @HA
    "There is really very little known about the early post-Temple period..."

    Which B&E fully admit. The point they raised remains, however: most of the Jews around at the time of Christ eventually became Christian (or subsequently Muslim), so there was definitely some selection going on. That's not really a controversial point.

    Likewise, anyone who doubts that the scholarship-emphasis of the Pharisees/rabbis (or the costs of staying Jewish, particularly in the case of cash-poor and labor-dependent farmers who couldn't afford to spare their sons the time needed to develop into a scholar) had a heavy hand in shaping the Judaism that followed is likewise out on a limb, though doubtless other factors were involved, and we may never be able to pin down the particulars with any accuracy. B&E may be overplaying their hand somewhat, but that's not something that is likely to be provable either.

    Finally, the path that Ashkenazi Judaism took, in contrast to the rest of Jewry, cannot be disentangled from the fact that -- as B&E are able to retell with far more evidence -- in large swathes of Europe, moneylending was their primary cash cow, not to mention all the other professions you're bent on overlooking or de-emphasizing. It certainly played a bigger role than those horns you keep joking/not-joking about.

    Replies: @Anonymouse, @Jack D

    >Which B&E fully admit. The point they raised remains, however: most of the Jews around at the time of Christ eventually became Christian (or subsequently Muslim), so there was definitely some selection going on. That’s not really a controversial point.

    There was a theory proposed somewhere that the selection method promoting smart jews was their liturgical obligation that every male be able to read the Torah. Stupid jews who fell short in that task would tend to drift away from Judaism to follow other religions that did not require literacy such as the new Christian religion.

    Whatever was the selection method, I am ever so grateful. Thanks mom & dad.

    • Replies: @HA
    @Anonymouse

    "There was a theory proposed somewhere that the selection method promoting smart jews was their liturgical obligation that every male be able to read the Torah."

    Yeah, that's basically their thesis (and certainly aligns with numerous other such theories), and they supplement it with specifics (such as are available) on the steep costs of maintaining a yeshiva in the first few centuries and where the money came from and such. It wasn't just the dumb ones that got weeded out -- it was also the poor ones.

    Again, there's only so much that is available, and while the book got a lot of criticism from historians (no doubt offended about two economists impinging on their turf), it also won some awards, and got published by the Princeton University Press. So you be the judge.

    Half-literate harridans can of course choose to ignore all that, given that reflexively sputtering out slurs is so much easier, but I'm not in the business of satisfying everyone. The very fact I've managed to tick off the likes of one of them probably counts as a plus.

    Replies: @Jane Plain

  85. @Ozymandias
    "...the intelligence putatively required to survive recurrent persecution..."

    ...and learn nothing from it.

    Replies: @Jane Plain

    What have Christians learned in 300 years of American history?

  86. @HA
    @Anon

    "The idea that European Jews were mostly moneylenders and the like apparently isn’t true..."

    No, according to Botticini and Eckstein, in large stretches of medieval France and Germany moneylending was pretty much the only thing that Jews did. Edward I "Longshanks" tried to put an end to their moneylending by offering them various other roles, including contract agriculture. It didn't work, and so he expelled them.


    In fact, [the historical records] show, Jews were often discriminated against precisely because of their emphasis on trade, such as in their expulsion from England in 1290, which only came after they were repeatedly told to give up the profession of money lending...
     
    While Jewish historians tend to fixate on the "they hate us because we're Jewish" meme, the history shows that other groups who practiced moneylending (B&E note that Jews never had a monopoly on the profession) were hated as well, and both Christian and Jewish religious leaders denounced the practice (and given some of the rates charged, the moneylending we're talking about would be outlawed even today). For example, the moneylending Lombards are depicted in medieval history as disgusting slime-trailing snails. B&E point out that when Jews were expelled from France for their moneylending by Louis the Pious, the Lombards stepped in. Eventually, they were kicked out too.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Jane Plain

    It really would help if you named the Botticini and Eckstein book itself.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chosen_Few_(book)

    It got a lot of criticism.

    Writing in The Journal of Economic History, Philip Ackerman-Lieberman points out that Botticini and Eckstein support their theoretical model with, “assumptions about the historical record which are by no means warranted.

    Historians have been scathing.

    The fact is that for most of their history in Europe, Jews weren’t moneylenders, and where they did become prominent (Venice) they were quickly usurped by local non-Jews. It’s a typical story, explicated well in Amy Chua’s World on Fire.

    That said, I don’t think this disproves Cochran/Harpending. Ashkenazi Jews did what we would call middle class non-farming occupations for most of their history. The C/H theory is validated and overriden by much more than that one mistake.

    But that’s not enough for such as HA, who have an obsession with proving that Jews are damned and evil.

    Your crowd, Jack D!

    • Replies: @HA
    @Jane Plain

    It really would help if you named the Botticini and Eckstein book itself.

    If you're too lazy to type Botticini and Eckstein into any search engine, you've got bigger problems than me. Try it and see what you get. I mean presumably you did that in order to find the wiki page, right? Moreover, the Slate article I linked to in my first post basically featured the book. Or were you too lazy to even click on that?

    "It got a lot of criticism."

    Yes, the part about how rabbinical Jews got the whole thing started after the destruction of the Temple is what got the criticism. They fully admit that there's a lot of holes in the first few centuries AD that they're having to work around. But the part about the prevalence of moneylending among medieval Jews? No. That was -- as I noted -- a second-hand account that (according to them at least) has been the academic consensus for some time, though popular accounts would still have us believe that Jews were somehow forced into moneylending. Did you not read the entire paragraph discussing how "controversial" their main thesis (but not the part about moneylending) is? Or are you too lazy to read that as well?

    In other words, do try and stop being an idiot, won't you? I realize it's probably going to be difficult, but make it a New Year's resolution. In any case, I'm not going to be cowed by -- and really shouldn't even have to answer -- people who can't even be bothered to read what I write before spitting out "anti-semite" in an effort to shut me down.

    Replies: @Jane Plain

    , @Not Raul
    @Jane Plain

    I’m glad you brought that up, Jane.

    “Money lending” was never a primary source of income for more than a small minority of Jews in the Middle Ages. I’m sick of hearing pseudo-intellectuals drone on and on about how “Jews are smart cuz usury.” So inane!

    In the “Holy Roman Empire”, many of the richest bankers were Catholic, such as the Welser family, the Fugger family, the Bardi family, the Peruzzi family, and the Medici family.

    Replies: @HA, @HA

  87. @HA
    @Desiderius

    Oh yeah, and given that you brought up the Medici, I forgot the most important point: I very much doubt that the unsavory reputation the Medici enjoyed can be disentangled from all that money they made from banking. That's as true of them as it is of the Jews and Lombards.

    I mean, despite all that Renaissance tabloid-fodder about poisonings and incest and whatnot, were they really any dirtier than the Sforzas or the Orsinis?

    It seems that medieval moneylending has a pretty high correlation with hatred and resentment regardless of whether or not one is Jewish.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    The best banking family of that time in Europe were probably the Fuggers. They aren’t as well known as the Medici, but they were *really* good at what they did. It took the total catastrophe of the Thirty Year’s War to destroy them. They were plain old Germans with not a drop of Jewish blood in them, near as I can tell.

    (I’m not joking around when I label it a catastrophe: only January-May 1945 really compares with the Thirty Year’s War when it came to destruction in Germany.)

    • Replies: @HA
    @nebulafox

    "The best banking family of that time in Europe were probably the Fuggers."

    From what I could dig up quickly, their first loan was to Archduke Sigismund. In other words, it's hard to argue they were ever trying to extort widows and orphans.

    Nevertheless the same page notes that "At the height of his power Jakob Fugger was sharply criticized by his contemporaries, especially by Ulrich von Hutten and Martin Luther, for selling indulgences and benefices and urging the Pope to rescind or amend the prohibition on the levying of interest." I don't know if that was a fair criticism, but again, it seems that banking -- even when done by, as you say, the best in the business -- is not a great job for those trying to dodge controversy.

    , @Old Palo Altan
    @nebulafox

    No Jewish blood at all.

    Is not "destroyed" a bit overstating it? They ceased to be top bankers, and became top aristocrats instead. They're a big deal in Bavaria, particularly in Augsburg, where their housing for the poor is still going strong, and still owned by them.
    I once introduced the head of one branch of the family (Fugger-Babenhausen) to the head of another German princely house. The complicated and courtly way in which they exchanged greetings was a wonder to behold.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  88. @Anonymous
    @Jack D


    Russia was not welcoming to the Jews and there was no place for them in their social or economic system.
     
    Why was Russia averse to having Jews settle there?

    Replies: @nebulafox

    For the overwhelming majority of Russian history, Orthodox Christianity played a deeply important role within the state. Unlike in Western Europe, where the earthly and spiritual centers of power were always competing and jockeying for position-no matter how theoretically sometimes-against each other, in Russia they were united, Byzantine style. This meant that the position of religious minorities within Russia was always bound to be complicated.

    Religious minorities that had been incorporated into the empire earlier-most prominently the Muslims to the south and the ethnic Germans which would provide a lot of the startup ground for Peter’s modernization drive-had, by the late 1700s, gotten on board with the Tsarist project for the most part. That meant they were given a certain degree of protection within the system, which they’d be able to protect until the Russification policies of the 1880s. But the Catholic Poles and the Jews that had settled with the Commonwealth were latecomers, and were probably more distrusted by the Russians as a result. In the case of the Poles, this had a lot to do with a couple of centuries of nasty history: at one low point, the Poles occupied Moscow and planned on converting everybody to Catholicism. The resulting heavy-handed policies in occupied Poland would eventually erupt into several nationalist uprisings that would lead to a lot of slaughter, a lot of exile to Siberia, and intense Russification policies.

    As for the Jews, combine all this with Russia’s lack of liberalization relative to Europe. That meant all the undiluted discrimination toward Jews you’d see throughout Europe in previous eras but which was dying out by the 1700s remained in full force in Russia, just as serfdom remained a thing until Alexander II. Peter the Great’s reforms transformed the aristocracy and the state bureaucracy, but not the masses or the society as a whole. As the 1800s went on and radical left-wing movements began to sprout up and engage in terrorism-and predictably, there were a lot of Jews in these movements, partly because of how the Tsars treated them-state distrust intensified to enough paranoia that the Protocols got published toward the end. I guess, in a sense, the Jews didn’t really fit in, which was a problem everywhere but in Russia moreso. The Russians could “get” the Poles and why they were hostile, even if they didn’t like it. The Russians were used to the Muslims and the Asians and the Germans. The Jews were always something more alien and tricky and unresolved, maybe?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @nebulafox

    Agree with what you say. The point is, for whatever reason, the Russians never wanted Jews to begin with but found themselves in possession of a large Jewish population. This was not unlike the situation that the Germans found themselves in during WWII (the same Jews even). The Russia solution was not as extreme as the German one but somewhat similar to the German policy in 1933-1938 - make life rough on the Jews and maybe they'll leave. This wasn't hard for the Russians to do considering that they didn't like the Jews in the first place. Conversion was also acceptable to the Russians, as it was not to the Germans, indicating they considered this to be a religious rather than racial problem.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  89. Barred from agricultural jobs? Isn’t that preferable to being barred from more lucrative jobs, like money-lending?

    Most people working on large estates in the Middle Ages didn’t own the land.

    Who’d actually want to be a field hand, or cottier, in the Middle Ages if they had less brutal, more lucrative options?

  90. These numbers are misleading. After all, the non-Jewish white numbers include an awful lot of the Irish. And people from southern Italy.

    It’s not fair to WASP’s to compare a bunch of German Jews with the entire rest of the population, which contains such an ethnic mixture. And if the Jews are smarter maybe it’s just that they have retained their higher German intelligence because they have not mixed with the Irish and Italians to the extent Anglo-Saxons did.

    I wonder how much English blood those AltRight white nationalist types actually have and how many have any meaningful ancestry here dating back to the 18th century.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @donald j tingle


    I wonder how much English blood those AltRight white nationalist types actually have and how many have any meaningful ancestry here dating back to the 18th century.
     
    One professional genealogist estimated that 82% of Americans have at least one strain that can be traced to England. Perhaps some of them were Irish, Scots, Jews, or French passing through, but the great majority were English.

    My maternal grandparents were of 19th-century immigrant descent and, while there's a small chance that grandma was a sliver English-- her great-grandfather was a Scot born in England-- it doesn't matter now. All 26 of their grandchildren have English blood through their other parent. That's how intermarriage works.

    Figure that almost all blacks and Indians, most Southern whites, and large portions of the Mountain West and Northwest have some English ancestors. I've met Midwestern Swedes, Norwegians, and Poles that have that one old-stock grandparent. I've seen distant colonial cousins online with Italian and Slavic surnames.

    The undercount of Americans with English ancestry is larger than the total count of all but a few other ethnicities. A 200-year head start will do that.
  91. @Jane Plain
    @HA

    It really would help if you named the Botticini and Eckstein book itself.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chosen_Few_(book)

    It got a lot of criticism.


    Writing in The Journal of Economic History, Philip Ackerman-Lieberman points out that Botticini and Eckstein support their theoretical model with, "assumptions about the historical record which are by no means warranted.

    Historians have been scathing.
     

    The fact is that for most of their history in Europe, Jews weren't moneylenders, and where they did become prominent (Venice) they were quickly usurped by local non-Jews. It's a typical story, explicated well in Amy Chua's World on Fire.

    That said, I don't think this disproves Cochran/Harpending. Ashkenazi Jews did what we would call middle class non-farming occupations for most of their history. The C/H theory is validated and overriden by much more than that one mistake.

    But that's not enough for such as HA, who have an obsession with proving that Jews are damned and evil.

    Your crowd, Jack D!

    Replies: @HA, @Not Raul

    It really would help if you named the Botticini and Eckstein book itself.

    If you’re too lazy to type Botticini and Eckstein into any search engine, you’ve got bigger problems than me. Try it and see what you get. I mean presumably you did that in order to find the wiki page, right? Moreover, the Slate article I linked to in my first post basically featured the book. Or were you too lazy to even click on that?

    “It got a lot of criticism.”

    Yes, the part about how rabbinical Jews got the whole thing started after the destruction of the Temple is what got the criticism. They fully admit that there’s a lot of holes in the first few centuries AD that they’re having to work around. But the part about the prevalence of moneylending among medieval Jews? No. That was — as I noted — a second-hand account that (according to them at least) has been the academic consensus for some time, though popular accounts would still have us believe that Jews were somehow forced into moneylending. Did you not read the entire paragraph discussing how “controversial” their main thesis (but not the part about moneylending) is? Or are you too lazy to read that as well?

    In other words, do try and stop being an idiot, won’t you? I realize it’s probably going to be difficult, but make it a New Year’s resolution. In any case, I’m not going to be cowed by — and really shouldn’t even have to answer — people who can’t even be bothered to read what I write before spitting out “anti-semite” in an effort to shut me down.

    • Replies: @Jane Plain
    @HA

    "If you’re too lazy to type Botticini and Eckstein into any search engine, you’ve got bigger problems than me. Try it and see what you get. I mean presumably you did that in order to find the wiki page, right? "

    Well, obviously I did type the names into a search engine. You presumed correctly.

    "Moreover, the Slate article I linked to in my first post basically featured the book. Or were you too lazy to even click on that?"

    I didn't see your first post. I wasn't responding to that. I realize that this damages your narcissism, but I didn't read it. I didn't realize that there was a protocol online that specified one has to read every prior comment by a commenter.

    "In other words, do try and stop being an idiot, won’t you?"

    I'll stop being an idiot when you stop being a damaged narcissist. I think my condition is the more easily treatable.

    " I realize it’s probably going to be difficult, but make it a New Year’s resolution."

    It's idiotic to believe in New Year's resolutions.

    " In any case, I’m not going to be cowed by — and really shouldn’t even have to answer — "

    Then why did you?

    "people who can’t even be bothered to read what I write before spitting out “anti-semite” in an effort to shut me down."

    Oh right, here comes the inevitable alt right whine: "they're trying to shut me down!" Obviously, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm just a fake name commenter on a website, as you are. Talk all you want here. I enjoy reading you, because you have no power in real life, and I do learn things from you.

    This book, for example. It looks interesting. I know that the only reason you mentioned it is because there is a potentially anti-Semitic angle to its conclusions, but really, it looks like it offers a healthy dose of skepticism to the party line. Jews followed economic opportunity and few of them died in persecutions. Sounds about right to me.

    Again: I think that the C/H theory makes sense even if you dispute that most Jewish men were moneylenders from the 7th century to the 18th.

  92. @Jack D
    @HA

    The Jews were never in Russia per se. Russia was not welcoming to the Jews and there was no place for them in their social or economic system. Jews lived in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. What happened was that Russia came to them when Poland was erased from the map. Even so, in the Pale of Settlement (the area where Jews were allowed to live, corresponding to the former Polish/Lithuanian territory) most of the local peasant population was Polish or Ukrainian or Lithuanian rather than Russian.

    Poland had a very extensive system of "tax farming" - the state had monopolies on various items - alcohol, tobacco, salt, etc. and the pre-modern state didn't have the bureaucracy needed to actually collect the taxes from each citizen. So what they would do was to "lease" the local monopoly to the highest bidder for a certain period and collect the revenue in a lump sum. The high bidder then had to go out and collect the tax himself by selling the taxed product, hopefully enough to cover his lease payments. These high bidders were often (but not always) Jewish. This system of leasing monopolies broke down over time. Ironically, one of the last ones, which lasted all the way into the Polish Republic, was over kosher meat. The Jewish community favored abolishing it but the (Jewish) lease holders (people who were literally "rent seekers") lobbied against it.

    This system of in effect privatizing tax collection seems strange and unfamiliar to us but was common in the past. It's difficult (at least for me) to attach a moral dimension to tax collectors - they are not evil, they are just doing their jobs. But as a practical matter, it didn't help the popularity of the Jews among the local populace for them to be in effect the local IRS. Tax collector, landlord, bill collector - these are not jobs that endear you to the locals, but these were the jobs that the Polish ruling class recruited Jews to do so they could keep their hands clean.

    There is no doubt that E. Europeans have an alcohol problem. However, it seems to me that they would have this problem with or without the Jews. Modern Poland has hardly any Jews remaining and none in the liquor trade AFAIK but alcohol remains a problem for them.

    Replies: @HA, @Anonymous, @nebulafox, @anon

    The basic layout up further north by the Baltic was: German aristocracy and professional class, Jewish tradesmen and businessmen, local Baltic peasants. Until the later 1800s when the autocracy embraced Russification, you only encountered actual ethnic Russians in the military, in the the government bureaucracy, and to a more limited extent, in the education system and through intermarriage.

    I can’t speak for Ukraine, but my impression is that it was the same dynamic if you replace the Germans with Polish szlachta and the Balts with Ukrainians. Perhaps that’s part of why Ukraine has had problems. The early 20th Century seems massively dsygenic: the only ethnic group that was left after the dust settled were the peasants, who then had to rebuild from scratch any industrial or food capacities. But I’m not sure that’s the whole story: if it was, the Baltic states would be a lot worse off. Estonia is dominated by Estonians and Latvia by Latvians, who were similarly the “peasant ethnicity” in the Tsarist days, but they’ve developed pretty nicely. Matter of scale, maybe? Or a matter of the length and degree of Soviet control, before and after the war?

    >But as a practical matter, it didn’t help the popularity of the Jews among the local populace for them to be in effect the local IRS. Tax collector, landlord, bill collector – these are not jobs that endear you to the locals, but these were the jobs that the Polish ruling class recruited Jews to do so they could keep their hands clean.

    Were Judeans any more fond of their co-ethnics who worked for the Romans as tax collectors? That was one of the big things that led to the revolts.

    (Nobody likes a tax man, but give them their due: it keeps the state going. I wonder what’s going to happen to America as tax revenue continues to not remotely cover expenditures in the coming decades?)

    >There is no doubt that E. Europeans have an alcohol problem. However, it seems to me that they would have this problem with or without the Jews. Modern Poland has hardly any Jews remaining and none in the liquor trade AFAIK but alcohol remains a problem for them.

    Can confirm that: the E. Europeans are teetotalers compared to the Koreans, who have no Jews among them to speak of. If the weather is cold, you are working your butt off, and you live in a deeply strict, organized culture that has one loop-hole for people to make up, let loose, sign deals, etc: you’ll take that loop-hole.

    Northern Chinese also drink a lot. Interestingly, the southern Chinese, along with Taiwanese, Singaporeans, Malaysian Chinese, et all tend to look down on that. They’ll drink, but the binge culture you’ll see up north is noticeably absent. Alcohol plays a huge part in their stereotypes about the rough, rude Dongbeiers.

  93. @nebulafox
    @HA

    The best banking family of that time in Europe were probably the Fuggers. They aren't as well known as the Medici, but they were *really* good at what they did. It took the total catastrophe of the Thirty Year's War to destroy them. They were plain old Germans with not a drop of Jewish blood in them, near as I can tell.

    (I'm not joking around when I label it a catastrophe: only January-May 1945 really compares with the Thirty Year's War when it came to destruction in Germany.)

    Replies: @HA, @Old Palo Altan

    “The best banking family of that time in Europe were probably the Fuggers.”

    From what I could dig up quickly, their first loan was to Archduke Sigismund. In other words, it’s hard to argue they were ever trying to extort widows and orphans.

    Nevertheless the same page notes that “At the height of his power Jakob Fugger was sharply criticized by his contemporaries, especially by Ulrich von Hutten and Martin Luther, for selling indulgences and benefices and urging the Pope to rescind or amend the prohibition on the levying of interest.” I don’t know if that was a fair criticism, but again, it seems that banking — even when done by, as you say, the best in the business — is not a great job for those trying to dodge controversy.

  94. @Anonymouse
    @HA

    >Which B&E fully admit. The point they raised remains, however: most of the Jews around at the time of Christ eventually became Christian (or subsequently Muslim), so there was definitely some selection going on. That’s not really a controversial point.

    There was a theory proposed somewhere that the selection method promoting smart jews was their liturgical obligation that every male be able to read the Torah. Stupid jews who fell short in that task would tend to drift away from Judaism to follow other religions that did not require literacy such as the new Christian religion.

    Whatever was the selection method, I am ever so grateful. Thanks mom & dad.

    Replies: @HA

    “There was a theory proposed somewhere that the selection method promoting smart jews was their liturgical obligation that every male be able to read the Torah.”

    Yeah, that’s basically their thesis (and certainly aligns with numerous other such theories), and they supplement it with specifics (such as are available) on the steep costs of maintaining a yeshiva in the first few centuries and where the money came from and such. It wasn’t just the dumb ones that got weeded out — it was also the poor ones.

    Again, there’s only so much that is available, and while the book got a lot of criticism from historians (no doubt offended about two economists impinging on their turf), it also won some awards, and got published by the Princeton University Press. So you be the judge.

    Half-literate harridans can of course choose to ignore all that, given that reflexively sputtering out slurs is so much easier, but I’m not in the business of satisfying everyone. The very fact I’ve managed to tick off the likes of one of them probably counts as a plus.

    • Replies: @Jane Plain
    @HA

    "Despite those like Jane Plain whose frothing at the mouth apparently laves flecks on her iPad that obscure whatever doesn’t conform to her prejudices (not that that stops her from replying)"

    Hey, stop talking about me behind my back.

    BTW, your writing sucks. Dial those emotions down, and it will improve. Laves flecks?

  95. @Jack D
    @HA

    The Jews were never in Russia per se. Russia was not welcoming to the Jews and there was no place for them in their social or economic system. Jews lived in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. What happened was that Russia came to them when Poland was erased from the map. Even so, in the Pale of Settlement (the area where Jews were allowed to live, corresponding to the former Polish/Lithuanian territory) most of the local peasant population was Polish or Ukrainian or Lithuanian rather than Russian.

    Poland had a very extensive system of "tax farming" - the state had monopolies on various items - alcohol, tobacco, salt, etc. and the pre-modern state didn't have the bureaucracy needed to actually collect the taxes from each citizen. So what they would do was to "lease" the local monopoly to the highest bidder for a certain period and collect the revenue in a lump sum. The high bidder then had to go out and collect the tax himself by selling the taxed product, hopefully enough to cover his lease payments. These high bidders were often (but not always) Jewish. This system of leasing monopolies broke down over time. Ironically, one of the last ones, which lasted all the way into the Polish Republic, was over kosher meat. The Jewish community favored abolishing it but the (Jewish) lease holders (people who were literally "rent seekers") lobbied against it.

    This system of in effect privatizing tax collection seems strange and unfamiliar to us but was common in the past. It's difficult (at least for me) to attach a moral dimension to tax collectors - they are not evil, they are just doing their jobs. But as a practical matter, it didn't help the popularity of the Jews among the local populace for them to be in effect the local IRS. Tax collector, landlord, bill collector - these are not jobs that endear you to the locals, but these were the jobs that the Polish ruling class recruited Jews to do so they could keep their hands clean.

    There is no doubt that E. Europeans have an alcohol problem. However, it seems to me that they would have this problem with or without the Jews. Modern Poland has hardly any Jews remaining and none in the liquor trade AFAIK but alcohol remains a problem for them.

    Replies: @HA, @Anonymous, @nebulafox, @anon

    The Jews were never in Russia per se.

    Citation required.

    Consider this source: it states that there was a Jewish part of Kiev long before the Mongol invasion.

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9314-kiev

  96. @Anonymous
    @Unladen Swallow


    Israel’s repeated victories over Arab countries lead to many non Ashkenazim emigrating there.
     
    Why would that cause emigration?

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow

    The Arab countries needed to avenge their defeats on someone, the local Jews were obviously to blame.

  97. @Jack D
    @Anonymous


    Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites.
     
    This shows a complete ignorance of statistics and the operation of the normal distribution. Once you concede than Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites, then by necessity they will have a higher IQ at all points on the curve including at the 99th percentile. This is a matter of pure mathematics and requires no further evidence.

    When the mean is shifted like that, the effects are magnified at the tail. A 1 SD shift will mean that out that the far right tail there are maybe 10x as many Jews as their prevalence in the population. Jews are 2% of the general US population but maybe 20% of those with IQ above say 150. Note however that there are still 4 non-Jewish geniuses for every Jewish one. (The same thing happens in reverse for blacks because of their lower population mean IQ - blacks are 15% of the population but maybe 1.5% of those above 150 IQ).

    But your original "no evidence" statement is utterly wrong. The smartest 1% of Jews (a group of 60,000 people in America) are far smarter on average than the smartest 1% of whites (a group of 2 million).

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow, @Technite78, @Faraday's Bobcat, @James B. Shearer, @res

    Only 1 in 300 American blacks have an IQ at 120 or higher, so how could they constitute one in 67 of those two standard deviations ( 150 IQ) above that threshold in the total population?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Unladen Swallow

    OK, it's even worse than I said. The point is that if say you had a country that was 98% black and 2% white (and the blacks didn't kill or expel the remaining whites), then whites would occupy the same niche as Jews - they would be 20% of the high IQ group. It's an statistical artifact of the difference in mean IQ between two groups, not some tribal conspiracy.

  98. @HA
    "There is really very little known about the early post-Temple period..."

    Which B&E fully admit. The point they raised remains, however: most of the Jews around at the time of Christ eventually became Christian (or subsequently Muslim), so there was definitely some selection going on. That's not really a controversial point.

    Likewise, anyone who doubts that the scholarship-emphasis of the Pharisees/rabbis (or the costs of staying Jewish, particularly in the case of cash-poor and labor-dependent farmers who couldn't afford to spare their sons the time needed to develop into a scholar) had a heavy hand in shaping the Judaism that followed is likewise out on a limb, though doubtless other factors were involved, and we may never be able to pin down the particulars with any accuracy. B&E may be overplaying their hand somewhat, but that's not something that is likely to be provable either.

    Finally, the path that Ashkenazi Judaism took, in contrast to the rest of Jewry, cannot be disentangled from the fact that -- as B&E are able to retell with far more evidence -- in large swathes of Europe, moneylending was their primary cash cow, not to mention all the other professions you're bent on overlooking or de-emphasizing. It certainly played a bigger role than those horns you keep joking/not-joking about.

    Replies: @Anonymouse, @Jack D

    Jews in Poland were victims of their own success. Money lending, tavern keeping, etc. are all great occupations but you only need so many of them. But rich Jewish guys kept having more and more kids (BTW, have you noticed that even today, when the average woman has 1.5 children, rich guys still tend to have a large # of kids although not necessarily with the same wife). Maybe when Jews were 2 or 3% of the population they could all fill these slots, but when they became 10% of the population it was impossible – you don’t need 1 banker for every 10 people.

    So, when you get to modern times (from the 18th century onward) , most Jews in E. Europe are neither money lenders nor tavern keepers (nor are most of them Bolsheviks). Mostly they are just poor shmucks like Tevye trying to scratch out a living from shoemaking or tailoring or some minor trade. Or fishermen like my grandfather. Whatever prosperity had ever existed in the family tree was a lost in the mists of history. Maybe my great-great-great, etc. grandfather was a money lender in France in 1090 but there was no historical memory of this at all. All they knew was poor.

    But somehow, in the mind of anti-Semites, ALL Jews were either bankers or Bolsheviks and guys like my grandfather had to take the rap for this even though he never saw (couldn’t read) a promissory note in his life and didn’t know Karl from Groucho.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Jack D

    Jews in Poland were victims of their own success.

    Not the only place or time. The 17th and 18th century French nobility was in a way also a victim of its own success. Similar things happened in China.

    Overproduction of elites is a major theme in Peter Turchin's thesis of history. His book is worth reading, although the equations don't show up very well on an e-book reader like Kindle.

    http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamics/

    Everyone needs a college degree now...

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Anonymous

    , @HA
    @Jack D

    "So, when you get to modern times (from the 18th century onward) , most Jews in E. Europe are neither money lenders nor tavern keepers (nor are most of them Bolsheviks). Mostly they are just poor shmucks like Tevye trying to scratch out a living from shoemaking or tailoring or some minor trade."

    I'm not denying that -- see my above comment about the poor Jews that resulted when Jewish boys had outpaced the moneylending positions. My comments were specifically about medieval times. Despite those like Jane Plain whose frothing at the mouth apparently laves flecks on her iPad that obscure whatever doesn't conform to her prejudices (not that that stops her from replying) I'm not denying that eventually the available cushy jobs got relatively scarcer and scarcer as the population kept growing, which is presumably why so many Jews congregated to liquor and other such industries. What part of my comments -- except your own knee jerk confirmation bias -- would lead you to think otherwise?

    But do note that even in those latter earas, they were better off than the vast majority of peasants (i.e. the vast majority of gentiles) in that they...well, weren't peasants. I.e. they weren't property of the manor. They also had far more wherewithal to become literate given that peasants by and large didn't.


    "But the poorest Jew was a bit wealthier than the peasants in the neighboring village. The peasant was a vassal while the Jew moved freely. The peasant was illiterate while the Jew had some knowledge.
     
    Why is that so hard for you to accept? You may think it's no biggie, and you may think those earlier centuries when Jews were essentially lesser nobility has no bearing today, but if so, pull my other leg. As Gregory Clark's work has indicated, having been high and mighty four centuries or more ago can still matter to this day, especially in relation to some great-great...-great grandson of peasants who was never high and mighty to begin with, and who is increasingly being asked to pay a price for what whites (i.e. rich people, both Jew and gentile) did to "oppressed people" (i.e. those who like his ancestors were merely property), with the eager encouragement of those same whites (again, both Jew and gentile) who were far more likely to have been responsible for all that, but will almost certainly never need to pay up.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Jane Plain

  99. @Unladen Swallow
    @Jack D

    Only 1 in 300 American blacks have an IQ at 120 or higher, so how could they constitute one in 67 of those two standard deviations ( 150 IQ) above that threshold in the total population?

    Replies: @Jack D

    OK, it’s even worse than I said. The point is that if say you had a country that was 98% black and 2% white (and the blacks didn’t kill or expel the remaining whites), then whites would occupy the same niche as Jews – they would be 20% of the high IQ group. It’s an statistical artifact of the difference in mean IQ between two groups, not some tribal conspiracy.

  100. anon[290] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @HA

    Jews in Poland were victims of their own success. Money lending, tavern keeping, etc. are all great occupations but you only need so many of them. But rich Jewish guys kept having more and more kids (BTW, have you noticed that even today, when the average woman has 1.5 children, rich guys still tend to have a large # of kids although not necessarily with the same wife). Maybe when Jews were 2 or 3% of the population they could all fill these slots, but when they became 10% of the population it was impossible - you don't need 1 banker for every 10 people.

    So, when you get to modern times (from the 18th century onward) , most Jews in E. Europe are neither money lenders nor tavern keepers (nor are most of them Bolsheviks). Mostly they are just poor shmucks like Tevye trying to scratch out a living from shoemaking or tailoring or some minor trade. Or fishermen like my grandfather. Whatever prosperity had ever existed in the family tree was a lost in the mists of history. Maybe my great-great-great, etc. grandfather was a money lender in France in 1090 but there was no historical memory of this at all. All they knew was poor.

    But somehow, in the mind of anti-Semites, ALL Jews were either bankers or Bolsheviks and guys like my grandfather had to take the rap for this even though he never saw (couldn't read) a promissory note in his life and didn't know Karl from Groucho.

    Replies: @anon, @HA

    Jews in Poland were victims of their own success.

    Not the only place or time. The 17th and 18th century French nobility was in a way also a victim of its own success. Similar things happened in China.

    Overproduction of elites is a major theme in Peter Turchin’s thesis of history. His book is worth reading, although the equations don’t show up very well on an e-book reader like Kindle.

    http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamics/

    Everyone needs a college degree now…

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @anon

    I have this idea about lawyers nowadays. It would be a noble task to compare the lawyer density in modern societies and develop a few criteria to find out, which countries make proper use of this profession and which don't (most likely those who are not effectively allocating their law-professionals would have too many of them now, I'd guess).

    , @Anonymous
    @anon


    Everyone needs a college degree now…
     
    Why? What do you mean?
  101. @Anonymouse
    @Bert

    America changed the personal calculus for 50% of the world's jews who live here. Second and later generations have abandonned historic distrust of the non-jewish world because they have been accepted as Americans. Frequent reference to jewish attitudes of the 19th century and before are anachronistic and are simply wrongheaded. American Jews are no longer suspicious of the non-jewish world.

    References here of viewpoints no longer held by American jews no longer apply.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Gabe Ruth

    You’re talking to the wall.

  102. @Jack D
    @HA

    Jews in Poland were victims of their own success. Money lending, tavern keeping, etc. are all great occupations but you only need so many of them. But rich Jewish guys kept having more and more kids (BTW, have you noticed that even today, when the average woman has 1.5 children, rich guys still tend to have a large # of kids although not necessarily with the same wife). Maybe when Jews were 2 or 3% of the population they could all fill these slots, but when they became 10% of the population it was impossible - you don't need 1 banker for every 10 people.

    So, when you get to modern times (from the 18th century onward) , most Jews in E. Europe are neither money lenders nor tavern keepers (nor are most of them Bolsheviks). Mostly they are just poor shmucks like Tevye trying to scratch out a living from shoemaking or tailoring or some minor trade. Or fishermen like my grandfather. Whatever prosperity had ever existed in the family tree was a lost in the mists of history. Maybe my great-great-great, etc. grandfather was a money lender in France in 1090 but there was no historical memory of this at all. All they knew was poor.

    But somehow, in the mind of anti-Semites, ALL Jews were either bankers or Bolsheviks and guys like my grandfather had to take the rap for this even though he never saw (couldn't read) a promissory note in his life and didn't know Karl from Groucho.

    Replies: @anon, @HA

    “So, when you get to modern times (from the 18th century onward) , most Jews in E. Europe are neither money lenders nor tavern keepers (nor are most of them Bolsheviks). Mostly they are just poor shmucks like Tevye trying to scratch out a living from shoemaking or tailoring or some minor trade.”

    I’m not denying that — see my above comment about the poor Jews that resulted when Jewish boys had outpaced the moneylending positions. My comments were specifically about medieval times. Despite those like Jane Plain whose frothing at the mouth apparently laves flecks on her iPad that obscure whatever doesn’t conform to her prejudices (not that that stops her from replying) I’m not denying that eventually the available cushy jobs got relatively scarcer and scarcer as the population kept growing, which is presumably why so many Jews congregated to liquor and other such industries. What part of my comments — except your own knee jerk confirmation bias — would lead you to think otherwise?

    But do note that even in those latter earas, they were better off than the vast majority of peasants (i.e. the vast majority of gentiles) in that they…well, weren’t peasants. I.e. they weren’t property of the manor. They also had far more wherewithal to become literate given that peasants by and large didn’t.

    “But the poorest Jew was a bit wealthier than the peasants in the neighboring village. The peasant was a vassal while the Jew moved freely. The peasant was illiterate while the Jew had some knowledge.

    Why is that so hard for you to accept? You may think it’s no biggie, and you may think those earlier centuries when Jews were essentially lesser nobility has no bearing today, but if so, pull my other leg. As Gregory Clark’s work has indicated, having been high and mighty four centuries or more ago can still matter to this day, especially in relation to some great-great…-great grandson of peasants who was never high and mighty to begin with, and who is increasingly being asked to pay a price for what whites (i.e. rich people, both Jew and gentile) did to “oppressed people” (i.e. those who like his ancestors were merely property), with the eager encouragement of those same whites (again, both Jew and gentile) who were far more likely to have been responsible for all that, but will almost certainly never need to pay up.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @HA

    The right key opens lots of locks.

    , @Jane Plain
    @HA

    "Despite those like Jane Plain whose frothing at the mouth apparently laves flecks on her iPad that obscure whatever doesn’t conform to her prejudices (not that that stops her from replying)"

    Hey, stop talking about me behind my back.

    BTW, your writing sucks. Dial those emotions down, and it will improve. Laves flecks?

    Replies: @HA

  103. @nebulafox
    @Anonymous

    For the overwhelming majority of Russian history, Orthodox Christianity played a deeply important role within the state. Unlike in Western Europe, where the earthly and spiritual centers of power were always competing and jockeying for position-no matter how theoretically sometimes-against each other, in Russia they were united, Byzantine style. This meant that the position of religious minorities within Russia was always bound to be complicated.

    Religious minorities that had been incorporated into the empire earlier-most prominently the Muslims to the south and the ethnic Germans which would provide a lot of the startup ground for Peter's modernization drive-had, by the late 1700s, gotten on board with the Tsarist project for the most part. That meant they were given a certain degree of protection within the system, which they'd be able to protect until the Russification policies of the 1880s. But the Catholic Poles and the Jews that had settled with the Commonwealth were latecomers, and were probably more distrusted by the Russians as a result. In the case of the Poles, this had a lot to do with a couple of centuries of nasty history: at one low point, the Poles occupied Moscow and planned on converting everybody to Catholicism. The resulting heavy-handed policies in occupied Poland would eventually erupt into several nationalist uprisings that would lead to a lot of slaughter, a lot of exile to Siberia, and intense Russification policies.

    As for the Jews, combine all this with Russia's lack of liberalization relative to Europe. That meant all the undiluted discrimination toward Jews you'd see throughout Europe in previous eras but which was dying out by the 1700s remained in full force in Russia, just as serfdom remained a thing until Alexander II. Peter the Great's reforms transformed the aristocracy and the state bureaucracy, but not the masses or the society as a whole. As the 1800s went on and radical left-wing movements began to sprout up and engage in terrorism-and predictably, there were a lot of Jews in these movements, partly because of how the Tsars treated them-state distrust intensified to enough paranoia that the Protocols got published toward the end. I guess, in a sense, the Jews didn't really fit in, which was a problem everywhere but in Russia moreso. The Russians could "get" the Poles and why they were hostile, even if they didn't like it. The Russians were used to the Muslims and the Asians and the Germans. The Jews were always something more alien and tricky and unresolved, maybe?

    Replies: @Jack D

    Agree with what you say. The point is, for whatever reason, the Russians never wanted Jews to begin with but found themselves in possession of a large Jewish population. This was not unlike the situation that the Germans found themselves in during WWII (the same Jews even). The Russia solution was not as extreme as the German one but somewhat similar to the German policy in 1933-1938 – make life rough on the Jews and maybe they’ll leave. This wasn’t hard for the Russians to do considering that they didn’t like the Jews in the first place. Conversion was also acceptable to the Russians, as it was not to the Germans, indicating they considered this to be a religious rather than racial problem.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Jack D

    >The point is, for whatever reason, the Russians never wanted Jews to begin with but found themselves in possession of a large Jewish population.

    My guess is that carving up their big rival in the Slavic world-the same people who'd been stepping on their throats a century and a half earlier-proved to be too tempting. Gaining a major unassimilated Jewish populace was more "unfortunate side effect" than anything premeditated.

    >Conversion was also acceptable to the Russians, as it was not to the Germans, indicating they considered this to be a religious rather than racial problem.

    Hitler was always very disdainful of religiously motivated anti-Semitism, even if he was OK with exploiting it politically.

    Ethno-nationalism has always been a deeply tricky thing in Russia because of the multi-cultural nature of the place. Even leaders who are unapologetic right-wing nationalists tend to stay away from the hard-line biological stuff: the modern Russian version of the alt-right are not fans of Putin, who regularly locks them up. This means that the exact type of anti-Semitism that the Nazis epitomized was unlikely to take off, if not radical anti-Semitism in general. (That this is not the same as American or even Hapsburg notions of tolerance should go unexplained.)

    Prior to the Nazis, though, you saw way more intermarriage and conversion in Germany (and in the lands that made up Austria-Hungary) than in Russia, including Congress Poland. The sort of biological, volkisch racism that the Nazis espoused only really got traction later on, in the late 1800s: and significantly and unsurprisingly, it took off in popularity in Vienna long before it did in Germany proper, and it took multiple decades to get anywhere politically: as late as 1930, Hitler did not emphasize anti-Semitism during the Great Depression era, because it wasn't getting anywhere with mainstream voters. On an causation level, though, the notion of Jews as akin to a pathogen was a deeply modern reaction. It was a response to modernity, since the Jews were themselves seen as agents of modernity in a place like Germany which was undergoing Chinese levels of social change at the time.

    I got the impression that intermarriage in Russia only took off on a mass level after WWII, well after state atheism was introduced. Part of that was because the traditional Pale had been destroyed by the Germans, but the Soviet government also was emphatic about it after the war, in keeping with the tendencies that Stalin displayed about Russian nationalism well before. It worked: after centuries of being a parallel society, Jews assimilated to the degree that Israel has more Russian speakers than anyone outside the former USSR.

    (Consider this irony, though: Germany had the world's most powerful Marxist party and political tradition in the early 1900s. Meanwhile, sharply industrializing Tsarist Russia had tons of far-right groups who wanted to get rid of the aristocracy and establish a mystical bond between Tsar and Narod-the Union of the Russian People and their Black Hundreds being one example: and tellingly, these views started to pick up when Russia was undergoing the same kind of breakneck transformation that Germany had earlier, during the dying days of the Romanovs. They had views on the Jews that were very Nazi-esque and not quite as based in religious tradition, even if lacking in the same biological, pseudo-scientific sheen the Nazis put on it. So, if an observer had to guess in 1912, they'd have bet that Russia would go fascist and Germany Communist if there was social apocalypse, not the other way around.)

    Replies: @Anonymous

  104. @Guy De Champlagne
    What's the best argument against the fact (?) that Israeli ashkenazi don't have high iqs like american ones do?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @J.Ross, @Bonner Tal, @Unladen Swallow, @bigdicknick

    a lot of people in israel have mixed heritage.

  105. @Dieter Kief
    @Steve Sailer


    How did the Lombard moneylenders get around the Catholic Church’s ban on lending money for interest?

     

    One way was to open pawnshops because they were allowed by the church, whereas interest was forbidden. That's how the Jews and the Jesuits started the money- and jewelry (!) business in medieval Italy -with the help of pawnshops. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombard_banking 

    Another way was, to move to the periphery of the Catholic Church's influence and start a money-lending business with the local (and quite needy) aristocracy, as the Italian Lombards did from 1300 on until 1450 in the prospering Upper Rhine region (in the Middle Rhine region too, from ca. 1350 on). The Lombards had been working in the money-business in Italy before and moved as a group of specialists to the Upper and later Middle Rhine and started their new money-lending business in and around Cologne, Münster, and Aachen. They helped the local aristocracy to establish something new and - as it turned out - quite useful: A financial bureaucracy.

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombarden_(Bankiers)  

    Then Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and - the Fuggers dominated the scene (cf. Dieter Forte's great and very insightful play: Luther, Thomas Münzer und die Einführung der Buchhaltung, Basel 1970 - Luther, Thomas Münzer and the Introduction of Accounting - no English translation. A pity - and a loss of insights!)

    Replies: @HA, @Old Palo Altan, @Anonymous

    I was just about to say something like this, Dieter, when you beat me to it.

    I can add that it continued rather longer than your sources intimate: two direct ancestors of mine were born in Piedmont in the middle of the 16th century, one is even referred to in contemporary documents in the region they went to (the Netherlands) as “de lombart”, and they were both “tafelhouders van leeninghe”, i.e. money lenders and, inevitably, bankers. It seemed to be monopolistic: one of them held the post in Alkmaar, and bought the same position (while keeping the first) in two other towns nearby. Although they went to the northern Netherlands, they were Catholic, and one married into an important legal family which had remained Catholic at the same time as it had remained, too, something like hereditary advisors (Raadsheren) to the famously Protestant Princes of Orange.
    But then the Dutch have always been tolerant where money is concerned. As late as the 18th century the richest family in the very wealthy city of Amsterdam was Catholic.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Old Palo Altan

    Interesting!
    When I thought about these posts here this afternoon on the Reichenau, I wondered why the obvious distinction between lending money out for pawns vs. credits which are only backed by a contract over interest rates hadn't been discussed here more deeply.

    I think that the Church made a useful (=wise) distinction here, which might have turned out to be quite beneficial because the structurally unlimited interest rates allow for much more risk (and societal tensions) in the money lending business then the pawn based version of it. This version is limited by its very nature and might have tamed the longing for ever more money, which is inherent in the structurally unlimited nature of the credit.

    Past wisdom isn't that hard to grasp, but dire nonetheless. What can turn out to be really expensive at times is to ignore the - rational glow?! - of such examples of past wisdom.

    Replies: @Old Palo Altan

  106. @Brás Cubas

    it’s White Supremacy for gentile whites to notice that Ashkenazi Jews have a higher average IQ score than white gentiles have
     
    I've always been intrigued by this IQ thing. Apart from scientific research, I presume that individuals test out of curiosity. I even heard of one guy who included his own IQ in his resumé. Well, this must be an American thing. Anyway, the best way for any group to get out of the radar is to have its members fake their IQ tests, that is, deliberately mark the wrong alternatives. This would probably be a sound group strategy, wouldn't it?

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Well, I can only offer my opinion, which is rather different from the dominant position here. So, just a c-p:

    It all boils down to unreliability of psychometry as such. And I’m not talking about geniuses, bursts of creativity & similar stuff.

    Simply, what those tests should measure is talent, gift, capability for some area. If limited to such, rather narrow field, psychometry tests could very well work.They could show that some people are gifted for numbers, or for engineering tasks, good with words, or good in space orientation etc.

    But it is absurd to derive (I know the argument of factor analysis, but it is bollocks) that some magical number, IQ, is the final product which will show a person’s success in life in general. What is “success”? How can we measure capability of an individual to attain”success” in a given field?

    The answer: we can’t.

    And it is even more absurd to try it with human collectives.

    We all see with our own eyes what different human collectives are capable of, and it is not some magical number that will give us varieties of human accomplishment & functionality of human collectives, given the historical moment, ideas, manners, environment, … and even more- hope, self-reliance, adaptability, stubbornness, morals..

    There are many problems with IQ ideology which remain insurmountable.

    We all use the word “intelligence” & even if we look at psychology dictionaries & agree with it, nonetheless the concept remains vague. Probably there are a few types of intelligence: verbal, arithmetic, geometrical & maybe a few others. Why would we lump these types if intelligence together is beyond my comprehension.

    As for musical ability, various types of talents in other fields…better not call this “intelligence” (social “intelligence, emotional “intelligence”,..). This is a misuse of the word. Ability, talent, whatever…

    Then, there remains the big, big elephant of creativity. Sorry, but creativity is something different & cannot be reduced to any psycho test; it, at its peaks, comes in flashes including intuition, dreaming, imagination,…

    I wanted to say that exceptional mental ability comes in many forms & IQ concept is too rudimentary, too reductionist, too shallow, too unnecessary, …

    Perhaps in some future we will be able to ascertain, experimentally, through neuro-imagining, neurophysiology, brain investigation …. some new aspects & dimensions of human cognition and behavior (emotion, impulse control, ethical development,..) and intuition and imagination and …

    Until then, IQ “wars” are like masturbation compared to real sex.

    And:

    https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country/mn-mongolia

    Mongolia: Avg. IQ 101

    GDP per capita: $ 12,551

    https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country/lt-lithuania

    Lithuania: Avg. IQ 91

    GDP per capita: $ 31,935

    • Thanks: Brás Cubas
  107. @nebulafox
    @HA

    The best banking family of that time in Europe were probably the Fuggers. They aren't as well known as the Medici, but they were *really* good at what they did. It took the total catastrophe of the Thirty Year's War to destroy them. They were plain old Germans with not a drop of Jewish blood in them, near as I can tell.

    (I'm not joking around when I label it a catastrophe: only January-May 1945 really compares with the Thirty Year's War when it came to destruction in Germany.)

    Replies: @HA, @Old Palo Altan

    No Jewish blood at all.

    Is not “destroyed” a bit overstating it? They ceased to be top bankers, and became top aristocrats instead. They’re a big deal in Bavaria, particularly in Augsburg, where their housing for the poor is still going strong, and still owned by them.
    I once introduced the head of one branch of the family (Fugger-Babenhausen) to the head of another German princely house. The complicated and courtly way in which they exchanged greetings was a wonder to behold.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Old Palo Altan

    Perhaps, but going from dominating Europe to being a strong player in Bavaria is a step down, nicht wahr?

    > The complicated and courtly way in which they exchanged greetings was a wonder to behold.

    A little glimpse of what Europe used to be like before WWI mortally wounded it.

  108. @HA
    @Jack D

    "So, when you get to modern times (from the 18th century onward) , most Jews in E. Europe are neither money lenders nor tavern keepers (nor are most of them Bolsheviks). Mostly they are just poor shmucks like Tevye trying to scratch out a living from shoemaking or tailoring or some minor trade."

    I'm not denying that -- see my above comment about the poor Jews that resulted when Jewish boys had outpaced the moneylending positions. My comments were specifically about medieval times. Despite those like Jane Plain whose frothing at the mouth apparently laves flecks on her iPad that obscure whatever doesn't conform to her prejudices (not that that stops her from replying) I'm not denying that eventually the available cushy jobs got relatively scarcer and scarcer as the population kept growing, which is presumably why so many Jews congregated to liquor and other such industries. What part of my comments -- except your own knee jerk confirmation bias -- would lead you to think otherwise?

    But do note that even in those latter earas, they were better off than the vast majority of peasants (i.e. the vast majority of gentiles) in that they...well, weren't peasants. I.e. they weren't property of the manor. They also had far more wherewithal to become literate given that peasants by and large didn't.


    "But the poorest Jew was a bit wealthier than the peasants in the neighboring village. The peasant was a vassal while the Jew moved freely. The peasant was illiterate while the Jew had some knowledge.
     
    Why is that so hard for you to accept? You may think it's no biggie, and you may think those earlier centuries when Jews were essentially lesser nobility has no bearing today, but if so, pull my other leg. As Gregory Clark's work has indicated, having been high and mighty four centuries or more ago can still matter to this day, especially in relation to some great-great...-great grandson of peasants who was never high and mighty to begin with, and who is increasingly being asked to pay a price for what whites (i.e. rich people, both Jew and gentile) did to "oppressed people" (i.e. those who like his ancestors were merely property), with the eager encouragement of those same whites (again, both Jew and gentile) who were far more likely to have been responsible for all that, but will almost certainly never need to pay up.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Jane Plain

    The right key opens lots of locks.

    • Agree: HA
  109. @Jack D
    @nebulafox

    Agree with what you say. The point is, for whatever reason, the Russians never wanted Jews to begin with but found themselves in possession of a large Jewish population. This was not unlike the situation that the Germans found themselves in during WWII (the same Jews even). The Russia solution was not as extreme as the German one but somewhat similar to the German policy in 1933-1938 - make life rough on the Jews and maybe they'll leave. This wasn't hard for the Russians to do considering that they didn't like the Jews in the first place. Conversion was also acceptable to the Russians, as it was not to the Germans, indicating they considered this to be a religious rather than racial problem.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >The point is, for whatever reason, the Russians never wanted Jews to begin with but found themselves in possession of a large Jewish population.

    My guess is that carving up their big rival in the Slavic world-the same people who’d been stepping on their throats a century and a half earlier-proved to be too tempting. Gaining a major unassimilated Jewish populace was more “unfortunate side effect” than anything premeditated.

    >Conversion was also acceptable to the Russians, as it was not to the Germans, indicating they considered this to be a religious rather than racial problem.

    Hitler was always very disdainful of religiously motivated anti-Semitism, even if he was OK with exploiting it politically.

    Ethno-nationalism has always been a deeply tricky thing in Russia because of the multi-cultural nature of the place. Even leaders who are unapologetic right-wing nationalists tend to stay away from the hard-line biological stuff: the modern Russian version of the alt-right are not fans of Putin, who regularly locks them up. This means that the exact type of anti-Semitism that the Nazis epitomized was unlikely to take off, if not radical anti-Semitism in general. (That this is not the same as American or even Hapsburg notions of tolerance should go unexplained.)

    Prior to the Nazis, though, you saw way more intermarriage and conversion in Germany (and in the lands that made up Austria-Hungary) than in Russia, including Congress Poland. The sort of biological, volkisch racism that the Nazis espoused only really got traction later on, in the late 1800s: and significantly and unsurprisingly, it took off in popularity in Vienna long before it did in Germany proper, and it took multiple decades to get anywhere politically: as late as 1930, Hitler did not emphasize anti-Semitism during the Great Depression era, because it wasn’t getting anywhere with mainstream voters. On an causation level, though, the notion of Jews as akin to a pathogen was a deeply modern reaction. It was a response to modernity, since the Jews were themselves seen as agents of modernity in a place like Germany which was undergoing Chinese levels of social change at the time.

    I got the impression that intermarriage in Russia only took off on a mass level after WWII, well after state atheism was introduced. Part of that was because the traditional Pale had been destroyed by the Germans, but the Soviet government also was emphatic about it after the war, in keeping with the tendencies that Stalin displayed about Russian nationalism well before. It worked: after centuries of being a parallel society, Jews assimilated to the degree that Israel has more Russian speakers than anyone outside the former USSR.

    (Consider this irony, though: Germany had the world’s most powerful Marxist party and political tradition in the early 1900s. Meanwhile, sharply industrializing Tsarist Russia had tons of far-right groups who wanted to get rid of the aristocracy and establish a mystical bond between Tsar and Narod-the Union of the Russian People and their Black Hundreds being one example: and tellingly, these views started to pick up when Russia was undergoing the same kind of breakneck transformation that Germany had earlier, during the dying days of the Romanovs. They had views on the Jews that were very Nazi-esque and not quite as based in religious tradition, even if lacking in the same biological, pseudo-scientific sheen the Nazis put on it. So, if an observer had to guess in 1912, they’d have bet that Russia would go fascist and Germany Communist if there was social apocalypse, not the other way around.)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @nebulafox


    The sort of biological, volkisch racism that the Nazis espoused only really got traction later on, in the late 1800s: and significantly and unsurprisingly, it took off in popularity in Vienna long before it did in Germany
     
    This is an inaccurate statement. Biological, “volkisch” racism had been practiced by Jews for centuries. To the extent it was new, it was new among Germans.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Johann Ricke, @nebulafox

  110. @Old Palo Altan
    @nebulafox

    No Jewish blood at all.

    Is not "destroyed" a bit overstating it? They ceased to be top bankers, and became top aristocrats instead. They're a big deal in Bavaria, particularly in Augsburg, where their housing for the poor is still going strong, and still owned by them.
    I once introduced the head of one branch of the family (Fugger-Babenhausen) to the head of another German princely house. The complicated and courtly way in which they exchanged greetings was a wonder to behold.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Perhaps, but going from dominating Europe to being a strong player in Bavaria is a step down, nicht wahr?

    > The complicated and courtly way in which they exchanged greetings was a wonder to behold.

    A little glimpse of what Europe used to be like before WWI mortally wounded it.

  111. @Jack D
    @Anonymous


    Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites.
     
    This shows a complete ignorance of statistics and the operation of the normal distribution. Once you concede than Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites, then by necessity they will have a higher IQ at all points on the curve including at the 99th percentile. This is a matter of pure mathematics and requires no further evidence.

    When the mean is shifted like that, the effects are magnified at the tail. A 1 SD shift will mean that out that the far right tail there are maybe 10x as many Jews as their prevalence in the population. Jews are 2% of the general US population but maybe 20% of those with IQ above say 150. Note however that there are still 4 non-Jewish geniuses for every Jewish one. (The same thing happens in reverse for blacks because of their lower population mean IQ - blacks are 15% of the population but maybe 1.5% of those above 150 IQ).

    But your original "no evidence" statement is utterly wrong. The smartest 1% of Jews (a group of 60,000 people in America) are far smarter on average than the smartest 1% of whites (a group of 2 million).

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow, @Technite78, @Faraday's Bobcat, @James B. Shearer, @res

    Your assertion about all points on the curve being higher for the distribution with the higher mean is only true if the standard deviations of the two distributions are the same. If the lower mean distribution has a higher standard deviation it may cross above the higher one out on the right side tail.

    Of course, the standard deviations are probably close, but without stating that in your reply the jibe about ignorance seems a bit unfair, if not outright silly.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Technite78

    I agree but AFAIK all human populations have similar standard deviations of IQ. Can you provide any citation that shows that Jewish IQ has a different SD? As someone else mentions, IQ tests are force normed (thru the scoring algorithm) so that 1 SD = 15 points for the general population. It's possible that sub-populations might not fit that norming but I've never seen anything to that effect. So I consider you comment to be quibbling unless you can present data showing otherwise.

  112. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    "Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites."

    Is there evidence that's _not_ true?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Bonner Tal, @Hypnotoad666, @Anonymous

    I suspect the very top fraction of Ashkenazim have some abilities that the very top percentage of white don’t have on that level, and the reverse is also true. There is no evidence that the best Jewish aeronautical or electrical engineer are categorically way better than their goyische rivals, but there is evidence that the skills needed to dominate in Hollywood are specially Ashkenazi, aside from the open favoritism they display.

    Ben Rich and Gordon-wait for this-Israel were famous aeronautical engineers but neither were decisive as engineers. Paul Horowitz wrote the excellent The Art of Electronics, but the master analog designers are generally conceded to be Armstrong and Hazeltine early on and Widlar, Williams, Pease, Gilbert-not poseurs like Lee de Forest (he was famous enough that DeForest Kelley was named after him!) or the later ‘Captain Catchfire’ Tim de Paravicini, but none of those are Jewish anyway. In the computer science fields you have a lot of Jews of course-but Stallman and the rest of the crew out of MIT Media Lab (Symbolics, LMI, that sort of thing) early on were the last of the really famous ones on that level.

    • Agree: Sean
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Lockheed's Ben Rich's brother was a sit-com writer, also in Burbank, I'd imagine.

    , @Anonymous
    @Anonymous


    but there is evidence that the skills needed to dominate in Hollywood are specially Ashkenazi, aside from the open favoritism they display.
     
    It helped that Jews in Hollywood had close relations to Jews in finance. Hollywood lost lot of money and needed funds in down times.

    But one big advantage for Jews in Hollywood, especially when the West was more proper and 'repressed', was that they were more shameless. This is surely one reason why Jews became so big in gambling, prostitution, and pornography(which is really electronic prostitution, and safer than the street kind that got taken over by blacks).

    There were lots of things that Anglos and others were too ashamed to go near. Jews had fewer inhibitions and were more shameless in dabbling in whatever brought in the money. We see this spirit in Mel Brooks and Woody Allen. Brooks did anything for a laugh. Allen turned Portnoyism into pop culture. And of course, there's Howard Stern. Over the yrs, the goyim got pretty shameless too, but in the crucial yrs when mass popular culture was coming into form, Jews were more willing to invest and work in Vice Industries because they were less inhibited. So, they had the advantage in the formative stage of mass culture.
    They ran with a vulgarized form of Freudianism. Though Judaism had strict moral laws about lots of things, it was more about the letter of the law than the spirit. So, sex was okay as long as the rules were followed. But according to Christianity, it is sinful just to have sinful thoughts even if you don't act on them. So, Christian culture became more repressed and defined by shame. Also, as Jews regarded themselves as less attractive, they figure they had more to gain by vulgarizing the culture. In a more repressed and proper culture, white women will try to stick to the true and narrow. But in a vulgarized culture, they could be enticed by wine, drink, and money. The Sternberg-Dietrich partnership is telling.

    Compare Hong Kong cinema and mainland Chinese cinema in the 80s. Mainland made some very good movies but they were all in humanist and serious vein. Not very popular. In contrast, Hong Kong movies were zany and over-the-top and utterly shameless and dominated the Asian market.
    No shame, more fame.
  113. @Jack D
    @Anonymous


    Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites.
     
    This shows a complete ignorance of statistics and the operation of the normal distribution. Once you concede than Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites, then by necessity they will have a higher IQ at all points on the curve including at the 99th percentile. This is a matter of pure mathematics and requires no further evidence.

    When the mean is shifted like that, the effects are magnified at the tail. A 1 SD shift will mean that out that the far right tail there are maybe 10x as many Jews as their prevalence in the population. Jews are 2% of the general US population but maybe 20% of those with IQ above say 150. Note however that there are still 4 non-Jewish geniuses for every Jewish one. (The same thing happens in reverse for blacks because of their lower population mean IQ - blacks are 15% of the population but maybe 1.5% of those above 150 IQ).

    But your original "no evidence" statement is utterly wrong. The smartest 1% of Jews (a group of 60,000 people in America) are far smarter on average than the smartest 1% of whites (a group of 2 million).

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow, @Technite78, @Faraday's Bobcat, @James B. Shearer, @res

    This shows a complete ignorance of statistics and the operation of the normal distribution. Once you concede than Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites, then by necessity they will have a higher IQ at all points on the curve including at the 99th percentile. This is a matter of pure mathematics and requires no further evidence.

    No. For one thing, no population exactly fits the normal distribution, so if we’re talking about 99th percentile comparisons, which are way out at the tail, it would be unwise to base claims solely on the mean and variance of the best-fit normal PDF to the population as a whole.

    Even if the populations were exactly normal, the variances also matter. Trivially, if the Ashkenazi parameters were mean 110 and SD 10, while the non-Ashkenazi parameters were mean 100 and SD 15, then the Ashkenazi 99%ile would be 133 while the non-Ashkenazi would be 135.

    Normality and the variances are both only verifiable empirically. It is not a matter of “pure mathematics.”

  114. @HA
    @Desiderius

    "Cosimo de’ Medici didn’t make the family fortune ...by not charging interest."

    True enough, but I'm guessing he focused more on richer marks. Also, as B&E note, monasteries were themselves big-time credit providers. The issue is therefore one of what exactly constitutes exploitation and excessive profit, and while it's definitely a gray area, in the case of medieval Jews, where moneylending was such a large (at times almost exclusive) component of their cash flow, it doesn't take a financial genius to link the evident growing wealth of that community to the subsequent increased poverty of those desperate enough to resort to moneylending. And then to loudly cry foul and call for the pitchforks, which I'm not endorsing.

    That being said, Christian histories on antisemitism tend to pride themselves on the (presumably rich) bishops who spoke up for the Jews. Alas, I suspect some of those cases were simply of well-off churchmen from wealthy families who had relatives employing those Jews (or else were raking in kickbacks from Jewishs moneylenders and tax-farmers themselves). I.e. not something to be that proud of, really. Whereas the lower clergy tended to be the most murderous and evil when it came to dredging up antisemitism, though I'm guessing part of the reason for that is they were the ones who were close enough to the poor to see the effects that usury had on the most vulnerable of their flock.

    So yeah, there are some difficult grey areas to cross here.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    True enough, but I’m guessing he focused more on richer marks.

    Indeed. Rovere is better known to history as Pope Sixtus IV.

  115. @Anon
    I can't find it now, but there was a group of researchers in Israel who challenged the paper on the grounds that it misrepresented the type of work that Jews did. The idea that European Jews were mostly moneylenders and the like apparently isn't true, according to a database created from historical records with considerable effort by this Israeli group. However, they came up with another explanation that basically comes to the same result as the Cochran, et al., paper. Does anyone have a cite to this Israeli paper, or an article about it?

    Here's Pinker on YouTube discussing the "Jews, Genes, and Intelligence."

    They request that the attendees not video the presentation!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GexZF5VIMU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTyWYcxVIA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDM7yQVU4ZE
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz5igS5n720
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLj9lzKr1lA

    Replies: @HA, @Reg Cæsar, @SaneClownPosse

    The idea that European Jews were mostly moneylenders and the like apparently isn’t true…

    Carl Sagan’s great-grandfather ferried passengers across a stream in the Ukraine or thereabouts– on his back. Whatever color collar that is, it isn’t white.

    Sagan had five children, but it took him three wives to do so. That’s a TFR of 1.6.

    (Jeff Besos’s autocorrect insists the man’s name is “Satan”. Make what you will of that.)

  116. @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    I suspect the very top fraction of Ashkenazim have some abilities that the very top percentage of white don't have on that level, and the reverse is also true. There is no evidence that the best Jewish aeronautical or electrical engineer are categorically way better than their goyische rivals, but there is evidence that the skills needed to dominate in Hollywood are specially Ashkenazi, aside from the open favoritism they display.

    Ben Rich and Gordon-wait for this-Israel were famous aeronautical engineers but neither were decisive as engineers. Paul Horowitz wrote the excellent The Art of Electronics, but the master analog designers are generally conceded to be Armstrong and Hazeltine early on and Widlar, Williams, Pease, Gilbert-not poseurs like Lee de Forest (he was famous enough that DeForest Kelley was named after him!) or the later 'Captain Catchfire' Tim de Paravicini, but none of those are Jewish anyway. In the computer science fields you have a lot of Jews of course-but Stallman and the rest of the crew out of MIT Media Lab (Symbolics, LMI, that sort of thing) early on were the last of the really famous ones on that level.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anonymous

    Lockheed’s Ben Rich’s brother was a sit-com writer, also in Burbank, I’d imagine.

  117. @Dieter Kief
    @Steve Sailer


    How did the Lombard moneylenders get around the Catholic Church’s ban on lending money for interest?

     

    One way was to open pawnshops because they were allowed by the church, whereas interest was forbidden. That's how the Jews and the Jesuits started the money- and jewelry (!) business in medieval Italy -with the help of pawnshops. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombard_banking 

    Another way was, to move to the periphery of the Catholic Church's influence and start a money-lending business with the local (and quite needy) aristocracy, as the Italian Lombards did from 1300 on until 1450 in the prospering Upper Rhine region (in the Middle Rhine region too, from ca. 1350 on). The Lombards had been working in the money-business in Italy before and moved as a group of specialists to the Upper and later Middle Rhine and started their new money-lending business in and around Cologne, Münster, and Aachen. They helped the local aristocracy to establish something new and - as it turned out - quite useful: A financial bureaucracy.

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombarden_(Bankiers)  

    Then Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and - the Fuggers dominated the scene (cf. Dieter Forte's great and very insightful play: Luther, Thomas Münzer und die Einführung der Buchhaltung, Basel 1970 - Luther, Thomas Münzer and the Introduction of Accounting - no English translation. A pity - and a loss of insights!)

    Replies: @HA, @Old Palo Altan, @Anonymous

    Spot on! Fun fact: the Russian noun for pawn shop is “lombard” (indicating that the influence of Lombards was far-reaching and long-lasting).

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous


    Fun fact: the Russian noun for pawn shop is “lombard” (indicating that the influence of Lombards was far-reaching and long-lasting).
     
    Their word for train station is a transliteration of Vauxhall. I was saddened to discover that my favorite Russian word, Карандаш ( "pencil"), was swiped from a Swiss trademark.

    https://www.carandache.com/us/en/

    https://cdn-st1.rtr-vesti.ru/p/xw_1392585.jpg

    https://www.deckleedge.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cf5e8c96c5f24cb191457c656966197c3c74428e.jpg

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  118. @HA
    @Jane Plain

    It really would help if you named the Botticini and Eckstein book itself.

    If you're too lazy to type Botticini and Eckstein into any search engine, you've got bigger problems than me. Try it and see what you get. I mean presumably you did that in order to find the wiki page, right? Moreover, the Slate article I linked to in my first post basically featured the book. Or were you too lazy to even click on that?

    "It got a lot of criticism."

    Yes, the part about how rabbinical Jews got the whole thing started after the destruction of the Temple is what got the criticism. They fully admit that there's a lot of holes in the first few centuries AD that they're having to work around. But the part about the prevalence of moneylending among medieval Jews? No. That was -- as I noted -- a second-hand account that (according to them at least) has been the academic consensus for some time, though popular accounts would still have us believe that Jews were somehow forced into moneylending. Did you not read the entire paragraph discussing how "controversial" their main thesis (but not the part about moneylending) is? Or are you too lazy to read that as well?

    In other words, do try and stop being an idiot, won't you? I realize it's probably going to be difficult, but make it a New Year's resolution. In any case, I'm not going to be cowed by -- and really shouldn't even have to answer -- people who can't even be bothered to read what I write before spitting out "anti-semite" in an effort to shut me down.

    Replies: @Jane Plain

    “If you’re too lazy to type Botticini and Eckstein into any search engine, you’ve got bigger problems than me. Try it and see what you get. I mean presumably you did that in order to find the wiki page, right? ”

    Well, obviously I did type the names into a search engine. You presumed correctly.

    “Moreover, the Slate article I linked to in my first post basically featured the book. Or were you too lazy to even click on that?”

    I didn’t see your first post. I wasn’t responding to that. I realize that this damages your narcissism, but I didn’t read it. I didn’t realize that there was a protocol online that specified one has to read every prior comment by a commenter.

    “In other words, do try and stop being an idiot, won’t you?”

    I’ll stop being an idiot when you stop being a damaged narcissist. I think my condition is the more easily treatable.

    ” I realize it’s probably going to be difficult, but make it a New Year’s resolution.”

    It’s idiotic to believe in New Year’s resolutions.

    ” In any case, I’m not going to be cowed by — and really shouldn’t even have to answer — ”

    Then why did you?

    “people who can’t even be bothered to read what I write before spitting out “anti-semite” in an effort to shut me down.”

    Oh right, here comes the inevitable alt right whine: “they’re trying to shut me down!” Obviously, I’m doing nothing of the sort. I’m just a fake name commenter on a website, as you are. Talk all you want here. I enjoy reading you, because you have no power in real life, and I do learn things from you.

    This book, for example. It looks interesting. I know that the only reason you mentioned it is because there is a potentially anti-Semitic angle to its conclusions, but really, it looks like it offers a healthy dose of skepticism to the party line. Jews followed economic opportunity and few of them died in persecutions. Sounds about right to me.

    Again: I think that the C/H theory makes sense even if you dispute that most Jewish men were moneylenders from the 7th century to the 18th.

  119. @donald j tingle
    These numbers are misleading. After all, the non-Jewish white numbers include an awful lot of the Irish. And people from southern Italy.

    It’s not fair to WASP’s to compare a bunch of German Jews with the entire rest of the population, which contains such an ethnic mixture. And if the Jews are smarter maybe it’s just that they have retained their higher German intelligence because they have not mixed with the Irish and Italians to the extent Anglo-Saxons did.

    I wonder how much English blood those AltRight white nationalist types actually have and how many have any meaningful ancestry here dating back to the 18th century.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I wonder how much English blood those AltRight white nationalist types actually have and how many have any meaningful ancestry here dating back to the 18th century.

    One professional genealogist estimated that 82% of Americans have at least one strain that can be traced to England. Perhaps some of them were Irish, Scots, Jews, or French passing through, but the great majority were English.

    My maternal grandparents were of 19th-century immigrant descent and, while there’s a small chance that grandma was a sliver English– her great-grandfather was a Scot born in England– it doesn’t matter now. All 26 of their grandchildren have English blood through their other parent. That’s how intermarriage works.

    Figure that almost all blacks and Indians, most Southern whites, and large portions of the Mountain West and Northwest have some English ancestors. I’ve met Midwestern Swedes, Norwegians, and Poles that have that one old-stock grandparent. I’ve seen distant colonial cousins online with Italian and Slavic surnames.

    The undercount of Americans with English ancestry is larger than the total count of all but a few other ethnicities. A 200-year head start will do that.

  120. @HA
    @Jack D

    "So, when you get to modern times (from the 18th century onward) , most Jews in E. Europe are neither money lenders nor tavern keepers (nor are most of them Bolsheviks). Mostly they are just poor shmucks like Tevye trying to scratch out a living from shoemaking or tailoring or some minor trade."

    I'm not denying that -- see my above comment about the poor Jews that resulted when Jewish boys had outpaced the moneylending positions. My comments were specifically about medieval times. Despite those like Jane Plain whose frothing at the mouth apparently laves flecks on her iPad that obscure whatever doesn't conform to her prejudices (not that that stops her from replying) I'm not denying that eventually the available cushy jobs got relatively scarcer and scarcer as the population kept growing, which is presumably why so many Jews congregated to liquor and other such industries. What part of my comments -- except your own knee jerk confirmation bias -- would lead you to think otherwise?

    But do note that even in those latter earas, they were better off than the vast majority of peasants (i.e. the vast majority of gentiles) in that they...well, weren't peasants. I.e. they weren't property of the manor. They also had far more wherewithal to become literate given that peasants by and large didn't.


    "But the poorest Jew was a bit wealthier than the peasants in the neighboring village. The peasant was a vassal while the Jew moved freely. The peasant was illiterate while the Jew had some knowledge.
     
    Why is that so hard for you to accept? You may think it's no biggie, and you may think those earlier centuries when Jews were essentially lesser nobility has no bearing today, but if so, pull my other leg. As Gregory Clark's work has indicated, having been high and mighty four centuries or more ago can still matter to this day, especially in relation to some great-great...-great grandson of peasants who was never high and mighty to begin with, and who is increasingly being asked to pay a price for what whites (i.e. rich people, both Jew and gentile) did to "oppressed people" (i.e. those who like his ancestors were merely property), with the eager encouragement of those same whites (again, both Jew and gentile) who were far more likely to have been responsible for all that, but will almost certainly never need to pay up.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Jane Plain

    “Despite those like Jane Plain whose frothing at the mouth apparently laves flecks on her iPad that obscure whatever doesn’t conform to her prejudices (not that that stops her from replying)”

    Hey, stop talking about me behind my back.

    BTW, your writing sucks. Dial those emotions down, and it will improve. Laves flecks?

    • Replies: @HA
    @Jane Plain

    "I know that the only reason you mentioned it is because there is a potentially anti-Semitic angle"

    Oh, there we go again. The reason I mentioned it was because it refuted the comment I was replying to. Moreover, the book is one that both the moderator and Slate magazine have favorably mentioned. That kind of double-sided ideological endorsement doesn’t happen all that frequently, and was in and of itself enough to intrigue me.

    I didn’t realize that there was a protocol online that specified one has to read every prior comment by a commenter.

    There's certainly no protocol that necessitates accommodating those too stupid or lazy to perform a simple cut-and-paste task. But that didn't stop you from complaining, did it? It’s true, I have little patience for those who hurl anti-semite accusations at me in lieu of a counter-argument, but it’s about as little as I have for the ones who repeatedly accuse me of being hasbara on these pages. If anything, you got off easy. At this point, I'm about even on both types of accusations, but really, both you sets of idiots should start comparing notes or something.

    "It’s idiotic to believe in New Year’s resolutions."

    Given your obvious inability to discern the motivations of people you clearly know nothing about, and have made no effort to even determine before spouting off about them, they should be right up your alley then.

  121. @HA
    @Anonymouse

    "There was a theory proposed somewhere that the selection method promoting smart jews was their liturgical obligation that every male be able to read the Torah."

    Yeah, that's basically their thesis (and certainly aligns with numerous other such theories), and they supplement it with specifics (such as are available) on the steep costs of maintaining a yeshiva in the first few centuries and where the money came from and such. It wasn't just the dumb ones that got weeded out -- it was also the poor ones.

    Again, there's only so much that is available, and while the book got a lot of criticism from historians (no doubt offended about two economists impinging on their turf), it also won some awards, and got published by the Princeton University Press. So you be the judge.

    Half-literate harridans can of course choose to ignore all that, given that reflexively sputtering out slurs is so much easier, but I'm not in the business of satisfying everyone. The very fact I've managed to tick off the likes of one of them probably counts as a plus.

    Replies: @Jane Plain

    “Despite those like Jane Plain whose frothing at the mouth apparently laves flecks on her iPad that obscure whatever doesn’t conform to her prejudices (not that that stops her from replying)”

    Hey, stop talking about me behind my back.

    BTW, your writing sucks. Dial those emotions down, and it will improve. Laves flecks?

  122. @Anonymous
    @Dieter Kief

    Spot on! Fun fact: the Russian noun for pawn shop is "lombard" (indicating that the influence of Lombards was far-reaching and long-lasting).

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Fun fact: the Russian noun for pawn shop is “lombard” (indicating that the influence of Lombards was far-reaching and long-lasting).

    Their word for train station is a transliteration of Vauxhall. I was saddened to discover that my favorite Russian word, Карандаш ( “pencil”), was swiped from a Swiss trademark.

    https://www.carandache.com/us/en/

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Reg Cæsar

    Allow me the privilege of being the first to correct the above error.

    The Swiss got it from a Frenchman, who indeed got it from the Russian. But the Russians got it from the Turk(ic)s.

    Whencever, карандаш has a wonderfully exotic, romantic sound to it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caran_d%27Ache_(company)#History

    https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/карандаш#

    Replies: @Jack D

  123. @Anonymouse
    @Bert

    America changed the personal calculus for 50% of the world's jews who live here. Second and later generations have abandonned historic distrust of the non-jewish world because they have been accepted as Americans. Frequent reference to jewish attitudes of the 19th century and before are anachronistic and are simply wrongheaded. American Jews are no longer suspicious of the non-jewish world.

    References here of viewpoints no longer held by American jews no longer apply.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Gabe Ruth

    You must be new here.

  124. @Anon
    I can't find it now, but there was a group of researchers in Israel who challenged the paper on the grounds that it misrepresented the type of work that Jews did. The idea that European Jews were mostly moneylenders and the like apparently isn't true, according to a database created from historical records with considerable effort by this Israeli group. However, they came up with another explanation that basically comes to the same result as the Cochran, et al., paper. Does anyone have a cite to this Israeli paper, or an article about it?

    Here's Pinker on YouTube discussing the "Jews, Genes, and Intelligence."

    They request that the attendees not video the presentation!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GexZF5VIMU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTyWYcxVIA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDM7yQVU4ZE
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz5igS5n720
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLj9lzKr1lA

    Replies: @HA, @Reg Cæsar, @SaneClownPosse

    “and also to make a living by commerce”. Commerce is not limited to usurious money lending.

    The non money lenders were traders and merchants, dealing in whatever commodities that would bring profit. Purple dye from Canaan (Phoenicia), wool, gold, silver, gem stones, wood, tea, rubber, coffee, sugar, slaves, opium, what have you. There was profit in owning the ships that plied the trade routes.

    • Replies: @jbwilson24
    @SaneClownPosse

    " Commerce is not limited to usurious money lending."

    Jewish people specialized in rent seeking. Money lending is but one of their typical occupations. Pushing liquor on peasants and trying to get them addicted enough to seize their chattels is another.

    I would look up the way Jews in Eastern Europe used to buy rights to postal/customs houses and other monopolies. They would pay the nobility for certain exclusive privileges to run parts of the infrastructure and then raise prices. This is a form of rent seeking behavior, much like their penchant for acquiring land and renting it out to gentiles.

    'money lending' is but a fraction of their typical activities. Running sugar plantations, transporting slaves, etc etc. Disaster capitalism (provoking crises and using their superior financial resources to buy land and other assets on the cheap).

  125. @Jack D
    @Anonymous


    Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites.
     
    This shows a complete ignorance of statistics and the operation of the normal distribution. Once you concede than Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites, then by necessity they will have a higher IQ at all points on the curve including at the 99th percentile. This is a matter of pure mathematics and requires no further evidence.

    When the mean is shifted like that, the effects are magnified at the tail. A 1 SD shift will mean that out that the far right tail there are maybe 10x as many Jews as their prevalence in the population. Jews are 2% of the general US population but maybe 20% of those with IQ above say 150. Note however that there are still 4 non-Jewish geniuses for every Jewish one. (The same thing happens in reverse for blacks because of their lower population mean IQ - blacks are 15% of the population but maybe 1.5% of those above 150 IQ).

    But your original "no evidence" statement is utterly wrong. The smartest 1% of Jews (a group of 60,000 people in America) are far smarter on average than the smartest 1% of whites (a group of 2 million).

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow, @Technite78, @Faraday's Bobcat, @James B. Shearer, @res

    “This shows a complete ignorance of statistics and the operation of the normal distribution. Once you concede than Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites, then by necessity they will have a higher IQ at all points on the curve including at the 99th percentile. This is a matter of pure mathematics and requires no further evidence.”

    There are a couple of problems with this. First the normal distribution curve is determined by two parameters, the average and the standard deviation (which determines the width). A group with a lower average but higher standard deviation will have more high scorers (if you set the bar high enough) because its scores are less tightly bunched around the average. Larry Summers got in trouble for noting the consequences of a higher standard deviation in ability among men (compared to women). Note a group with a lower average will be especially deficient in high scorers if it also has a lower standard deviation.

    The second problem is that the ‘fact’ that IQ is normally distributed is more of an assumption or convention than a law of nature. Given a test that rank orders people you can scale the scores so that they are normally distributed for any given group. This is done for IQ tests with respect to some reference population. But you can’t necessarily do this in a consistent way for two different groups at the same time.

  126. @Jane Plain
    @HA

    "Despite those like Jane Plain whose frothing at the mouth apparently laves flecks on her iPad that obscure whatever doesn’t conform to her prejudices (not that that stops her from replying)"

    Hey, stop talking about me behind my back.

    BTW, your writing sucks. Dial those emotions down, and it will improve. Laves flecks?

    Replies: @HA

    “I know that the only reason you mentioned it is because there is a potentially anti-Semitic angle”

    Oh, there we go again. The reason I mentioned it was because it refuted the comment I was replying to. Moreover, the book is one that both the moderator and Slate magazine have favorably mentioned. That kind of double-sided ideological endorsement doesn’t happen all that frequently, and was in and of itself enough to intrigue me.

    I didn’t realize that there was a protocol online that specified one has to read every prior comment by a commenter.

    There’s certainly no protocol that necessitates accommodating those too stupid or lazy to perform a simple cut-and-paste task. But that didn’t stop you from complaining, did it? It’s true, I have little patience for those who hurl anti-semite accusations at me in lieu of a counter-argument, but it’s about as little as I have for the ones who repeatedly accuse me of being hasbara on these pages. If anything, you got off easy. At this point, I’m about even on both types of accusations, but really, both you sets of idiots should start comparing notes or something.

    “It’s idiotic to believe in New Year’s resolutions.”

    Given your obvious inability to discern the motivations of people you clearly know nothing about, and have made no effort to even determine before spouting off about them, they should be right up your alley then.

  127. @JimB

    Yet it has always seemed suspicious that three of the common Ashkenazi diseases (Tay-Sachs, Gaucher and Niemann-Pick) all involve lipid storage
     
    The human brain is 60% lipids, and neurotransmitters are based on cholesterol.

    Replies: @JimB, @Dacian Julien Soros

    I am sorry, can you name a neurotransmitter based on cholesterol?

  128. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    @Hypnotoad666

    Scientific calculators (like the Texas Instruments TI-83 or TI-84) have a built in function normalcdf that calculates the proportion normalcdf(lo,hi,mean,stdev) of individuals in a population having a mean IQ "mean" and a standard deviation "stdev" who have an IQ between "lo" and "hi". Thus the proportion of people in a population of mean IQ 100 and standard deviation 15 who have an IQ of 145 or more is normalcdf(145,9E99,100,15) = .0013499672 = about one person in 1/0013499672 = 741. And the proportion of people in a population of mean IQ 110 and standard deviation 15 who have an IQ of 145 or more is normalcdf(145,9E99,110,15) = .0098153068 = about one person in 102.

    In a population of N persons, 2% from the mean IQ=110 population ("Jews") and 65% from the mean IQ=100 population ("whites"), the number of supersmart Jews will be .02N*normalcdf(145,9E99,110,15) = .0001963061369N, and the number of supersmart whites will be .65N*normalcdf(145,9E99,100,15) = .0008774786945N. With N=1,000,000 persons, this yields 196 supersmart Jews and 877 supersmart whites.
    To play with this function a little more, the number, per million population, of supersmart individuals among a 12.7% subpopulation of mean IQ 85 comes to .127*1,000,000*normalcdf(145,9E99,85,15) = 4. (Check my math!)

    Replies: @Anonymous, @blake121666, @Hypnotoad666

    Your calculator is merely calculating the integral of the normal distribution.

    A fuller answer to the man’s question would be to simply graph a normal distribution scaled by 65, centered at 100 and with a SD of 15. And then plot on the same axis a normal distribution scaled by 2, centered at 110 with a SD of 15. Then you can see exactly how those 2 distributions compare – throughout the entire axis – and in particular past 145 if you like.

    • Replies: @blake121666
    @blake121666

    It just occurred to me that I should have said to scale by 0.65 and 0.02 - if you want to say at the end to multiply by the "N" you mentioned. I was only thinking of the relative comparison with the graphs.

    Your math is correct, btw, because 145 is 3 SDs from a 100-mean 15-SD distribution and 3 SDs integrates out to .9973.

    So (1-.9973)/2 * .65 = .0008775

    The division by 2 is to only consider the right side of the distribution of course (the distribution is symmetric around the mean).

  129. “Jews were barred from the agricultural jobs available to the non-Jewish population”

    Oh yes, I’m sure Schlomo and his brothers were devastated to be barred from slogging it out in the fields. Apart from the kibbutzim, Jews flee from manor labor like the plague.

    In England they were encouraged to take up other occupations and refused.

  130. @blake121666
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Your calculator is merely calculating the integral of the normal distribution.

    A fuller answer to the man's question would be to simply graph a normal distribution scaled by 65, centered at 100 and with a SD of 15. And then plot on the same axis a normal distribution scaled by 2, centered at 110 with a SD of 15. Then you can see exactly how those 2 distributions compare - throughout the entire axis - and in particular past 145 if you like.

    Replies: @blake121666

    It just occurred to me that I should have said to scale by 0.65 and 0.02 – if you want to say at the end to multiply by the “N” you mentioned. I was only thinking of the relative comparison with the graphs.

    Your math is correct, btw, because 145 is 3 SDs from a 100-mean 15-SD distribution and 3 SDs integrates out to .9973.

    So (1-.9973)/2 * .65 = .0008775

    The division by 2 is to only consider the right side of the distribution of course (the distribution is symmetric around the mean).

  131. @SaneClownPosse
    @Anon

    "and also to make a living by commerce". Commerce is not limited to usurious money lending.

    The non money lenders were traders and merchants, dealing in whatever commodities that would bring profit. Purple dye from Canaan (Phoenicia), wool, gold, silver, gem stones, wood, tea, rubber, coffee, sugar, slaves, opium, what have you. There was profit in owning the ships that plied the trade routes.

    Replies: @jbwilson24

    ” Commerce is not limited to usurious money lending.”

    Jewish people specialized in rent seeking. Money lending is but one of their typical occupations. Pushing liquor on peasants and trying to get them addicted enough to seize their chattels is another.

    I would look up the way Jews in Eastern Europe used to buy rights to postal/customs houses and other monopolies. They would pay the nobility for certain exclusive privileges to run parts of the infrastructure and then raise prices. This is a form of rent seeking behavior, much like their penchant for acquiring land and renting it out to gentiles.

    ‘money lending’ is but a fraction of their typical activities. Running sugar plantations, transporting slaves, etc etc. Disaster capitalism (provoking crises and using their superior financial resources to buy land and other assets on the cheap).

  132. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    I suspect the very top fraction of Ashkenazim have some abilities that the very top percentage of white don't have on that level, and the reverse is also true. There is no evidence that the best Jewish aeronautical or electrical engineer are categorically way better than their goyische rivals, but there is evidence that the skills needed to dominate in Hollywood are specially Ashkenazi, aside from the open favoritism they display.

    Ben Rich and Gordon-wait for this-Israel were famous aeronautical engineers but neither were decisive as engineers. Paul Horowitz wrote the excellent The Art of Electronics, but the master analog designers are generally conceded to be Armstrong and Hazeltine early on and Widlar, Williams, Pease, Gilbert-not poseurs like Lee de Forest (he was famous enough that DeForest Kelley was named after him!) or the later 'Captain Catchfire' Tim de Paravicini, but none of those are Jewish anyway. In the computer science fields you have a lot of Jews of course-but Stallman and the rest of the crew out of MIT Media Lab (Symbolics, LMI, that sort of thing) early on were the last of the really famous ones on that level.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Anonymous

    but there is evidence that the skills needed to dominate in Hollywood are specially Ashkenazi, aside from the open favoritism they display.

    It helped that Jews in Hollywood had close relations to Jews in finance. Hollywood lost lot of money and needed funds in down times.

    But one big advantage for Jews in Hollywood, especially when the West was more proper and ‘repressed’, was that they were more shameless. This is surely one reason why Jews became so big in gambling, prostitution, and pornography(which is really electronic prostitution, and safer than the street kind that got taken over by blacks).

    There were lots of things that Anglos and others were too ashamed to go near. Jews had fewer inhibitions and were more shameless in dabbling in whatever brought in the money. We see this spirit in Mel Brooks and Woody Allen. Brooks did anything for a laugh. Allen turned Portnoyism into pop culture. And of course, there’s Howard Stern. Over the yrs, the goyim got pretty shameless too, but in the crucial yrs when mass popular culture was coming into form, Jews were more willing to invest and work in Vice Industries because they were less inhibited. So, they had the advantage in the formative stage of mass culture.
    They ran with a vulgarized form of Freudianism. Though Judaism had strict moral laws about lots of things, it was more about the letter of the law than the spirit. So, sex was okay as long as the rules were followed. But according to Christianity, it is sinful just to have sinful thoughts even if you don’t act on them. So, Christian culture became more repressed and defined by shame. Also, as Jews regarded themselves as less attractive, they figure they had more to gain by vulgarizing the culture. In a more repressed and proper culture, white women will try to stick to the true and narrow. But in a vulgarized culture, they could be enticed by wine, drink, and money. The Sternberg-Dietrich partnership is telling.

    Compare Hong Kong cinema and mainland Chinese cinema in the 80s. Mainland made some very good movies but they were all in humanist and serious vein. Not very popular. In contrast, Hong Kong movies were zany and over-the-top and utterly shameless and dominated the Asian market.
    No shame, more fame.

  133. @Unladen Swallow
    @Sean

    I give Diamond credit for treading into a possible genetic explanation, but his reasons for why those genes became favored is not the same as for the CHH paper. The rabbinical student marrying the rich guys daughter, persecution made them smart, blah, blah, etc... Cochran thinks and Harpending thought thinks those explanations are/were silly.

    Replies: @Sean

  134. @anon
    @Jack D

    Jews in Poland were victims of their own success.

    Not the only place or time. The 17th and 18th century French nobility was in a way also a victim of its own success. Similar things happened in China.

    Overproduction of elites is a major theme in Peter Turchin's thesis of history. His book is worth reading, although the equations don't show up very well on an e-book reader like Kindle.

    http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamics/

    Everyone needs a college degree now...

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Anonymous

    I have this idea about lawyers nowadays. It would be a noble task to compare the lawyer density in modern societies and develop a few criteria to find out, which countries make proper use of this profession and which don’t (most likely those who are not effectively allocating their law-professionals would have too many of them now, I’d guess).

  135. @The Alarmist

    A second hypothesis is selection in Jews for the intelligence putatively required to survive recurrent persecution ....
     
    Selection that would go hand in hand with other habits that provoked recurrent persecution?

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    “Selection that would go hand in hand with other habits that provoked recurrent persecution?”

    I suppose it could be seen as a form of group evolutionary strategy – after all, provoking group persecution could be a way of producing greater in-group cohesion – and the “habits” aren’t mindless provocation – they’re always cash-producing . Jews were never known AFAIK for physical vandalism of where they lived, or scrapping in the streets for fun. Tax-farming (arenda) and usury might be antisocial, but they were useful to some, and produced resources that would be of use in times of persecution. After all, the Jewish people are still here where the Medes, Hittites, Assyrians, Romans aren’t.

  136. What’s most fascinating in the way in which the Jews appear to be endlessly fascinating to a certain set of non-Jews. What genetic morphology could possibly explain that fascination?

  137. @Anonymous
    Take a look at the "talk show host" niche in the American media. This employment position is an excellent proxy for verbal IQ and IQ overall.

    Radio version of the job eliminates the physical appearance factor. But we can see that the TV version of the job is filled with physically average specimens because the audience requires talent above all.

    So look at the whole pool of top people in the field: It's filled with gentiles and Jews struggle as second tier players. That is the pattern. And this is an incredibly lucrative, desirable and competitive field.

    Same pattern plays out on YouTube and the podcast/streaming industry.

    This talk show host niche is a microcosm of the "gentile giant" phenomenon. The raw IQ data that's available should predict total domination in this niche by verbally talented Jews but it doesn't happen.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Radio version of the job eliminates the physical appearance factor. But we can see that the TV version of the job is filled with physically average specimens because the audience requires talent above all.

    What are the features of the talent required to be a talk show host?

  138. Anonymous[121] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Another elite IQ proxy niche where Jews underperform is POTUS candidate. Note: talking top tier candidates as a dataset -- not exclusively the actual winners of the White House.

    This position is a great proxy not just for verbal IQ but also deception skills. And since Jews are supposedly underhanded schemers by nature then they should be slicing and dicing the gentile competition in this incredibly elite niche.

    But Jewish domination is not panning out. In fact the same pattern emerges as in the talk show host niche: Jews struggle in the second tier. And it's not a matter of anything but lesser communication skills on display. Sorry but that's what it is.

    There is no list of superstar Jewish politicians in America that should've been POTUS but were denied (because of fill-in-the-blank reason).

    And there is no list of superstar Jewish politicians in America that should be POTUS soon. The House, Senate and Governorships are not a stable of Jewish stars in the offing. It's not happening. It's a bunch of second tier candidates.

    Look at our impeachment circus. It's run by Jews except Pelosi and they all fit the pattern.

    No stars. Instead there is a clear pattern of ho hum candidates. Bloomberg, Steyer, Sanders ...these guys are representative of the group just like Lieberman was. Also look at Israel and the same kinds of candidates appear.

    ... If Zuck ever runs it will be more of the same. Corporate world doesn't break the pattern. Btw SCOTUS doesn't break the pattern.

    POTUS is the world's biggest "Who's the Best Bullshitter?" contest and Jews underperform according to known verbal IQ test data.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Another elite IQ proxy niche where Jews underperform is POTUS candidate. Note: talking top tier candidates as a dataset — not exclusively the actual winners of the White House.

    Your reasoning mistakenly assumes that Jews want, or should want, to be POTUS. In fact, they are deeply ambivalent about it.

    Is it not better to be the power behind the throne? Kings are often decapitated.

  139. @anon
    @Jack D

    Jews in Poland were victims of their own success.

    Not the only place or time. The 17th and 18th century French nobility was in a way also a victim of its own success. Similar things happened in China.

    Overproduction of elites is a major theme in Peter Turchin's thesis of history. His book is worth reading, although the equations don't show up very well on an e-book reader like Kindle.

    http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamics/

    Everyone needs a college degree now...

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Anonymous

    Everyone needs a college degree now…

    Why? What do you mean?

  140. @Technite78
    @Jack D

    Your assertion about all points on the curve being higher for the distribution with the higher mean is only true if the standard deviations of the two distributions are the same. If the lower mean distribution has a higher standard deviation it may cross above the higher one out on the right side tail.

    Of course, the standard deviations are probably close, but without stating that in your reply the jibe about ignorance seems a bit unfair, if not outright silly.

    Replies: @Jack D

    I agree but AFAIK all human populations have similar standard deviations of IQ. Can you provide any citation that shows that Jewish IQ has a different SD? As someone else mentions, IQ tests are force normed (thru the scoring algorithm) so that 1 SD = 15 points for the general population. It’s possible that sub-populations might not fit that norming but I’ve never seen anything to that effect. So I consider you comment to be quibbling unless you can present data showing otherwise.

  141. Anonymous[212] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    @Jack D

    >The point is, for whatever reason, the Russians never wanted Jews to begin with but found themselves in possession of a large Jewish population.

    My guess is that carving up their big rival in the Slavic world-the same people who'd been stepping on their throats a century and a half earlier-proved to be too tempting. Gaining a major unassimilated Jewish populace was more "unfortunate side effect" than anything premeditated.

    >Conversion was also acceptable to the Russians, as it was not to the Germans, indicating they considered this to be a religious rather than racial problem.

    Hitler was always very disdainful of religiously motivated anti-Semitism, even if he was OK with exploiting it politically.

    Ethno-nationalism has always been a deeply tricky thing in Russia because of the multi-cultural nature of the place. Even leaders who are unapologetic right-wing nationalists tend to stay away from the hard-line biological stuff: the modern Russian version of the alt-right are not fans of Putin, who regularly locks them up. This means that the exact type of anti-Semitism that the Nazis epitomized was unlikely to take off, if not radical anti-Semitism in general. (That this is not the same as American or even Hapsburg notions of tolerance should go unexplained.)

    Prior to the Nazis, though, you saw way more intermarriage and conversion in Germany (and in the lands that made up Austria-Hungary) than in Russia, including Congress Poland. The sort of biological, volkisch racism that the Nazis espoused only really got traction later on, in the late 1800s: and significantly and unsurprisingly, it took off in popularity in Vienna long before it did in Germany proper, and it took multiple decades to get anywhere politically: as late as 1930, Hitler did not emphasize anti-Semitism during the Great Depression era, because it wasn't getting anywhere with mainstream voters. On an causation level, though, the notion of Jews as akin to a pathogen was a deeply modern reaction. It was a response to modernity, since the Jews were themselves seen as agents of modernity in a place like Germany which was undergoing Chinese levels of social change at the time.

    I got the impression that intermarriage in Russia only took off on a mass level after WWII, well after state atheism was introduced. Part of that was because the traditional Pale had been destroyed by the Germans, but the Soviet government also was emphatic about it after the war, in keeping with the tendencies that Stalin displayed about Russian nationalism well before. It worked: after centuries of being a parallel society, Jews assimilated to the degree that Israel has more Russian speakers than anyone outside the former USSR.

    (Consider this irony, though: Germany had the world's most powerful Marxist party and political tradition in the early 1900s. Meanwhile, sharply industrializing Tsarist Russia had tons of far-right groups who wanted to get rid of the aristocracy and establish a mystical bond between Tsar and Narod-the Union of the Russian People and their Black Hundreds being one example: and tellingly, these views started to pick up when Russia was undergoing the same kind of breakneck transformation that Germany had earlier, during the dying days of the Romanovs. They had views on the Jews that were very Nazi-esque and not quite as based in religious tradition, even if lacking in the same biological, pseudo-scientific sheen the Nazis put on it. So, if an observer had to guess in 1912, they'd have bet that Russia would go fascist and Germany Communist if there was social apocalypse, not the other way around.)

    Replies: @Anonymous

    The sort of biological, volkisch racism that the Nazis espoused only really got traction later on, in the late 1800s: and significantly and unsurprisingly, it took off in popularity in Vienna long before it did in Germany

    This is an inaccurate statement. Biological, “volkisch” racism had been practiced by Jews for centuries. To the extent it was new, it was new among Germans.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Anonymous

    This is like saying that the laws of France are just because both the rich and the poor are equally free to sleep under the bridges of Paris. That which a tiny powerless minority does is not the same as what the majority, backed by the power of the state does. It's not symmetrical.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    , @Johann Ricke
    @Anonymous


    This is an inaccurate statement. Biological, “volkisch” racism had been practiced by Jews for centuries. To the extent it was new, it was new among Germans.
     
    That's untrue. Judaism has always accepted converts. It hasn't sought them out for a few thousand years, because like all minority religions, it has always been subject to persecution by sovereigns fearing sectarian revolts, and the hoi polloi of the majority religion stirred up occasionally for material advantage or just over personal disagreements. And then there are the priests of the majority religion who foment riots over the fear of losing market share.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @nebulafox
    @Anonymous

    Heh. That's the same point an elderly Hitler made in the Portage to San Christobal... and you know what? It isn't fully wrong, and not just because I'd already made the point that racial as opposed to religious anti-Semitism was deeply based in modernity. As Hitler essentially looked at the Jews as negative Übermenschen, it isn't shocking that he wished for Germans to develop the same tough solidarity and "racial purity" the Jews had amongst themselves.

    (He also took nods from the British Empire, the Romans, and the ancient Spartans, among others. Additionally, Hitler had a sincere respect for Islamic and East Asian civilizations while setting out to annihilate perfectly European Poles and Russians from existence. Why the WNs around here act as apologists for Hitler is genuinely beyond me. He was no white supremacist: he was a German ultra-nationalist, and it showed in his actions.)

    However, within the German speaking world, it really was off the mark. Jews intermarried with Germans all the time. It was only when you went further east or ran into immigrant Ostjuden ghettos in places like Vienna or Berlin that you found a parallel, segregated society that practiced ethnic exclusiveness. Dealing with millions more Ostjuden was a direct result of the Lebensraum policy of Adolf's. It'd be like shrieking about the dangers of Hispanics in the USA, then invading Mexico and whining about the changed demographics.

  142. IQ as a desirable trait is somewhat overrated because high IQ individuals tend to be deficient in other areas, such as interpersonal relationships and social behavior, and they tend to suffer from mood disorders at a higher rate than normal.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @ReinhardvonSiegfried

    IQ has been found to correlate positively with most life outcomes - income, longevity, happiness, etc. And the curve never reverses - more is always better. People seem to like the idea that high IQ must come at some price - social deficiency or whatever, but it doesn't. If you are going to be autistic anyway, it's better to be a high IQ autist than a low IQ one.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @ReinhardvonSiegfried

  143. @ReinhardvonSiegfried
    IQ as a desirable trait is somewhat overrated because high IQ individuals tend to be deficient in other areas, such as interpersonal relationships and social behavior, and they tend to suffer from mood disorders at a higher rate than normal.

    Replies: @Jack D

    IQ has been found to correlate positively with most life outcomes – income, longevity, happiness, etc. And the curve never reverses – more is always better. People seem to like the idea that high IQ must come at some price – social deficiency or whatever, but it doesn’t. If you are going to be autistic anyway, it’s better to be a high IQ autist than a low IQ one.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D

    Herr von Siegfried must be in Mensa.

    , @ReinhardvonSiegfried
    @Jack D

    I disagree with your claims, Jack. Just do Google searchs for the following keywords:

    high iq disorder
    high iq illness
    high iq social deficit

    You wrote, "it’s better to be a high IQ autist than a low IQ one." On the contrary it seems to me that the happiest people are those of low intelligence who just accept reality around them without persistently stopping to ask "why?" and "how could this be better?"

    Replies: @Desiderius, @res

  144. @Anonymous
    @nebulafox


    The sort of biological, volkisch racism that the Nazis espoused only really got traction later on, in the late 1800s: and significantly and unsurprisingly, it took off in popularity in Vienna long before it did in Germany
     
    This is an inaccurate statement. Biological, “volkisch” racism had been practiced by Jews for centuries. To the extent it was new, it was new among Germans.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Johann Ricke, @nebulafox

    This is like saying that the laws of France are just because both the rich and the poor are equally free to sleep under the bridges of Paris. That which a tiny powerless minority does is not the same as what the majority, backed by the power of the state does. It’s not symmetrical.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Jack D

    This is like saying that the laws of France are just because both the rich and the poor are equally free to sleep under the bridges of Paris.

    France's aphorism goes the other way round "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

    Replies: @Jack D

  145. @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous


    Fun fact: the Russian noun for pawn shop is “lombard” (indicating that the influence of Lombards was far-reaching and long-lasting).
     
    Their word for train station is a transliteration of Vauxhall. I was saddened to discover that my favorite Russian word, Карандаш ( "pencil"), was swiped from a Swiss trademark.

    https://www.carandache.com/us/en/

    https://cdn-st1.rtr-vesti.ru/p/xw_1392585.jpg

    https://www.deckleedge.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cf5e8c96c5f24cb191457c656966197c3c74428e.jpg

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Allow me the privilege of being the first to correct the above error.

    The Swiss got it from a Frenchman, who indeed got it from the Russian. But the Russians got it from the Turk(ic)s.

    Whencever, карандаш has a wonderfully exotic, romantic sound to it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caran_d%27Ache_(company)#History

    https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/карандаш#

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Reg Cæsar

    A lot of times, foreign words for objects are genericized trademarks of whatever brand was the first on the market. The Polish word for bicycle is rower, because the first bikes that were sold there were English Rovers. Rover made bikes before they made motorcycles and cars and they invented the modern "safety bicycle" , with two equal sized wheels and chain drive.

  146. @Jack D
    @ReinhardvonSiegfried

    IQ has been found to correlate positively with most life outcomes - income, longevity, happiness, etc. And the curve never reverses - more is always better. People seem to like the idea that high IQ must come at some price - social deficiency or whatever, but it doesn't. If you are going to be autistic anyway, it's better to be a high IQ autist than a low IQ one.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @ReinhardvonSiegfried

    Herr von Siegfried must be in Mensa.

  147. @Jack D
    @ReinhardvonSiegfried

    IQ has been found to correlate positively with most life outcomes - income, longevity, happiness, etc. And the curve never reverses - more is always better. People seem to like the idea that high IQ must come at some price - social deficiency or whatever, but it doesn't. If you are going to be autistic anyway, it's better to be a high IQ autist than a low IQ one.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @ReinhardvonSiegfried

    I disagree with your claims, Jack. Just do Google searchs for the following keywords:

    high iq disorder
    high iq illness
    high iq social deficit

    You wrote, “it’s better to be a high IQ autist than a low IQ one.” On the contrary it seems to me that the happiest people are those of low intelligence who just accept reality around them without persistently stopping to ask “why?” and “how could this be better?”

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @ReinhardvonSiegfried

    Man was made for more than mere happiness, but to your point not less. It is too often the unexamined assumption among those who wish to maintain the taboo on recognizing group differences in IQ that IQ = worth full stop, so that lower IQ = inferiority without answering the question "inferior at what?", leaving their views on the matter in most cases incoherent.

    I'm no Taleb but I think some more skepticism is warranted of the "most life outcomes" than Jack does.

    Replies: @res

    , @res
    @ReinhardvonSiegfried

    I get the impression many people want what you say to be true. And are quick to notice confirming cases.

    Here was the first study backing up what Jack said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Studies_of_Genius

    The SMPY is a similar but more recent study. There is a voluminous literature associated with it.
    https://www.gwern.net/SMPY
    This graphic offers some of the best evidence we have that the advantage of higher IQ is not just above a threshold, rather "more is always better" appears to be the case as Jack said.
    https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2016/09/smpy-in-nature.html

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FbEgxfkD46c/V9Bc6gCO5QI/AAAAAAAARfo/tPRPwCRyBbgAPzG6GZS0kfhzPs6FY9pvgCLcB/s640/Child_genius_chart_newsfeature_web.jpg

    Higher IQ is associated with longer lifespan: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/research-confirms-a-link-between-intelligence-and-life-expectancy/

    Higher IQ is associated with higher income. This post is negative about IQ as an explanatory variable in general, but it is hard to dispute the correlation observed so I think the author's admitted bias just makes my point stronger.
    https://ifstudies.org/blog/can-intelligence-predict-income

    Higher IQ is associated with happiness: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22998852

    Feel free to provide data supporting your point of view.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Desiderius

  148. @Reg Cæsar
    @Reg Cæsar

    Allow me the privilege of being the first to correct the above error.

    The Swiss got it from a Frenchman, who indeed got it from the Russian. But the Russians got it from the Turk(ic)s.

    Whencever, карандаш has a wonderfully exotic, romantic sound to it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caran_d%27Ache_(company)#History

    https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/карандаш#

    Replies: @Jack D

    A lot of times, foreign words for objects are genericized trademarks of whatever brand was the first on the market. The Polish word for bicycle is rower, because the first bikes that were sold there were English Rovers. Rover made bikes before they made motorcycles and cars and they invented the modern “safety bicycle” , with two equal sized wheels and chain drive.

  149. @Pericles
    @Sean


    Maybe the reason Cochran the plagiarist never liked that theory is because the Jew he stole it from got it a bit wrong.

     

    That's a serious accusation.

    Replies: @Because reasons

    If this Sean is the same Sean that Cochran tarred and feathered in his blog for misinterpreting/misremembering sources (look up their exchanges in Google), then Sean is accusing Cochran of whatever out of spite.

    Which is a good strategy I guess, since it’s less likely that Cochran will show up himself here and bother to reply than at his own blog lol.

    OTOH, it’s not as smart a strategy as not mentioning him at all, like the NYT who meticulously avoided making a direct mention of him in the recent Bret Stephens article brouhaha.

  150. @Anonymous
    @nebulafox


    The sort of biological, volkisch racism that the Nazis espoused only really got traction later on, in the late 1800s: and significantly and unsurprisingly, it took off in popularity in Vienna long before it did in Germany
     
    This is an inaccurate statement. Biological, “volkisch” racism had been practiced by Jews for centuries. To the extent it was new, it was new among Germans.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Johann Ricke, @nebulafox

    This is an inaccurate statement. Biological, “volkisch” racism had been practiced by Jews for centuries. To the extent it was new, it was new among Germans.

    That’s untrue. Judaism has always accepted converts. It hasn’t sought them out for a few thousand years, because like all minority religions, it has always been subject to persecution by sovereigns fearing sectarian revolts, and the hoi polloi of the majority religion stirred up occasionally for material advantage or just over personal disagreements. And then there are the priests of the majority religion who foment riots over the fear of losing market share.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Johann Ricke

    Hellenized diaspora Jews regularly sought out converts in the eastern Roman empire, prior to the revolts back in Palestine. But this was in a social context in which men were expected to pass in and out of several different religious cults throughout their lives. Very different from, say, 17th Century Poland, where Catholicism was deeply important to Polish identity.

    (As I've stated previously, the near destruction of the religion that followed the attempts to rebel against the Roman state forced such a radical overhaul that it is more accurate to call modern rabbinical Judaism a sister religion to Christianity, from the same generation, rather than a parent.)

    Replies: @HA

  151. @Johann Ricke
    @Anonymous


    This is an inaccurate statement. Biological, “volkisch” racism had been practiced by Jews for centuries. To the extent it was new, it was new among Germans.
     
    That's untrue. Judaism has always accepted converts. It hasn't sought them out for a few thousand years, because like all minority religions, it has always been subject to persecution by sovereigns fearing sectarian revolts, and the hoi polloi of the majority religion stirred up occasionally for material advantage or just over personal disagreements. And then there are the priests of the majority religion who foment riots over the fear of losing market share.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Hellenized diaspora Jews regularly sought out converts in the eastern Roman empire, prior to the revolts back in Palestine. But this was in a social context in which men were expected to pass in and out of several different religious cults throughout their lives. Very different from, say, 17th Century Poland, where Catholicism was deeply important to Polish identity.

    (As I’ve stated previously, the near destruction of the religion that followed the attempts to rebel against the Roman state forced such a radical overhaul that it is more accurate to call modern rabbinical Judaism a sister religion to Christianity, from the same generation, rather than a parent.)

    • Replies: @HA
    @nebulafox

    "Hellenized diaspora Jews regularly sought out converts in the eastern Roman empire, prior to the revolts back in Palestine."

    With regard to post-Second-Temple Judaism, there are at least two problems with proselytism. One, as the number of Jews gets large enough, there’s a strong likelihood (if history is any guide) that Jews will start killing each other the moment that outside threats recede.

    Also, by encouraging converts -- as opposed to influencing outsiders through the media and Hollywood and so forth -- there’s the danger of cutting into that sense of Chosen-ness, and that “thank You for not having made me a goy” superiority – and also the economic edge that allowed them to exploit a large mass of outsiders. I mean, if Jews had limited their money-lending, tax-farming, liquor-trafficking and brothel-keeping to their own communities, they would have likely been less hated by outsiders, but the rabbis who denounced such practices from a religious perspective might have been able to stamp them out. But as it was, most of the clients were gentiles, and they were able to continue. (I’m not pretending that a brothel-keeper was regarded as an upstanding member of the Jewish community, but the moneylenders certainly had some traction).

    Compare that to the situation in Indonesia and Malaysia and how the reason that Buddhism and Zoroastrianism never took hold there, and lost out numerically to Islam, was because they remained court religions – i.e., practiced by factions of highly endogamous economic elites (like a certain other religion I can think of, though Jainism in India might be another example). For the most part, Zoroastrians and Buddhists never tried to convert the masses, a la Ashoka, which allowed a syncretic Sufi Islam to take root among the common folk, and their pagan practices, which eventually provided an opportunity for Quranic Islam to take hold.

    Unlike Jews, however, I don’t believe Zoroastrians and Buddhists ever focused on having so many children, so their population rates (and declines) have been less erratic, though I could be wrong about that.

    But despite their minority status, all those religions have cast long shadows even in countries where they were never numerically significant. In other words, staying "special/elite/chosen" is not necessarily a bad survival strategy, and has certain advantages.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  152. @Jack D
    @Anonymous


    Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites but there is no evidence that the smartest 1% of Ashkenazim are smarter than the smartest 1% of whites.
     
    This shows a complete ignorance of statistics and the operation of the normal distribution. Once you concede than Ashkenazim have higher average IQ than whites, then by necessity they will have a higher IQ at all points on the curve including at the 99th percentile. This is a matter of pure mathematics and requires no further evidence.

    When the mean is shifted like that, the effects are magnified at the tail. A 1 SD shift will mean that out that the far right tail there are maybe 10x as many Jews as their prevalence in the population. Jews are 2% of the general US population but maybe 20% of those with IQ above say 150. Note however that there are still 4 non-Jewish geniuses for every Jewish one. (The same thing happens in reverse for blacks because of their lower population mean IQ - blacks are 15% of the population but maybe 1.5% of those above 150 IQ).

    But your original "no evidence" statement is utterly wrong. The smartest 1% of Jews (a group of 60,000 people in America) are far smarter on average than the smartest 1% of whites (a group of 2 million).

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow, @Technite78, @Faraday's Bobcat, @James B. Shearer, @res

    As others have pointed out, you are ignoring two possible issues.
    1. Non-normal distributions.
    2. Different standard deviations.
    In any case, I suspect you are right about the 1% comparison.

    Where you miss badly is this:

    The same thing happens in reverse for blacks because of their lower population mean IQ – blacks are 15% of the population but maybe 1.5% of those above 150 IQ

    Using Emil’s tail calculator at http://emilkirkegaard.dk/understanding_statistics/?app=tail_effects
    and assuming means of 100/85 and the same SD of 15 (evidence is black SD is a bit lower which makes this even worse) along with a population size of 70 (%) for whites and 15 for blacks we see that over a threshold of 150 whites will outnumber blacks 273 to 1!

    This is because the normal curve falls off incredibly fast in the extreme tails. Two good values to remember are that +3 SD is about 1 in 740 while +4 SD is about 1 in 30,000. Those points happen to correspond to 145 IQ for whites and blacks respectively so you can estimate the ratio above 145 as
    70 / 15 * 30,000 / 740 = 190
    Then IQ 150 is a third of an SD higher than 145.

  153. @Anonymous
    Weird fact: Jews do not dominate the Wonderlic test.

    The rest of the IQ testing data should predict that they would. But they do not.

    But the macro IQ data should predict Jewish domination in other top niches but it mostly doesn't pan out at the very far end of the curve.

    The Jewish x 10 overrepresentation in the top 1% is observable. But something changes at the very extreme. This is the Gentile Giant phenomenon.

    Replies: @res

    Weird fact: Jews do not dominate the Wonderlic test.

    Do you have data showing that? The Wonderlic is verbally focused and has a high enough ceiling I would expect Jews to be overrepresented at the high end. To give an idea of the ceiling (anyone know the true value?) a score of 45/50 qualifies for the Triple Nine Society (1 in 1000, or roughly speaking a little over IQ 145):
    http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/hiqarch/tnpsycom/tnsps896.html

  154. @Anonymous
    @nebulafox


    The sort of biological, volkisch racism that the Nazis espoused only really got traction later on, in the late 1800s: and significantly and unsurprisingly, it took off in popularity in Vienna long before it did in Germany
     
    This is an inaccurate statement. Biological, “volkisch” racism had been practiced by Jews for centuries. To the extent it was new, it was new among Germans.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Johann Ricke, @nebulafox

    Heh. That’s the same point an elderly Hitler made in the Portage to San Christobal… and you know what? It isn’t fully wrong, and not just because I’d already made the point that racial as opposed to religious anti-Semitism was deeply based in modernity. As Hitler essentially looked at the Jews as negative Übermenschen, it isn’t shocking that he wished for Germans to develop the same tough solidarity and “racial purity” the Jews had amongst themselves.

    (He also took nods from the British Empire, the Romans, and the ancient Spartans, among others. Additionally, Hitler had a sincere respect for Islamic and East Asian civilizations while setting out to annihilate perfectly European Poles and Russians from existence. Why the WNs around here act as apologists for Hitler is genuinely beyond me. He was no white supremacist: he was a German ultra-nationalist, and it showed in his actions.)

    However, within the German speaking world, it really was off the mark. Jews intermarried with Germans all the time. It was only when you went further east or ran into immigrant Ostjuden ghettos in places like Vienna or Berlin that you found a parallel, segregated society that practiced ethnic exclusiveness. Dealing with millions more Ostjuden was a direct result of the Lebensraum policy of Adolf’s. It’d be like shrieking about the dangers of Hispanics in the USA, then invading Mexico and whining about the changed demographics.

  155. @ReinhardvonSiegfried
    @Jack D

    I disagree with your claims, Jack. Just do Google searchs for the following keywords:

    high iq disorder
    high iq illness
    high iq social deficit

    You wrote, "it’s better to be a high IQ autist than a low IQ one." On the contrary it seems to me that the happiest people are those of low intelligence who just accept reality around them without persistently stopping to ask "why?" and "how could this be better?"

    Replies: @Desiderius, @res

    Man was made for more than mere happiness, but to your point not less. It is too often the unexamined assumption among those who wish to maintain the taboo on recognizing group differences in IQ that IQ = worth full stop, so that lower IQ = inferiority without answering the question “inferior at what?”, leaving their views on the matter in most cases incoherent.

    I’m no Taleb but I think some more skepticism is warranted of the “most life outcomes” than Jack does.

    • Replies: @res
    @Desiderius


    I’m no Taleb but I think some more skepticism is warranted of the “most life outcomes” than Jack does.
     
    Skepticism is healthy. Data is better.

    Agreed that equating IQ with worth is a bad idea. As we have endlessly discussed here, there are many other important traits.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  156. @ReinhardvonSiegfried
    @Jack D

    I disagree with your claims, Jack. Just do Google searchs for the following keywords:

    high iq disorder
    high iq illness
    high iq social deficit

    You wrote, "it’s better to be a high IQ autist than a low IQ one." On the contrary it seems to me that the happiest people are those of low intelligence who just accept reality around them without persistently stopping to ask "why?" and "how could this be better?"

    Replies: @Desiderius, @res

    I get the impression many people want what you say to be true. And are quick to notice confirming cases.

    Here was the first study backing up what Jack said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Studies_of_Genius

    The SMPY is a similar but more recent study. There is a voluminous literature associated with it.
    https://www.gwern.net/SMPY
    This graphic offers some of the best evidence we have that the advantage of higher IQ is not just above a threshold, rather “more is always better” appears to be the case as Jack said.
    https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2016/09/smpy-in-nature.html

    Higher IQ is associated with longer lifespan: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/research-confirms-a-link-between-intelligence-and-life-expectancy/

    Higher IQ is associated with higher income. This post is negative about IQ as an explanatory variable in general, but it is hard to dispute the correlation observed so I think the author’s admitted bias just makes my point stronger.
    https://ifstudies.org/blog/can-intelligence-predict-income

    Higher IQ is associated with happiness: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22998852

    Feel free to provide data supporting your point of view.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @res

    Thank you for providing those links. As I said before, people WANT to believe that there is a price to be paid and of course there ARE high IQ people that are deficient in social skills so it seems like somehow you are trading one for the other. But the studies show otherwise.

    , @Desiderius
    @res


    Feel free to provide data supporting your point of view.
     
    I think that the outcomes that you chose to support your case and your belief that they were well chosen says all that needs saying.

    Hume-sized blinders.

    High-IQ has been invaluable in being able to figure all the important shit out that everybody else already knew when they were half my age. Chalk up another good outcome!

    Tortoise vs Hare

    Replies: @res

  157. @Desiderius
    @ReinhardvonSiegfried

    Man was made for more than mere happiness, but to your point not less. It is too often the unexamined assumption among those who wish to maintain the taboo on recognizing group differences in IQ that IQ = worth full stop, so that lower IQ = inferiority without answering the question "inferior at what?", leaving their views on the matter in most cases incoherent.

    I'm no Taleb but I think some more skepticism is warranted of the "most life outcomes" than Jack does.

    Replies: @res

    I’m no Taleb but I think some more skepticism is warranted of the “most life outcomes” than Jack does.

    Skepticism is healthy. Data is better.

    Agreed that equating IQ with worth is a bad idea. As we have endlessly discussed here, there are many other important traits.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @res

    Plural of true anecdote is underrated.

    Replies: @res

  158. @nebulafox
    @Johann Ricke

    Hellenized diaspora Jews regularly sought out converts in the eastern Roman empire, prior to the revolts back in Palestine. But this was in a social context in which men were expected to pass in and out of several different religious cults throughout their lives. Very different from, say, 17th Century Poland, where Catholicism was deeply important to Polish identity.

    (As I've stated previously, the near destruction of the religion that followed the attempts to rebel against the Roman state forced such a radical overhaul that it is more accurate to call modern rabbinical Judaism a sister religion to Christianity, from the same generation, rather than a parent.)

    Replies: @HA

    “Hellenized diaspora Jews regularly sought out converts in the eastern Roman empire, prior to the revolts back in Palestine.”

    With regard to post-Second-Temple Judaism, there are at least two problems with proselytism. One, as the number of Jews gets large enough, there’s a strong likelihood (if history is any guide) that Jews will start killing each other the moment that outside threats recede.

    Also, by encouraging converts — as opposed to influencing outsiders through the media and Hollywood and so forth — there’s the danger of cutting into that sense of Chosen-ness, and that “thank You for not having made me a goy” superiority – and also the economic edge that allowed them to exploit a large mass of outsiders. I mean, if Jews had limited their money-lending, tax-farming, liquor-trafficking and brothel-keeping to their own communities, they would have likely been less hated by outsiders, but the rabbis who denounced such practices from a religious perspective might have been able to stamp them out. But as it was, most of the clients were gentiles, and they were able to continue. (I’m not pretending that a brothel-keeper was regarded as an upstanding member of the Jewish community, but the moneylenders certainly had some traction).

    Compare that to the situation in Indonesia and Malaysia and how the reason that Buddhism and Zoroastrianism never took hold there, and lost out numerically to Islam, was because they remained court religions – i.e., practiced by factions of highly endogamous economic elites (like a certain other religion I can think of, though Jainism in India might be another example). For the most part, Zoroastrians and Buddhists never tried to convert the masses, a la Ashoka, which allowed a syncretic Sufi Islam to take root among the common folk, and their pagan practices, which eventually provided an opportunity for Quranic Islam to take hold.

    Unlike Jews, however, I don’t believe Zoroastrians and Buddhists ever focused on having so many children, so their population rates (and declines) have been less erratic, though I could be wrong about that.

    But despite their minority status, all those religions have cast long shadows even in countries where they were never numerically significant. In other words, staying “special/elite/chosen” is not necessarily a bad survival strategy, and has certain advantages.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @HA

    Fascinating post.


    One, as the number of Jews gets large enough, there’s a strong likelihood (if history is any guide) that Jews will start killing each other the moment that outside threats recede.
     
    Why is that?

    But despite their minority status, all those religions have cast long shadows even in countries where they were never numerically significant. In other words, staying “special/elite/chosen” is not necessarily a bad survival strategy, and has certain advantages.
     
    Does this mean there may be a silver lining for Whites to Whites becoming minorities in their own former lands?

    Replies: @HA

  159. @res
    @ReinhardvonSiegfried

    I get the impression many people want what you say to be true. And are quick to notice confirming cases.

    Here was the first study backing up what Jack said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Studies_of_Genius

    The SMPY is a similar but more recent study. There is a voluminous literature associated with it.
    https://www.gwern.net/SMPY
    This graphic offers some of the best evidence we have that the advantage of higher IQ is not just above a threshold, rather "more is always better" appears to be the case as Jack said.
    https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2016/09/smpy-in-nature.html

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FbEgxfkD46c/V9Bc6gCO5QI/AAAAAAAARfo/tPRPwCRyBbgAPzG6GZS0kfhzPs6FY9pvgCLcB/s640/Child_genius_chart_newsfeature_web.jpg

    Higher IQ is associated with longer lifespan: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/research-confirms-a-link-between-intelligence-and-life-expectancy/

    Higher IQ is associated with higher income. This post is negative about IQ as an explanatory variable in general, but it is hard to dispute the correlation observed so I think the author's admitted bias just makes my point stronger.
    https://ifstudies.org/blog/can-intelligence-predict-income

    Higher IQ is associated with happiness: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22998852

    Feel free to provide data supporting your point of view.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Desiderius

    Thank you for providing those links. As I said before, people WANT to believe that there is a price to be paid and of course there ARE high IQ people that are deficient in social skills so it seems like somehow you are trading one for the other. But the studies show otherwise.

  160. @res
    @Desiderius


    I’m no Taleb but I think some more skepticism is warranted of the “most life outcomes” than Jack does.
     
    Skepticism is healthy. Data is better.

    Agreed that equating IQ with worth is a bad idea. As we have endlessly discussed here, there are many other important traits.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Plural of true anecdote is underrated.

    • Replies: @res
    @Desiderius


    Plural of true anecdote is underrated.
     
    I actually agree with that. Which may surprise people given how much I talk about statistics here. The problem is that most of the value of true anecdote occurs when there is no data available to judge one way or another. Which in this case there is--as I presented above.

    My opening to comment 156 offers another reason to be skeptical of the anecdotes: "I get the impression many people want what you say to be true. And are quick to notice confirming cases." When dealing with anecdotes (and data, for that matter) confirmation bias is a problem.

    Another use of anecdote can be as the inconvenient fact slaying a beautiful hypothesis, but we are arguing correlations and rates here so I don't see that applying. In this kind of argument data rules because perceptions tend to be both selective (e.g. where you live, who you associate with) and biased.

    Perhaps you could outline which specific negative life outcomes you think are associated with higher IQ? I'll offer two possibilities to start: myopia and depression.

    I think myopia is well established, but I am less clear on depression. I see some studies like this one on children: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3356869/

    But the study I see most commonly mentioned in recent years is the one in this popular article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bad-news-for-the-highly-intelligent/

    It relies on a survey of Mensa members! Which IMHO makes for a huge selection bias problem (and confirmation bias accounts for the uncritical popularity we see it experiencing). I don't know if I need to recap the discussions about Mensa we have had in Steve's blog, but I think it clear that members tend towards those who are not getting enough intellectual stimulation in real life. In particular I think this implies in their jobs. Which has a host of implications.
  161. Anonymous[622] • Disclaimer says:
    @HA
    @nebulafox

    "Hellenized diaspora Jews regularly sought out converts in the eastern Roman empire, prior to the revolts back in Palestine."

    With regard to post-Second-Temple Judaism, there are at least two problems with proselytism. One, as the number of Jews gets large enough, there’s a strong likelihood (if history is any guide) that Jews will start killing each other the moment that outside threats recede.

    Also, by encouraging converts -- as opposed to influencing outsiders through the media and Hollywood and so forth -- there’s the danger of cutting into that sense of Chosen-ness, and that “thank You for not having made me a goy” superiority – and also the economic edge that allowed them to exploit a large mass of outsiders. I mean, if Jews had limited their money-lending, tax-farming, liquor-trafficking and brothel-keeping to their own communities, they would have likely been less hated by outsiders, but the rabbis who denounced such practices from a religious perspective might have been able to stamp them out. But as it was, most of the clients were gentiles, and they were able to continue. (I’m not pretending that a brothel-keeper was regarded as an upstanding member of the Jewish community, but the moneylenders certainly had some traction).

    Compare that to the situation in Indonesia and Malaysia and how the reason that Buddhism and Zoroastrianism never took hold there, and lost out numerically to Islam, was because they remained court religions – i.e., practiced by factions of highly endogamous economic elites (like a certain other religion I can think of, though Jainism in India might be another example). For the most part, Zoroastrians and Buddhists never tried to convert the masses, a la Ashoka, which allowed a syncretic Sufi Islam to take root among the common folk, and their pagan practices, which eventually provided an opportunity for Quranic Islam to take hold.

    Unlike Jews, however, I don’t believe Zoroastrians and Buddhists ever focused on having so many children, so their population rates (and declines) have been less erratic, though I could be wrong about that.

    But despite their minority status, all those religions have cast long shadows even in countries where they were never numerically significant. In other words, staying "special/elite/chosen" is not necessarily a bad survival strategy, and has certain advantages.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Fascinating post.

    One, as the number of Jews gets large enough, there’s a strong likelihood (if history is any guide) that Jews will start killing each other the moment that outside threats recede.

    Why is that?

    But despite their minority status, all those religions have cast long shadows even in countries where they were never numerically significant. In other words, staying “special/elite/chosen” is not necessarily a bad survival strategy, and has certain advantages.

    Does this mean there may be a silver lining for Whites to Whites becoming minorities in their own former lands?

    • Replies: @HA
    @Anonymous

    "Why is that?"

    Again, being a "contentious people" isn't something unique to the Jews. I'd say the Middle Eastern tribes all seem to be above average in that regard.

    "Does this mean there may be a silver lining for Whites to Whites becoming minorities in their own former lands?"

    The devil is in the details, and when it comes to survival strategies, every hand's a winner, and every hand's a loser. But if America and Europe are -- as the doomsayers around here predict -- turning into Brazil, the whites still seem to be hanging on in that country, for whatever that's worth. At the very least they're less ashamed about doing so, so it's not a particularly bad hand. But it remains to be seen whether they will be any better about not killing each other at the first opportunity, should their outside enemies ever ease up.

  162. @res
    @ReinhardvonSiegfried

    I get the impression many people want what you say to be true. And are quick to notice confirming cases.

    Here was the first study backing up what Jack said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Studies_of_Genius

    The SMPY is a similar but more recent study. There is a voluminous literature associated with it.
    https://www.gwern.net/SMPY
    This graphic offers some of the best evidence we have that the advantage of higher IQ is not just above a threshold, rather "more is always better" appears to be the case as Jack said.
    https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2016/09/smpy-in-nature.html

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FbEgxfkD46c/V9Bc6gCO5QI/AAAAAAAARfo/tPRPwCRyBbgAPzG6GZS0kfhzPs6FY9pvgCLcB/s640/Child_genius_chart_newsfeature_web.jpg

    Higher IQ is associated with longer lifespan: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/research-confirms-a-link-between-intelligence-and-life-expectancy/

    Higher IQ is associated with higher income. This post is negative about IQ as an explanatory variable in general, but it is hard to dispute the correlation observed so I think the author's admitted bias just makes my point stronger.
    https://ifstudies.org/blog/can-intelligence-predict-income

    Higher IQ is associated with happiness: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22998852

    Feel free to provide data supporting your point of view.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Desiderius

    Feel free to provide data supporting your point of view.

    I think that the outcomes that you chose to support your case and your belief that they were well chosen says all that needs saying.

    Hume-sized blinders.

    High-IQ has been invaluable in being able to figure all the important shit out that everybody else already knew when they were half my age. Chalk up another good outcome!

    Tortoise vs Hare

    • Replies: @res
    @Desiderius

    A fair amount of truth in your comment on my biases there. One issue is those are the most available studies (often easier things to measure and/or done by people with similar biases). But note that the outcomes linked in the latter part of my comment are those mentioned in the comment I was responding to. Also see my reply to you just above this.

    I enjoy your insightful comments, but the oblique style does become a bit frustrating after a while.

    If you want to continue this conversation, how about you provide some examples of outcomes you think become worse with higher IQ along with specific supporting evidence (either data or anecdote)?

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Dieter Kief

  163. @Jack D
    @Anonymous

    This is like saying that the laws of France are just because both the rich and the poor are equally free to sleep under the bridges of Paris. That which a tiny powerless minority does is not the same as what the majority, backed by the power of the state does. It's not symmetrical.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    This is like saying that the laws of France are just because both the rich and the poor are equally free to sleep under the bridges of Paris.

    France’s aphorism goes the other way round “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @kaganovitch

    I got mixed up because in Philly poor people do camp under bridges and the cops let them so it's at least de facto legal. It's a thing now for homeless people to have tents.

  164. @Desiderius
    @res

    Plural of true anecdote is underrated.

    Replies: @res

    Plural of true anecdote is underrated.

    I actually agree with that. Which may surprise people given how much I talk about statistics here. The problem is that most of the value of true anecdote occurs when there is no data available to judge one way or another. Which in this case there is–as I presented above.

    My opening to comment 156 offers another reason to be skeptical of the anecdotes: “I get the impression many people want what you say to be true. And are quick to notice confirming cases.” When dealing with anecdotes (and data, for that matter) confirmation bias is a problem.

    Another use of anecdote can be as the inconvenient fact slaying a beautiful hypothesis, but we are arguing correlations and rates here so I don’t see that applying. In this kind of argument data rules because perceptions tend to be both selective (e.g. where you live, who you associate with) and biased.

    Perhaps you could outline which specific negative life outcomes you think are associated with higher IQ? I’ll offer two possibilities to start: myopia and depression.

    I think myopia is well established, but I am less clear on depression. I see some studies like this one on children: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3356869/

    But the study I see most commonly mentioned in recent years is the one in this popular article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bad-news-for-the-highly-intelligent/

    It relies on a survey of Mensa members! Which IMHO makes for a huge selection bias problem (and confirmation bias accounts for the uncritical popularity we see it experiencing). I don’t know if I need to recap the discussions about Mensa we have had in Steve’s blog, but I think it clear that members tend towards those who are not getting enough intellectual stimulation in real life. In particular I think this implies in their jobs. Which has a host of implications.

  165. @Desiderius
    @res


    Feel free to provide data supporting your point of view.
     
    I think that the outcomes that you chose to support your case and your belief that they were well chosen says all that needs saying.

    Hume-sized blinders.

    High-IQ has been invaluable in being able to figure all the important shit out that everybody else already knew when they were half my age. Chalk up another good outcome!

    Tortoise vs Hare

    Replies: @res

    A fair amount of truth in your comment on my biases there. One issue is those are the most available studies (often easier things to measure and/or done by people with similar biases). But note that the outcomes linked in the latter part of my comment are those mentioned in the comment I was responding to. Also see my reply to you just above this.

    I enjoy your insightful comments, but the oblique style does become a bit frustrating after a while.

    If you want to continue this conversation, how about you provide some examples of outcomes you think become worse with higher IQ along with specific supporting evidence (either data or anecdote)?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @res

    I don't know man, you're an outlier who got exceptional intelligence, character, and sense in the same package.

    Give me some time to consider.

    Replies: @res

    , @Dieter Kief
    @res

    I rode the bike through the ice-cold winter woods today into town to work and - - - mused about your discussion with Desiderius.

    When I rode back in the grey and clumsy evening, I still was thinking about your exchange of arguments. That does not happen very often.

    2 cents -

    - The IQ-science shows the individual wellbeing of the brighter folks as a reward for what? - Would it be wrong to claim, that they are rewarded for their ability to stay on the top of / or even dominate hierarchies under rational conditions?

    Let me now choose an example - if somebody is good at Wallstreet, that would be an example for what I said above.

    The problem arises as soon as one asks what good they did - or whether it is good what they did - not only for them.

    I think one can look at this problem from another perspective too: Think of populism. It's often driven by regular people with a rather average IQ.

    Now look at their opponents in the media: Higher IQ people.

    Who's right? Who's wrong? Necessarily those with the highe IQ?


    Another one, brought forward by yours truly here and there (on this blog too a few times). High IQ people nowadays have one big advantage: They can afford to totally avoid physically threatening (bodily) work. But this advantage is a structural disadvantage compared to a craftsperson, let's say: Bodily work tells the worker, what can be done and what can't - that's why craftsmen might be less prone to idealization and rationalization etc. - Objectivity is something they bodily experience!

    Another point loosely connected with the above: Jordan Peterson worked as a therapist with high-IQ persons and said, that he oftentimes found their neuroses harder to disentangle (more deeply rooted) than those of rather regular folks.

    I'd add, that this might be not only because the neurotic defense mechanisms of the brighter folks are more complex as such (consist of more material). I would call this aspect the structural reason for the higher grade of neuroticism, Peterson experienced as a therapist. But there is another reason too, and that is lack of bodily experience at work and thus a lack of a whole part of one's existence, which is innately bound to the physical reality of our world and thus innately sober - or sound - - - or even sane.


    A last thought in this context: You could read Steve Sailer's entire critique of the coalition of the of the fringes concept vs. the family affordance concept plus the invite/ invade concept as prove, that the on average higher IQ perspective is, seen from a societal point of view, less useful than the lower IQ perspective.

    (The same could be said (and is said) about Brexit. Here, David Goodhart's distinction between the Somewheres and the Anywheres could be analyzed and what would turn out would be the same as in Steve Sailer's case: The higher IQ Anywhere's perspective on Brexit is good for them - but not rational and rather destructive if seen from the perspective of British society as a whole, which includes the Somewheres.

    What's good for the brighter folks - working at Wall St., for example, - could (at times) turn out to be a disservice for society as a whole. In such cases, the hint at the on average higher life expectancy and higher-income, etc. of the brighter ones is no help.

    (Might well be, that this problem I sketched here is well known for 2500 years and a root cause of not only monotheism but also for Daoism).

    Replies: @HA, @res

  166. @res
    @Desiderius

    A fair amount of truth in your comment on my biases there. One issue is those are the most available studies (often easier things to measure and/or done by people with similar biases). But note that the outcomes linked in the latter part of my comment are those mentioned in the comment I was responding to. Also see my reply to you just above this.

    I enjoy your insightful comments, but the oblique style does become a bit frustrating after a while.

    If you want to continue this conversation, how about you provide some examples of outcomes you think become worse with higher IQ along with specific supporting evidence (either data or anecdote)?

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Dieter Kief

    I don’t know man, you’re an outlier who got exceptional intelligence, character, and sense in the same package.

    Give me some time to consider.

    • Replies: @res
    @Desiderius

    Thanks for the kind words. I have plenty of flaws too. Some of them displayed all too obviously in this forum, some not ; /

    Most relevant to this conversation is that I think there are many high IQ (and even more fairly high IQ) people like that (the good things). They are just quietly working away in their jobs, spending time with their families, etc. They are not always in prestigious jobs either. How often does a construction crew have a guy (often a foreman) who is good at seeing the big picture and making sure things get done right? This usually gets credited simply to "good sense", but I suspect if you studied it IQ would play a part.

    A recent concrete personal example. I was in Home Depot the other day trying to get a question answered and having to talk to multiple employees. One employee pointed me to another sitting at a desk as a good person to talk to. During our conversation he quietly listened to me completely recite a 9 digit SKU then entered it into his computer. If you know anything about digit span you know what that implies (I usually break numbers into blocks of 3 or 4 when I recite them. He waited until I was done. It almost seemed like he was playing a game with himself.):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_span#Digit-span
    His name was Maury, which probably provides a clue ; )
    His calm, competent demeanor and immediate understanding of things I said was a breath of fresh air.

    The high potential flameouts get disproportionate attention. And even there, if you look more closely there are often good things as well as the bad.

    This by no means negates the presence of much high IQ "evil" in the world. In those cases I think of IQ as a force multiplier. Whatever you do, good or bad, it tends to make you better at it.

    P.S. Linda Gottfredson does some good work in this area. Here is one of her classics:
    Why g Matters: The Complexity of Everyday Life
    https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf
    And a 2005 followup chapter in the tribute to Arthur Jensen book:
    g, Jobs and Life
    http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2005g-jobs-life.pdf

    P.P.S. One reason I am biased towards high IQ people is it tends to help with communication in my experience. I assume you are familiar with the 2 SD "leader/communication" concepts we talk about here sometimes? Perhaps not literally true as hard thresholds, but some truth there IMHO.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  167. @Anonymous
    @HA

    Fascinating post.


    One, as the number of Jews gets large enough, there’s a strong likelihood (if history is any guide) that Jews will start killing each other the moment that outside threats recede.
     
    Why is that?

    But despite their minority status, all those religions have cast long shadows even in countries where they were never numerically significant. In other words, staying “special/elite/chosen” is not necessarily a bad survival strategy, and has certain advantages.
     
    Does this mean there may be a silver lining for Whites to Whites becoming minorities in their own former lands?

    Replies: @HA

    “Why is that?”

    Again, being a “contentious people” isn’t something unique to the Jews. I’d say the Middle Eastern tribes all seem to be above average in that regard.

    “Does this mean there may be a silver lining for Whites to Whites becoming minorities in their own former lands?”

    The devil is in the details, and when it comes to survival strategies, every hand’s a winner, and every hand’s a loser. But if America and Europe are — as the doomsayers around here predict — turning into Brazil, the whites still seem to be hanging on in that country, for whatever that’s worth. At the very least they’re less ashamed about doing so, so it’s not a particularly bad hand. But it remains to be seen whether they will be any better about not killing each other at the first opportunity, should their outside enemies ever ease up.

  168. @Desiderius
    @res

    I don't know man, you're an outlier who got exceptional intelligence, character, and sense in the same package.

    Give me some time to consider.

    Replies: @res

    Thanks for the kind words. I have plenty of flaws too. Some of them displayed all too obviously in this forum, some not ; /

    Most relevant to this conversation is that I think there are many high IQ (and even more fairly high IQ) people like that (the good things). They are just quietly working away in their jobs, spending time with their families, etc. They are not always in prestigious jobs either. How often does a construction crew have a guy (often a foreman) who is good at seeing the big picture and making sure things get done right? This usually gets credited simply to “good sense”, but I suspect if you studied it IQ would play a part.

    A recent concrete personal example. I was in Home Depot the other day trying to get a question answered and having to talk to multiple employees. One employee pointed me to another sitting at a desk as a good person to talk to. During our conversation he quietly listened to me completely recite a 9 digit SKU then entered it into his computer. If you know anything about digit span you know what that implies (I usually break numbers into blocks of 3 or 4 when I recite them. He waited until I was done. It almost seemed like he was playing a game with himself.):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_span#Digit-span
    His name was Maury, which probably provides a clue ; )
    His calm, competent demeanor and immediate understanding of things I said was a breath of fresh air.

    The high potential flameouts get disproportionate attention. And even there, if you look more closely there are often good things as well as the bad.

    This by no means negates the presence of much high IQ “evil” in the world. In those cases I think of IQ as a force multiplier. Whatever you do, good or bad, it tends to make you better at it.

    P.S. Linda Gottfredson does some good work in this area. Here is one of her classics:
    Why g Matters: The Complexity of Everyday Life
    https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf
    And a 2005 followup chapter in the tribute to Arthur Jensen book:
    g, Jobs and Life
    http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2005g-jobs-life.pdf

    P.P.S. One reason I am biased towards high IQ people is it tends to help with communication in my experience. I assume you are familiar with the 2 SD “leader/communication” concepts we talk about here sometimes? Perhaps not literally true as hard thresholds, but some truth there IMHO.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @res

    Yeah, you're not half bad for a star-bellied Sneech. Maybe when your work here is done we could send you into the wild to do something about the Blue Cheka on Twitter.


    Most relevant to this conversation is that I think there are many high IQ (and even more fairly high IQ) people like that (the good things). They are just quietly working away in their jobs, spending time with their families, etc.
     
    That is my sense as well, especially in an age like the present one. We're like dark matter one can infer from the ineptitude of our putative elites.

    During our conversation he quietly listened to me completely recite a 9 digit SKU then entered it into his computer. If you know anything about digit span you know what that implies
     
    Decent (or better) intellect plus working with a lot of SKUs within a certain system reveals what batch of numbers tends to go with what so that those 9 digits are (much) less random to him than to you. Worked in inventory management first job with GE out of school. Other assignment there we had middle-aged men with eighth-grade educations doing advanced Deming-style sadistics. Practice and purpose go a long way.

    His calm, competent demeanor and immediate understanding of things I said was a breath of fresh air.
     
    Our new mailman is like that too. The end of the (internal) Brain Drain has had many salutary effects, one of which is a newfound appreciation for everyday jobs done well, both among those who have them and those who are served by them.

    I assume you are familiar with the 2 SD “leader/communication” concepts we talk about here sometimes?
     
    Absolutely. I had the benefit of a Montaigne-style early upbringing while my dad was in Nam, so I have a higher comfort level with skipping levels, but of course higher-level thinking is a thing and only higher-level thinkers are really going to be conversant with it. The problem one runs into is when the higher-level becomes detached from the others (flying into the Sun/head in the clouds), especially when one takes perverse pride in said detachment.

    g is great, but it's not going to prevent you from being an asshole and reaping the whirlwinds that follow from that.

    Canonical texts:

    http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures

    http://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/published_works/ac/counter-enlightenment.pdf
  169. @res
    @Desiderius

    A fair amount of truth in your comment on my biases there. One issue is those are the most available studies (often easier things to measure and/or done by people with similar biases). But note that the outcomes linked in the latter part of my comment are those mentioned in the comment I was responding to. Also see my reply to you just above this.

    I enjoy your insightful comments, but the oblique style does become a bit frustrating after a while.

    If you want to continue this conversation, how about you provide some examples of outcomes you think become worse with higher IQ along with specific supporting evidence (either data or anecdote)?

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Dieter Kief

    I rode the bike through the ice-cold winter woods today into town to work and – – – mused about your discussion with Desiderius.

    When I rode back in the grey and clumsy evening, I still was thinking about your exchange of arguments. That does not happen very often.

    2 cents –

    – The IQ-science shows the individual wellbeing of the brighter folks as a reward for what? – Would it be wrong to claim, that they are rewarded for their ability to stay on the top of / or even dominate hierarchies under rational conditions?

    Let me now choose an example – if somebody is good at Wallstreet, that would be an example for what I said above.

    The problem arises as soon as one asks what good they did – or whether it is good what they did – not only for them.

    I think one can look at this problem from another perspective too: Think of populism. It’s often driven by regular people with a rather average IQ.

    Now look at their opponents in the media: Higher IQ people.

    Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Necessarily those with the highe IQ?

    Another one, brought forward by yours truly here and there (on this blog too a few times). High IQ people nowadays have one big advantage: They can afford to totally avoid physically threatening (bodily) work. But this advantage is a structural disadvantage compared to a craftsperson, let’s say: Bodily work tells the worker, what can be done and what can’t – that’s why craftsmen might be less prone to idealization and rationalization etc. – Objectivity is something they bodily experience!

    Another point loosely connected with the above: Jordan Peterson worked as a therapist with high-IQ persons and said, that he oftentimes found their neuroses harder to disentangle (more deeply rooted) than those of rather regular folks.

    I’d add, that this might be not only because the neurotic defense mechanisms of the brighter folks are more complex as such (consist of more material). I would call this aspect the structural reason for the higher grade of neuroticism, Peterson experienced as a therapist. But there is another reason too, and that is lack of bodily experience at work and thus a lack of a whole part of one’s existence, which is innately bound to the physical reality of our world and thus innately sober – or sound – – – or even sane.

    A last thought in this context: You could read Steve Sailer’s entire critique of the coalition of the of the fringes concept vs. the family affordance concept plus the invite/ invade concept as prove, that the on average higher IQ perspective is, seen from a societal point of view, less useful than the lower IQ perspective.

    (The same could be said (and is said) about Brexit. Here, David Goodhart’s distinction between the Somewheres and the Anywheres could be analyzed and what would turn out would be the same as in Steve Sailer’s case: The higher IQ Anywhere’s perspective on Brexit is good for them – but not rational and rather destructive if seen from the perspective of British society as a whole, which includes the Somewheres.

    What’s good for the brighter folks – working at Wall St., for example, – could (at times) turn out to be a disservice for society as a whole. In such cases, the hint at the on average higher life expectancy and higher-income, etc. of the brighter ones is no help.

    (Might well be, that this problem I sketched here is well known for 2500 years and a root cause of not only monotheism but also for Daoism).

    • Replies: @HA
    @Dieter Kief

    "What’s good for the brighter folks – working at Wall St., for example, – could (at times) turn out to be a disservice for society as a whole."

    Indeed. No one argues that the Sackler brothers weren't a bright bunch of guys. And to paraphrase Jack D, hillbillies have been fond of painkillers of one form or another for quite some time, so why can't the Sacklers make a few bucks off of oxycontin? But at some point, people are going to notice, and there will be blowback. It probably won't be proportionate, or just -- in fact, it may be far more evil than what spurred the resentment -- but there will be blowback. (In that sense, the Sacklers and Purdue Pharma got off pretty light, considering.)

    At least being able to talk about things like that helps. If I want to note that what the British (i.e. the DEI Co.) did regarding the trafficking of opium in China was morally reprehensible, and played a large role in exacerbating anti-foreign sentiment there, hey, no problem (though, no doubt, there were plenty of Brittanophobes and chauvinists who helped raise Chinese awareness about what was happening). But if anyone dares mention that liquor-trafficking in Russia was a big economic deal (note my link about that was from a Jewish source), then nut-jobs and hucksters immediately spring out the woodwork and start throwing antisemite accusations around (and then pretend that, no, really, they're not trying to shut anyone down, perish the thought). Come on. At some point, that kind of runaround is going to produce some blowback, too.

    , @res
    @Dieter Kief

    Interesting response. Thanks.

    My sense is there are multiple things being lumped together in your comment. Let me see if I can make that clearer.

    First, the mechanisms of better outcomes are complicated and may vary with respect to value judgments.

    For health here are some possibilities I see causing better outcomes.
    1. Deary's 'system integrity' hypothesis. Through pleiotropy some of the same genes cause both better health and higher IQ.
    2. More intelligent people might be better able to judge what benefits their health then do those things.
    3. Higher intelligence helps people do a better job so gathering more resources to improve one's health.
    4. Higher intelligence helps people cheat more effectively so gathering more resources to improve one's health.

    That is by no means a complete list, but gives an idea of the degree of difference possible in the mechanisms. As I see it, 1. and 2. are pure good. 3. has some zero some game elements as well as some positive externalities so depends on one's POV. 4. is destructive for society at large.

    What I think most of your comment boils down to is that by and large high IQ people are just as selfish as everyone else. But they can be even better at implementing that selfishness. That may superficially appear not to be true because by doing better in life they have more room for generosity (and may also be more adept at concealing their selfishness), but when push comes to shove I think I am right. And some people are just plain greedy so it is obvious in those cases.

    Your observation about higher IQ people (say people over 130?, about 2% for whites) being a fringe group whose interests may diverge from the rest of the population is both sound and important IMHO.

    I think the ability to avoid bodily work is a mixed blessing. Especially depending on how completely someone does it.

    One issue which I don't think you mentioned explicitly, but might underlay some of what you said is high IQ and low IQ people may have different styles of reasoning. Neither of which is best in all cases. I tend to refer to them as abstract and concrete reasoning styles, but don't think that correlation is complete. For me the ideal is being able to use both styles of reasoning to cross check between them and build on each other.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666, @Dieter Kief

  170. @Dieter Kief
    @res

    I rode the bike through the ice-cold winter woods today into town to work and - - - mused about your discussion with Desiderius.

    When I rode back in the grey and clumsy evening, I still was thinking about your exchange of arguments. That does not happen very often.

    2 cents -

    - The IQ-science shows the individual wellbeing of the brighter folks as a reward for what? - Would it be wrong to claim, that they are rewarded for their ability to stay on the top of / or even dominate hierarchies under rational conditions?

    Let me now choose an example - if somebody is good at Wallstreet, that would be an example for what I said above.

    The problem arises as soon as one asks what good they did - or whether it is good what they did - not only for them.

    I think one can look at this problem from another perspective too: Think of populism. It's often driven by regular people with a rather average IQ.

    Now look at their opponents in the media: Higher IQ people.

    Who's right? Who's wrong? Necessarily those with the highe IQ?


    Another one, brought forward by yours truly here and there (on this blog too a few times). High IQ people nowadays have one big advantage: They can afford to totally avoid physically threatening (bodily) work. But this advantage is a structural disadvantage compared to a craftsperson, let's say: Bodily work tells the worker, what can be done and what can't - that's why craftsmen might be less prone to idealization and rationalization etc. - Objectivity is something they bodily experience!

    Another point loosely connected with the above: Jordan Peterson worked as a therapist with high-IQ persons and said, that he oftentimes found their neuroses harder to disentangle (more deeply rooted) than those of rather regular folks.

    I'd add, that this might be not only because the neurotic defense mechanisms of the brighter folks are more complex as such (consist of more material). I would call this aspect the structural reason for the higher grade of neuroticism, Peterson experienced as a therapist. But there is another reason too, and that is lack of bodily experience at work and thus a lack of a whole part of one's existence, which is innately bound to the physical reality of our world and thus innately sober - or sound - - - or even sane.


    A last thought in this context: You could read Steve Sailer's entire critique of the coalition of the of the fringes concept vs. the family affordance concept plus the invite/ invade concept as prove, that the on average higher IQ perspective is, seen from a societal point of view, less useful than the lower IQ perspective.

    (The same could be said (and is said) about Brexit. Here, David Goodhart's distinction between the Somewheres and the Anywheres could be analyzed and what would turn out would be the same as in Steve Sailer's case: The higher IQ Anywhere's perspective on Brexit is good for them - but not rational and rather destructive if seen from the perspective of British society as a whole, which includes the Somewheres.

    What's good for the brighter folks - working at Wall St., for example, - could (at times) turn out to be a disservice for society as a whole. In such cases, the hint at the on average higher life expectancy and higher-income, etc. of the brighter ones is no help.

    (Might well be, that this problem I sketched here is well known for 2500 years and a root cause of not only monotheism but also for Daoism).

    Replies: @HA, @res

    “What’s good for the brighter folks – working at Wall St., for example, – could (at times) turn out to be a disservice for society as a whole.”

    Indeed. No one argues that the Sackler brothers weren’t a bright bunch of guys. And to paraphrase Jack D, hillbillies have been fond of painkillers of one form or another for quite some time, so why can’t the Sacklers make a few bucks off of oxycontin? But at some point, people are going to notice, and there will be blowback. It probably won’t be proportionate, or just — in fact, it may be far more evil than what spurred the resentment — but there will be blowback. (In that sense, the Sacklers and Purdue Pharma got off pretty light, considering.)

    At least being able to talk about things like that helps. If I want to note that what the British (i.e. the DEI Co.) did regarding the trafficking of opium in China was morally reprehensible, and played a large role in exacerbating anti-foreign sentiment there, hey, no problem (though, no doubt, there were plenty of Brittanophobes and chauvinists who helped raise Chinese awareness about what was happening). But if anyone dares mention that liquor-trafficking in Russia was a big economic deal (note my link about that was from a Jewish source), then nut-jobs and hucksters immediately spring out the woodwork and start throwing antisemite accusations around (and then pretend that, no, really, they’re not trying to shut anyone down, perish the thought). Come on. At some point, that kind of runaround is going to produce some blowback, too.

  171. Yep.

    A guy from this German town I live in, Konstanz, by the name of Nissenbaum, invented the kosher liquor and made quite some money with it. His factory is in Poland. Fun fact: He claims to be a Jew and got into quite some trouble because his mother lacks a – – – kosher – – – birth certificate. Oh, and he did run a red light district club in Karlsruhe for some time.

  172. @Jane Plain
    @HA

    It really would help if you named the Botticini and Eckstein book itself.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chosen_Few_(book)

    It got a lot of criticism.


    Writing in The Journal of Economic History, Philip Ackerman-Lieberman points out that Botticini and Eckstein support their theoretical model with, "assumptions about the historical record which are by no means warranted.

    Historians have been scathing.
     

    The fact is that for most of their history in Europe, Jews weren't moneylenders, and where they did become prominent (Venice) they were quickly usurped by local non-Jews. It's a typical story, explicated well in Amy Chua's World on Fire.

    That said, I don't think this disproves Cochran/Harpending. Ashkenazi Jews did what we would call middle class non-farming occupations for most of their history. The C/H theory is validated and overriden by much more than that one mistake.

    But that's not enough for such as HA, who have an obsession with proving that Jews are damned and evil.

    Your crowd, Jack D!

    Replies: @HA, @Not Raul

    I’m glad you brought that up, Jane.

    “Money lending” was never a primary source of income for more than a small minority of Jews in the Middle Ages. I’m sick of hearing pseudo-intellectuals drone on and on about how “Jews are smart cuz usury.” So inane!

    In the “Holy Roman Empire”, many of the richest bankers were Catholic, such as the Welser family, the Fugger family, the Bardi family, the Peruzzi family, and the Medici family.

    • Replies: @HA
    @Not Raul

    After listing a large list of occupations for medieval Jews, Botticini and Eckstein state (p. 39):


    Starting in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Jews in France, England, Germany and northern and central Italy increasingly specialized in moneylending, to the point of becoming identified with this highly-skilled and profitable profession.
     
    There’s more detail throughout the book indicating the dispersal required to chase after these positions (indicating that -- as noted -- in significant sections of Europe, that is the trade they were identified with), but this was what was available in the preview section at Amazon. There’s also this:

    As well documented by Toch, the early medieval charters…confirmed that the Jews in Euyrope were permitted to own land and that a great number of them….possessed fields, gardens and venyards and owned, transferred and mortgaged landholdings. Had they wanted to, they could have been famers.
     
    Toch seems to be the key scholar who first began to dismantle the notion that Jews were somehow forced into usury due to limitations imposed by gentiles.

    No one is denying that there's only so many moneylending slots, and if there were numerous sons, at some point they would have to find something else to do.

    , @HA
    @Not Raul

    Let me finish the previous comment by pointing out that no one is saying "usury made them smart, duh". The B&E argument -- as I understand it -- is that the rabbi/Pharisee focus on literacy and scholarship -- and the high costs associated with making that happen -- had the effect of excluding small farmers from their rolls in the first few centuries after the destruction of the second temple. Moreover, literacy also gave them an edge in certain lucrative jobs -- money-lending being a prime example -- that, according to the history that is available, Jews sought out and became associated with (though never to the point of becoming a monopoly, and never without lots of cooperation from gentile rules). That's basically it, in a nutshell. No one "became smarter" as a result, sadly. What happened was that the dumb ones (or poorer groups that were more likely to contain dumb people) were effectively filtered out over time.

    In response to this eminently plausible thesis, I'm seeing people trying to pull the same scam that Planned Parenthood tried to pull a few years ago by providing a list of "all their services" and then saying, see, abortion is only one of a pretty long list, so stop noticing it. No one with any sense bought that argument because no one pretends that the reason that Planned Parenthood exists (or is hated) is to provide pap smears or, or whatever. It's the abortions that generate all the hatred and a major portion of the cash flow. Yes, of course, even moneylender Jews had to eventually find other jobs for their extra sons given that there's only so many moneylenders you can have in one place, but that's a deflection. The B&E argument (and again, this seems to originate not with them, and it's no longer really controversial in academia) is that despite being just one occupation in long list that they enumerate, moneylending was a profession that in some Western European countries they willingly practiced "to the point of becoming identified with" it, as opposed to being something they were forced into doing by outside forces. Likewise, there's a long list of occupations that the WorldZionistOrganization article I linked to about Jews in Russia enumerates, but it ends with the observation that "most [Jews] however, earned their livelihood by the sale of liquor.". As in greater-than-50-percent. If anyone is outraged by that, take it up with the authors. Otherwise, stop pretending those were just two occupations out of many and are therefore in no way significant.

    Likewise, the Whataboutism regarding the Fuggers or the other bankers who came centuries later is a complete non sequitur, because as was previously noted those families like the Renaissance Italians who along with the Knights Templar, who were the bankers of the Crusades, managce to transform moneylending from what it had been in medieval times, though Jews no doubt played a role in that shift, too. In particular, they catered to qualified investors (i.e. royals) didn't "exploit the poor" as both Jewish and Christian clerics would have phrased it back then (and the general consensus on interest had started to shift by then). Also note that other groups that DID make money off of the poor in medieval times -- e.g. the Lombards -- were likewise reviled, though apart from a line or two, B&E don't spend any time comparing the resentment that different groups earned. (I recall, however, a sentence about how the Jews were sometimes able to obtain a special exemption from the usual moneylending restrictions, but they didn't get into details.)

    Certainly there were other factors involved in making Judaism so focused on scholarship/literacy aside from economic ones -- the Sadducees were mostly irrelevant once the temple was destroyed, the Zealots were wiped out by the Romans, and the Essenes seem to have up and disappeared somewhere along the line. And yes, economics is only one part of the story, and for all I know, maybe B&E over-emphasize it. I'm not qualified to assess that. But though they don't mention IQ or genetics, their argument aligns pretty well with Cochran and Harpending (from what I can gather) and also the general observation that even today, it is the scholars who are the stars of the show in Orthodox Judaism.

    What B&E have added to the conversation is an accounting (so to speak) of the costs needed to make that scholarship/literacy happen (and to keep all those yeshivas functioning and to maintain that culture of learning), and also the tradeoffs that would have been required. That seems to be a large reason for the ample praise the book has generated. I should warn anyone who considers reading it, however, that it's not a fun book, and kind of dry, actually, but the authors are economists, after all, so don't expect this to be some action-packed thriller with cliffhanger endings in every chapter.

    To the extent all the detractors have to offer is straw-man arguments (where exactly did anyone, pseudo-intellectually or otherwise, claim that "literacy made 'em smart"?) and sputtering about anti-semitism, that simply shows that that they have nothing constructive in the way of a counter-argument. It's also pretty clear that they're flailing at a book they haven't even bothered to read. That pretty much tells you all you need to know.

  173. @Dieter Kief
    @res

    I rode the bike through the ice-cold winter woods today into town to work and - - - mused about your discussion with Desiderius.

    When I rode back in the grey and clumsy evening, I still was thinking about your exchange of arguments. That does not happen very often.

    2 cents -

    - The IQ-science shows the individual wellbeing of the brighter folks as a reward for what? - Would it be wrong to claim, that they are rewarded for their ability to stay on the top of / or even dominate hierarchies under rational conditions?

    Let me now choose an example - if somebody is good at Wallstreet, that would be an example for what I said above.

    The problem arises as soon as one asks what good they did - or whether it is good what they did - not only for them.

    I think one can look at this problem from another perspective too: Think of populism. It's often driven by regular people with a rather average IQ.

    Now look at their opponents in the media: Higher IQ people.

    Who's right? Who's wrong? Necessarily those with the highe IQ?


    Another one, brought forward by yours truly here and there (on this blog too a few times). High IQ people nowadays have one big advantage: They can afford to totally avoid physically threatening (bodily) work. But this advantage is a structural disadvantage compared to a craftsperson, let's say: Bodily work tells the worker, what can be done and what can't - that's why craftsmen might be less prone to idealization and rationalization etc. - Objectivity is something they bodily experience!

    Another point loosely connected with the above: Jordan Peterson worked as a therapist with high-IQ persons and said, that he oftentimes found their neuroses harder to disentangle (more deeply rooted) than those of rather regular folks.

    I'd add, that this might be not only because the neurotic defense mechanisms of the brighter folks are more complex as such (consist of more material). I would call this aspect the structural reason for the higher grade of neuroticism, Peterson experienced as a therapist. But there is another reason too, and that is lack of bodily experience at work and thus a lack of a whole part of one's existence, which is innately bound to the physical reality of our world and thus innately sober - or sound - - - or even sane.


    A last thought in this context: You could read Steve Sailer's entire critique of the coalition of the of the fringes concept vs. the family affordance concept plus the invite/ invade concept as prove, that the on average higher IQ perspective is, seen from a societal point of view, less useful than the lower IQ perspective.

    (The same could be said (and is said) about Brexit. Here, David Goodhart's distinction between the Somewheres and the Anywheres could be analyzed and what would turn out would be the same as in Steve Sailer's case: The higher IQ Anywhere's perspective on Brexit is good for them - but not rational and rather destructive if seen from the perspective of British society as a whole, which includes the Somewheres.

    What's good for the brighter folks - working at Wall St., for example, - could (at times) turn out to be a disservice for society as a whole. In such cases, the hint at the on average higher life expectancy and higher-income, etc. of the brighter ones is no help.

    (Might well be, that this problem I sketched here is well known for 2500 years and a root cause of not only monotheism but also for Daoism).

    Replies: @HA, @res

    Interesting response. Thanks.

    My sense is there are multiple things being lumped together in your comment. Let me see if I can make that clearer.

    First, the mechanisms of better outcomes are complicated and may vary with respect to value judgments.

    For health here are some possibilities I see causing better outcomes.
    1. Deary’s ‘system integrity’ hypothesis. Through pleiotropy some of the same genes cause both better health and higher IQ.
    2. More intelligent people might be better able to judge what benefits their health then do those things.
    3. Higher intelligence helps people do a better job so gathering more resources to improve one’s health.
    4. Higher intelligence helps people cheat more effectively so gathering more resources to improve one’s health.

    That is by no means a complete list, but gives an idea of the degree of difference possible in the mechanisms. As I see it, 1. and 2. are pure good. 3. has some zero some game elements as well as some positive externalities so depends on one’s POV. 4. is destructive for society at large.

    What I think most of your comment boils down to is that by and large high IQ people are just as selfish as everyone else. But they can be even better at implementing that selfishness. That may superficially appear not to be true because by doing better in life they have more room for generosity (and may also be more adept at concealing their selfishness), but when push comes to shove I think I am right. And some people are just plain greedy so it is obvious in those cases.

    Your observation about higher IQ people (say people over 130?, about 2% for whites) being a fringe group whose interests may diverge from the rest of the population is both sound and important IMHO.

    I think the ability to avoid bodily work is a mixed blessing. Especially depending on how completely someone does it.

    One issue which I don’t think you mentioned explicitly, but might underlay some of what you said is high IQ and low IQ people may have different styles of reasoning. Neither of which is best in all cases. I tend to refer to them as abstract and concrete reasoning styles, but don’t think that correlation is complete. For me the ideal is being able to use both styles of reasoning to cross check between them and build on each other.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @res


    4. Higher intelligence helps people cheat more effectively so gathering more resources to improve one’s health.
     
    Interesting observation. You almost never see this anti-social "cheating" aspect of intelligence flagged.

    How would this factor play out in molding the culture of an entire population of relatively high-IQ individuals? The group members would be smarter at cheating. But also smarter at detecting and countering/punishing cheating.

    Better cheating skills plus better counter-cheating measures seems like a combination that would tend to push a culture in the direction of more sophisticated social structures and "rule of law."

    Alternatively, having to compete with smart cheats within one's group would also seem to create an intra-group selective pressure favoring high intelligence.

    Without going down the whole "group selection" rabbit-hole, smart cheating seems like a mechanism that could plausibly push a group toward both higher IQ and higher cultural development.

    Replies: @res, @Dieter Kief

    , @Dieter Kief
    @res

    Oh! What you write implies and expresses a lot more criticism than is usually heard in this context.

    Having read your post, I think my no-bullshit aspect of the type of reasoning which is interwoven with a life of the craftsperson or the farmer, etc. still stands; this aspect of reasoning is essentially dependent on the bodily exchange with the outside world and therewith structurally connected with the physical reality as is. = Less room for lofty speculations, less room for rationalizations***** and the like. Because such intellectualizing of concrete phenomena is at once detected as not true or - - - BULLSHIT. My point is not about the style of reasoning, you mentioned. My point touches the nature of the kind of reasoning which is rooted in bodily actions, and which is structurally more sober than is the other kind of reasoning, the non-bodily one. My point lives - and goes under with this distinction.

    What you might underexposure a little bit is the existential gap that there is between a) individual wellbeing - which can be measured, I agree - and which does correlate with IQ, I agree too - and b) societal wellbeing, which is just not part of what is measured in the IQ tests and the like.
    - My point here is, that these tests lack an important aspect of the usually claimed overall beneficiality of being a high IQ individual because they only concentrate on individuals and are thus insufficient.

    That higher IQ persons would be physically/genetically fitter than others is something which strikes me as a tad counterintuitive, but not that important altogether. If so, I'd be a bit surprised, and that was it. When I'm in southern France or in Italy or in Corse, where lots of very old people live, I usually make these observations: They work in their garden - with 90+ years quite often; they socialize a lot (in the villages and small towns especially); they walk a lot; they talk a lot; the climate is nice.

    I know that I do lump together here quite a bunch of just loosely connected things, but anyway.

    It's quite good, that you notice the ability to cheat and deceive, which might increase with the IQ. Brecht once remarks, what's the robbery of a bank, compared with the founding of one. Now - I know, that after Brecht there came - Charles Sanders Peirce and Nikolas Luhmann and his estimation of the rationality of societal sub-systems like the financial realm. But - nonetheless.

    The core of my argument develops gradually and is not tied to a certain IQ number.

    If I'd step back, I'd say what Peterson remarks about the more intense state of neuroticism he noticed while working with higher IQ clients might begin at 130 or some such.


    ***** PS

    I think that Freud's concept of neurotic defense mechanisms is a major discovery, even though it is by no means new. But he made a big systematic case out of them, and therefore I tend to just put it this way: Kudos to Freud for that. Freud's muse and letter partner Lou Andreas-Salomé new, how much Freud owed Nietzsche and Heine and Büchner and Schopenhauer and - - - Goethe (Rilke too).

    Replies: @res

  174. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    @Hypnotoad666

    Scientific calculators (like the Texas Instruments TI-83 or TI-84) have a built in function normalcdf that calculates the proportion normalcdf(lo,hi,mean,stdev) of individuals in a population having a mean IQ "mean" and a standard deviation "stdev" who have an IQ between "lo" and "hi". Thus the proportion of people in a population of mean IQ 100 and standard deviation 15 who have an IQ of 145 or more is normalcdf(145,9E99,100,15) = .0013499672 = about one person in 1/0013499672 = 741. And the proportion of people in a population of mean IQ 110 and standard deviation 15 who have an IQ of 145 or more is normalcdf(145,9E99,110,15) = .0098153068 = about one person in 102.

    In a population of N persons, 2% from the mean IQ=110 population ("Jews") and 65% from the mean IQ=100 population ("whites"), the number of supersmart Jews will be .02N*normalcdf(145,9E99,110,15) = .0001963061369N, and the number of supersmart whites will be .65N*normalcdf(145,9E99,100,15) = .0008774786945N. With N=1,000,000 persons, this yields 196 supersmart Jews and 877 supersmart whites.
    To play with this function a little more, the number, per million population, of supersmart individuals among a 12.7% subpopulation of mean IQ 85 comes to .127*1,000,000*normalcdf(145,9E99,85,15) = 4. (Check my math!)

    Replies: @Anonymous, @blake121666, @Hypnotoad666

    With N=1,000,000 persons, this yields 196 supersmart Jews and 877 supersmart whites. To play with this function a little more, the number, per million population, of supersmart individuals among a 12.7% subpopulation of mean IQ 85 comes to .127*1,000,000*normalcdf(145,9E99,85,15) = 4. (Check my math!)

    The specific statistical calculations are beyond me, but according to your results, plus my elementary school division and multiplication skills, the number and percentage of 145+IQ individuals in the U.S. would break down * as follows:

    Roughly Estimated 145+ IQ Population of U.S.

    Whites: 289,474 = 81.43%
    Jews: 64,705 = 18.199%
    Blacks: 168 = .371%

    * Note: This assumes a total U.S. population of 330 Million and resulting sub-populations of: 214M whites (330M x 65%); 6.6M Jews (330M x 2%); and 42M Blacks (330M x 12.7%). For present purposes, we are simply ignoring the 20% of “other” ethnicities – basically Asians and Hispanics.

  175. @res
    @Dieter Kief

    Interesting response. Thanks.

    My sense is there are multiple things being lumped together in your comment. Let me see if I can make that clearer.

    First, the mechanisms of better outcomes are complicated and may vary with respect to value judgments.

    For health here are some possibilities I see causing better outcomes.
    1. Deary's 'system integrity' hypothesis. Through pleiotropy some of the same genes cause both better health and higher IQ.
    2. More intelligent people might be better able to judge what benefits their health then do those things.
    3. Higher intelligence helps people do a better job so gathering more resources to improve one's health.
    4. Higher intelligence helps people cheat more effectively so gathering more resources to improve one's health.

    That is by no means a complete list, but gives an idea of the degree of difference possible in the mechanisms. As I see it, 1. and 2. are pure good. 3. has some zero some game elements as well as some positive externalities so depends on one's POV. 4. is destructive for society at large.

    What I think most of your comment boils down to is that by and large high IQ people are just as selfish as everyone else. But they can be even better at implementing that selfishness. That may superficially appear not to be true because by doing better in life they have more room for generosity (and may also be more adept at concealing their selfishness), but when push comes to shove I think I am right. And some people are just plain greedy so it is obvious in those cases.

    Your observation about higher IQ people (say people over 130?, about 2% for whites) being a fringe group whose interests may diverge from the rest of the population is both sound and important IMHO.

    I think the ability to avoid bodily work is a mixed blessing. Especially depending on how completely someone does it.

    One issue which I don't think you mentioned explicitly, but might underlay some of what you said is high IQ and low IQ people may have different styles of reasoning. Neither of which is best in all cases. I tend to refer to them as abstract and concrete reasoning styles, but don't think that correlation is complete. For me the ideal is being able to use both styles of reasoning to cross check between them and build on each other.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666, @Dieter Kief

    4. Higher intelligence helps people cheat more effectively so gathering more resources to improve one’s health.

    Interesting observation. You almost never see this anti-social “cheating” aspect of intelligence flagged.

    How would this factor play out in molding the culture of an entire population of relatively high-IQ individuals? The group members would be smarter at cheating. But also smarter at detecting and countering/punishing cheating.

    Better cheating skills plus better counter-cheating measures seems like a combination that would tend to push a culture in the direction of more sophisticated social structures and “rule of law.”

    Alternatively, having to compete with smart cheats within one’s group would also seem to create an intra-group selective pressure favoring high intelligence.

    Without going down the whole “group selection” rabbit-hole, smart cheating seems like a mechanism that could plausibly push a group toward both higher IQ and higher cultural development.

    • Replies: @res
    @Hypnotoad666

    I'm not sure how that would play out. I suspect dealing effectively with cheaters is more a matter of will to do so and societal agreement that we should than the IQ of the people involved. I think it is better to focus on how to create and sustain high trust societies in general rather than the IQ aspect.

    Perhaps the biggest contribution IQ can make to this is to enable one to understand game theory sufficiently well to realize how and why a high trust society is an unstable equilibrium. I think this helps people realize why it is important to both punish cheaters and moderate their own behavior.

    I don't think our decision makers realize how big a negative it is to import large cohorts of people from low trust societies. The alternative that they do realize it is even worse though.

    , @Dieter Kief
    @Hypnotoad666

    Your reasoning is sound as long as there are no differences in IQ in a society. - Which seems to be just not the case...

    Now I think of Goethe's Mephisto - the trickster par excellence. As portrayed by Goethe, he is of use for society, because he is in good spirits, his permanent cheating something that is - you know: Entertaining, fun, frivolous (=sexy). But in the end, Mephisto loses his bet.

    Cheating could well be something that does not work. Habermas is claiming, that language has a built-in tendency to favor fair play and decency and objectivity, etc. - that could be understood to work in your direction, but the philosopher might have his Achilles' heel in this region (a blind spot hinting at - positive thinking as a foundation of his philosophy, by and large).

    There is a hidden giant in the German tradition, a Nuremberg Jacobin and one of the first who dug Kant and did write in his traces. A - - - - craftsman - - - by profession (think of Spinoza) by the name of Johann Benjamin Erhard. Now, I make this really short: Erhard claimed, that the Devil is bad because what he does can basically only be something - individual. The Mafia problem: Acting bad makes it hard, to have a family - and even harder to create a well-functioning society.

    J. B. Erhard - Apologie des Teufels (Apology of the Devil, Nuremberg, 1795).

  176. @res
    @Dieter Kief

    Interesting response. Thanks.

    My sense is there are multiple things being lumped together in your comment. Let me see if I can make that clearer.

    First, the mechanisms of better outcomes are complicated and may vary with respect to value judgments.

    For health here are some possibilities I see causing better outcomes.
    1. Deary's 'system integrity' hypothesis. Through pleiotropy some of the same genes cause both better health and higher IQ.
    2. More intelligent people might be better able to judge what benefits their health then do those things.
    3. Higher intelligence helps people do a better job so gathering more resources to improve one's health.
    4. Higher intelligence helps people cheat more effectively so gathering more resources to improve one's health.

    That is by no means a complete list, but gives an idea of the degree of difference possible in the mechanisms. As I see it, 1. and 2. are pure good. 3. has some zero some game elements as well as some positive externalities so depends on one's POV. 4. is destructive for society at large.

    What I think most of your comment boils down to is that by and large high IQ people are just as selfish as everyone else. But they can be even better at implementing that selfishness. That may superficially appear not to be true because by doing better in life they have more room for generosity (and may also be more adept at concealing their selfishness), but when push comes to shove I think I am right. And some people are just plain greedy so it is obvious in those cases.

    Your observation about higher IQ people (say people over 130?, about 2% for whites) being a fringe group whose interests may diverge from the rest of the population is both sound and important IMHO.

    I think the ability to avoid bodily work is a mixed blessing. Especially depending on how completely someone does it.

    One issue which I don't think you mentioned explicitly, but might underlay some of what you said is high IQ and low IQ people may have different styles of reasoning. Neither of which is best in all cases. I tend to refer to them as abstract and concrete reasoning styles, but don't think that correlation is complete. For me the ideal is being able to use both styles of reasoning to cross check between them and build on each other.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666, @Dieter Kief

    Oh! What you write implies and expresses a lot more criticism than is usually heard in this context.

    Having read your post, I think my no-bullshit aspect of the type of reasoning which is interwoven with a life of the craftsperson or the farmer, etc. still stands; this aspect of reasoning is essentially dependent on the bodily exchange with the outside world and therewith structurally connected with the physical reality as is. = Less room for lofty speculations, less room for rationalizations***** and the like. Because such intellectualizing of concrete phenomena is at once detected as not true or – – – BULLSHIT. My point is not about the style of reasoning, you mentioned. My point touches the nature of the kind of reasoning which is rooted in bodily actions, and which is structurally more sober than is the other kind of reasoning, the non-bodily one. My point lives – and goes under with this distinction.

    What you might underexposure a little bit is the existential gap that there is between a) individual wellbeing – which can be measured, I agree – and which does correlate with IQ, I agree too – and b) societal wellbeing, which is just not part of what is measured in the IQ tests and the like.
    – My point here is, that these tests lack an important aspect of the usually claimed overall beneficiality of being a high IQ individual because they only concentrate on individuals and are thus insufficient.

    That higher IQ persons would be physically/genetically fitter than others is something which strikes me as a tad counterintuitive, but not that important altogether. If so, I’d be a bit surprised, and that was it. When I’m in southern France or in Italy or in Corse, where lots of very old people live, I usually make these observations: They work in their garden – with 90+ years quite often; they socialize a lot (in the villages and small towns especially); they walk a lot; they talk a lot; the climate is nice.

    I know that I do lump together here quite a bunch of just loosely connected things, but anyway.

    It’s quite good, that you notice the ability to cheat and deceive, which might increase with the IQ. Brecht once remarks, what’s the robbery of a bank, compared with the founding of one. Now – I know, that after Brecht there came – Charles Sanders Peirce and Nikolas Luhmann and his estimation of the rationality of societal sub-systems like the financial realm. But – nonetheless.

    The core of my argument develops gradually and is not tied to a certain IQ number.

    If I’d step back, I’d say what Peterson remarks about the more intense state of neuroticism he noticed while working with higher IQ clients might begin at 130 or some such.

    ***** PS

    I think that Freud’s concept of neurotic defense mechanisms is a major discovery, even though it is by no means new. But he made a big systematic case out of them, and therefore I tend to just put it this way: Kudos to Freud for that. Freud’s muse and letter partner Lou Andreas-Salomé new, how much Freud owed Nietzsche and Heine and Büchner and Schopenhauer and – – – Goethe (Rilke too).

    • Replies: @res
    @Dieter Kief


    What you write implies and expresses a lot more criticism than is usually heard in this context.
     
    Not sure which target of my criticism you are referencing? The idea that higher IQ is purely a good thing?

    Having read your post, I think my no-bullshit aspect of the type of reasoning which is interwoven with a life of the craftsperson or the farmer, etc. still stands; this aspect of reasoning is essentially dependent on the bodily exchange with the outside world and therewith structurally connected with the physical reality as is. = Less room for lofty speculations, less room for rationalizations***** and the like. Because such intellectualizing of concrete phenomena is at once detected as not true or – – – BULLSHIT. My point is not about the style of reasoning, you mentioned. My point touches the nature of the kind of reasoning which is rooted in bodily actions, and which is structurally more sober than is the other kind of reasoning, the non-bodily one. My point lives – and goes under with this distinction.
     
    But what you describe here is exactly what I mean by a concrete style of reasoning. And I agree it is a welcome reprieve from the overly divorced from reality abstract reasoning we see from many of our high IQ "elite." At the same time, abstractions can be valuable as well. For example, see my point about using game theory to help understand high trust societies. I think the best reasoning utilizes both the abstract and concrete and connects them effectively.

    What you might underexposure a little bit is the existential gap that there is between a) individual wellbeing – which can be measured, I agree – and which does correlate with IQ, I agree too – and b) societal wellbeing, which is just not part of what is measured in the IQ tests and the like.
    – My point here is, that these tests lack an important aspect of the usually claimed overall beneficiality of being a high IQ individual because they only concentrate on individuals and are thus insufficient.
     
    I think the work we see on how country performance relates to population IQ (e.g. Heiner Rindermann) goes a long way towards answering this. And it appears that a higher IQ population lifts the country as a whole.

    I know that I do lump together here quite a bunch of just loosely connected things, but anyway.
     
    Sorry if that sounded overly critical. I was trying to explain why I chose to take a step back and go off on what might have seemed like a tangent. It was not meant to imply disagreement.

    The core of my argument develops gradually and is not tied to a certain IQ number.
     
    The reason for choosing a number was to try to make things more concrete. In particular, how many people does it take before a group is no longer fringe? People also differ wildly in what they call "high IQ" so I wanted to be specific to check that we are talking about roughly the same thing.
  177. @Hypnotoad666
    @res


    4. Higher intelligence helps people cheat more effectively so gathering more resources to improve one’s health.
     
    Interesting observation. You almost never see this anti-social "cheating" aspect of intelligence flagged.

    How would this factor play out in molding the culture of an entire population of relatively high-IQ individuals? The group members would be smarter at cheating. But also smarter at detecting and countering/punishing cheating.

    Better cheating skills plus better counter-cheating measures seems like a combination that would tend to push a culture in the direction of more sophisticated social structures and "rule of law."

    Alternatively, having to compete with smart cheats within one's group would also seem to create an intra-group selective pressure favoring high intelligence.

    Without going down the whole "group selection" rabbit-hole, smart cheating seems like a mechanism that could plausibly push a group toward both higher IQ and higher cultural development.

    Replies: @res, @Dieter Kief

    I’m not sure how that would play out. I suspect dealing effectively with cheaters is more a matter of will to do so and societal agreement that we should than the IQ of the people involved. I think it is better to focus on how to create and sustain high trust societies in general rather than the IQ aspect.

    Perhaps the biggest contribution IQ can make to this is to enable one to understand game theory sufficiently well to realize how and why a high trust society is an unstable equilibrium. I think this helps people realize why it is important to both punish cheaters and moderate their own behavior.

    I don’t think our decision makers realize how big a negative it is to import large cohorts of people from low trust societies. The alternative that they do realize it is even worse though.

  178. @Hypnotoad666
    @res


    4. Higher intelligence helps people cheat more effectively so gathering more resources to improve one’s health.
     
    Interesting observation. You almost never see this anti-social "cheating" aspect of intelligence flagged.

    How would this factor play out in molding the culture of an entire population of relatively high-IQ individuals? The group members would be smarter at cheating. But also smarter at detecting and countering/punishing cheating.

    Better cheating skills plus better counter-cheating measures seems like a combination that would tend to push a culture in the direction of more sophisticated social structures and "rule of law."

    Alternatively, having to compete with smart cheats within one's group would also seem to create an intra-group selective pressure favoring high intelligence.

    Without going down the whole "group selection" rabbit-hole, smart cheating seems like a mechanism that could plausibly push a group toward both higher IQ and higher cultural development.

    Replies: @res, @Dieter Kief

    Your reasoning is sound as long as there are no differences in IQ in a society. – Which seems to be just not the case…

    Now I think of Goethe’s Mephisto – the trickster par excellence. As portrayed by Goethe, he is of use for society, because he is in good spirits, his permanent cheating something that is – you know: Entertaining, fun, frivolous (=sexy). But in the end, Mephisto loses his bet.

    Cheating could well be something that does not work. Habermas is claiming, that language has a built-in tendency to favor fair play and decency and objectivity, etc. – that could be understood to work in your direction, but the philosopher might have his Achilles’ heel in this region (a blind spot hinting at – positive thinking as a foundation of his philosophy, by and large).

    There is a hidden giant in the German tradition, a Nuremberg Jacobin and one of the first who dug Kant and did write in his traces. A – – – – craftsman – – – by profession (think of Spinoza) by the name of Johann Benjamin Erhard. Now, I make this really short: Erhard claimed, that the Devil is bad because what he does can basically only be something – individual. The Mafia problem: Acting bad makes it hard, to have a family – and even harder to create a well-functioning society.

    J. B. Erhard – Apologie des Teufels (Apology of the Devil, Nuremberg, 1795).

  179. @Dieter Kief
    @res

    Oh! What you write implies and expresses a lot more criticism than is usually heard in this context.

    Having read your post, I think my no-bullshit aspect of the type of reasoning which is interwoven with a life of the craftsperson or the farmer, etc. still stands; this aspect of reasoning is essentially dependent on the bodily exchange with the outside world and therewith structurally connected with the physical reality as is. = Less room for lofty speculations, less room for rationalizations***** and the like. Because such intellectualizing of concrete phenomena is at once detected as not true or - - - BULLSHIT. My point is not about the style of reasoning, you mentioned. My point touches the nature of the kind of reasoning which is rooted in bodily actions, and which is structurally more sober than is the other kind of reasoning, the non-bodily one. My point lives - and goes under with this distinction.

    What you might underexposure a little bit is the existential gap that there is between a) individual wellbeing - which can be measured, I agree - and which does correlate with IQ, I agree too - and b) societal wellbeing, which is just not part of what is measured in the IQ tests and the like.
    - My point here is, that these tests lack an important aspect of the usually claimed overall beneficiality of being a high IQ individual because they only concentrate on individuals and are thus insufficient.

    That higher IQ persons would be physically/genetically fitter than others is something which strikes me as a tad counterintuitive, but not that important altogether. If so, I'd be a bit surprised, and that was it. When I'm in southern France or in Italy or in Corse, where lots of very old people live, I usually make these observations: They work in their garden - with 90+ years quite often; they socialize a lot (in the villages and small towns especially); they walk a lot; they talk a lot; the climate is nice.

    I know that I do lump together here quite a bunch of just loosely connected things, but anyway.

    It's quite good, that you notice the ability to cheat and deceive, which might increase with the IQ. Brecht once remarks, what's the robbery of a bank, compared with the founding of one. Now - I know, that after Brecht there came - Charles Sanders Peirce and Nikolas Luhmann and his estimation of the rationality of societal sub-systems like the financial realm. But - nonetheless.

    The core of my argument develops gradually and is not tied to a certain IQ number.

    If I'd step back, I'd say what Peterson remarks about the more intense state of neuroticism he noticed while working with higher IQ clients might begin at 130 or some such.


    ***** PS

    I think that Freud's concept of neurotic defense mechanisms is a major discovery, even though it is by no means new. But he made a big systematic case out of them, and therefore I tend to just put it this way: Kudos to Freud for that. Freud's muse and letter partner Lou Andreas-Salomé new, how much Freud owed Nietzsche and Heine and Büchner and Schopenhauer and - - - Goethe (Rilke too).

    Replies: @res

    What you write implies and expresses a lot more criticism than is usually heard in this context.

    Not sure which target of my criticism you are referencing? The idea that higher IQ is purely a good thing?

    Having read your post, I think my no-bullshit aspect of the type of reasoning which is interwoven with a life of the craftsperson or the farmer, etc. still stands; this aspect of reasoning is essentially dependent on the bodily exchange with the outside world and therewith structurally connected with the physical reality as is. = Less room for lofty speculations, less room for rationalizations***** and the like. Because such intellectualizing of concrete phenomena is at once detected as not true or – – – BULLSHIT. My point is not about the style of reasoning, you mentioned. My point touches the nature of the kind of reasoning which is rooted in bodily actions, and which is structurally more sober than is the other kind of reasoning, the non-bodily one. My point lives – and goes under with this distinction.

    But what you describe here is exactly what I mean by a concrete style of reasoning. And I agree it is a welcome reprieve from the overly divorced from reality abstract reasoning we see from many of our high IQ “elite.” At the same time, abstractions can be valuable as well. For example, see my point about using game theory to help understand high trust societies. I think the best reasoning utilizes both the abstract and concrete and connects them effectively.

    What you might underexposure a little bit is the existential gap that there is between a) individual wellbeing – which can be measured, I agree – and which does correlate with IQ, I agree too – and b) societal wellbeing, which is just not part of what is measured in the IQ tests and the like.
    – My point here is, that these tests lack an important aspect of the usually claimed overall beneficiality of being a high IQ individual because they only concentrate on individuals and are thus insufficient.

    I think the work we see on how country performance relates to population IQ (e.g. Heiner Rindermann) goes a long way towards answering this. And it appears that a higher IQ population lifts the country as a whole.

    I know that I do lump together here quite a bunch of just loosely connected things, but anyway.

    Sorry if that sounded overly critical. I was trying to explain why I chose to take a step back and go off on what might have seemed like a tangent. It was not meant to imply disagreement.

    The core of my argument develops gradually and is not tied to a certain IQ number.

    The reason for choosing a number was to try to make things more concrete. In particular, how many people does it take before a group is no longer fringe? People also differ wildly in what they call “high IQ” so I wanted to be specific to check that we are talking about roughly the same thing.

  180. My lumping together remark was not psychological, but rather technical. I do lump together and think rather associative; you could have almost read it as an excuse… So – no problem here on my side.

    I’ve read Rindermann’s book and – praised it publicly. So – there’s lots of common ground.

    The cheating capacity you mentioned is rarely mentioned otherwise – or buried completely in game-theory linen, which makes it look useful throughout. I don’t doubt that it can be useful to cheat – but I doubt that it is useful throughout – and plays out nicely anyhow. (See my Faust post No. 178 above).

    I want to make it short now and ask you: Is it true, that the Trump voter is rather the regular guy (with on average lower IQ), and that the opposition against Trump is rather high IQ – and that this does not mean, that the Trump victory came for no good reasons and did not serve any reasonable purposes – whereas the higher IQ democratic coalition of the fringes might have, if successful – had some rather negative political consequences?

    (The same is true for Brexit, I’d say).

    Brexit & Trump might be two examples, that might make it reasonable to doubt, that higher IQ policies are necessarily more rational and better for society as a whole, even though they do make sense if seen from the (higher IQ Anywheres in the case of the Brexit).

    (Another example would be Wall Street 2008 ff. – a highly dysfunctional high IQ subprime mortgage business, which in the end hurt the lower and the middle classes severely – (cf. Matt Taibbi’s The Vampire Squid Strikes Again) and made the bankers richer even though, at the expense of pension funds and what not – the Chicago parking meter’s profits…

    What’s not part of the IQ debate are the costs a given society has to pay for its high IQ members. My feeling is, that those vary greatly in history and in different types of societies. A subject nobody tends to look into. You might find big differences if you’d compare Denmark in that hindsight – or Germany – and – the US.

    • Replies: @res
    @Dieter Kief


    I want to make it short now and ask you: Is it true, that the Trump voter is rather the regular guy (with on average lower IQ), and that the opposition against Trump is rather high IQ – and that this does not mean, that the Trump victory came for no good reasons and did not serve any reasonable purposes – whereas the higher IQ democratic coalition of the fringes might have, if successful – had some rather negative political consequences?
     
    I think it is a bit more complicated than that. I don't consider myself very knowledgeable here so will just offer some observations.
    - The coalition of the fringes is something of a high IQ + low IQ against the middle phenomenon. Steve talks about this fairly frequently.
    - I think the never/Trump fracture is actually more along education than IQ. But since those two are highly correlated...
    - I think the Trump victory showed the displeasure of working class whites. Whether or not that is a good reason I'll leave up to you.
    - Perhaps the best outcome of Trump winning is we did not get 4 (or more) years of Hillary. Also worth mentioning two Supreme Court justices (and counting?) along with additional judicial appointments. Whether or not that constitutes serving a reasonable purpose I'll leave up to you.
    , @Desiderius
    @Dieter Kief

    Trump voter with Trump promoter on left.

    https://twitter.com/calebqwash/status/1212149363885129731

    I think there was a study that showed that the real energy for Trump was from community leader/professionally successful/higher-IQ types who lived in proximity to those bearing the brunt of Globalism etc. who were concerned about the health of their communites/intitutions/regions.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  181. @kaganovitch
    @Jack D

    This is like saying that the laws of France are just because both the rich and the poor are equally free to sleep under the bridges of Paris.

    France's aphorism goes the other way round "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

    Replies: @Jack D

    I got mixed up because in Philly poor people do camp under bridges and the cops let them so it’s at least de facto legal. It’s a thing now for homeless people to have tents.

  182. @Dieter Kief
    My lumping together remark was not psychological, but rather technical. I do lump together and think rather associative; you could have almost read it as an excuse... So - no problem here on my side.

    I've read Rindermann's book and - praised it publicly. So - there's lots of common ground.


    The cheating capacity you mentioned is rarely mentioned otherwise - or buried completely in game-theory linen, which makes it look useful throughout. I don't doubt that it can be useful to cheat - but I doubt that it is useful throughout - and plays out nicely anyhow. (See my Faust post No. 178 above).

    I want to make it short now and ask you: Is it true, that the Trump voter is rather the regular guy (with on average lower IQ), and that the opposition against Trump is rather high IQ - and that this does not mean, that the Trump victory came for no good reasons and did not serve any reasonable purposes - whereas the higher IQ democratic coalition of the fringes might have, if successful - had some rather negative political consequences?

    (The same is true for Brexit, I'd say).

    Brexit & Trump might be two examples, that might make it reasonable to doubt, that higher IQ policies are necessarily more rational and better for society as a whole, even though they do make sense if seen from the (higher IQ Anywheres in the case of the Brexit).

    (Another example would be Wall Street 2008 ff. - a highly dysfunctional high IQ subprime mortgage business, which in the end hurt the lower and the middle classes severely - (cf. Matt Taibbi's The Vampire Squid Strikes Again) and made the bankers richer even though, at the expense of pension funds and what not - the Chicago parking meter's profits...

    What's not part of the IQ debate are the costs a given society has to pay for its high IQ members. My feeling is, that those vary greatly in history and in different types of societies. A subject nobody tends to look into. You might find big differences if you'd compare Denmark in that hindsight - or Germany - and - the US.

    Replies: @res, @Desiderius

    I want to make it short now and ask you: Is it true, that the Trump voter is rather the regular guy (with on average lower IQ), and that the opposition against Trump is rather high IQ – and that this does not mean, that the Trump victory came for no good reasons and did not serve any reasonable purposes – whereas the higher IQ democratic coalition of the fringes might have, if successful – had some rather negative political consequences?

    I think it is a bit more complicated than that. I don’t consider myself very knowledgeable here so will just offer some observations.
    – The coalition of the fringes is something of a high IQ + low IQ against the middle phenomenon. Steve talks about this fairly frequently.
    – I think the never/Trump fracture is actually more along education than IQ. But since those two are highly correlated…
    – I think the Trump victory showed the displeasure of working class whites. Whether or not that is a good reason I’ll leave up to you.
    – Perhaps the best outcome of Trump winning is we did not get 4 (or more) years of Hillary. Also worth mentioning two Supreme Court justices (and counting?) along with additional judicial appointments. Whether or not that constitutes serving a reasonable purpose I’ll leave up to you.

  183. @res
    @Desiderius

    Thanks for the kind words. I have plenty of flaws too. Some of them displayed all too obviously in this forum, some not ; /

    Most relevant to this conversation is that I think there are many high IQ (and even more fairly high IQ) people like that (the good things). They are just quietly working away in their jobs, spending time with their families, etc. They are not always in prestigious jobs either. How often does a construction crew have a guy (often a foreman) who is good at seeing the big picture and making sure things get done right? This usually gets credited simply to "good sense", but I suspect if you studied it IQ would play a part.

    A recent concrete personal example. I was in Home Depot the other day trying to get a question answered and having to talk to multiple employees. One employee pointed me to another sitting at a desk as a good person to talk to. During our conversation he quietly listened to me completely recite a 9 digit SKU then entered it into his computer. If you know anything about digit span you know what that implies (I usually break numbers into blocks of 3 or 4 when I recite them. He waited until I was done. It almost seemed like he was playing a game with himself.):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_span#Digit-span
    His name was Maury, which probably provides a clue ; )
    His calm, competent demeanor and immediate understanding of things I said was a breath of fresh air.

    The high potential flameouts get disproportionate attention. And even there, if you look more closely there are often good things as well as the bad.

    This by no means negates the presence of much high IQ "evil" in the world. In those cases I think of IQ as a force multiplier. Whatever you do, good or bad, it tends to make you better at it.

    P.S. Linda Gottfredson does some good work in this area. Here is one of her classics:
    Why g Matters: The Complexity of Everyday Life
    https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf
    And a 2005 followup chapter in the tribute to Arthur Jensen book:
    g, Jobs and Life
    http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2005g-jobs-life.pdf

    P.P.S. One reason I am biased towards high IQ people is it tends to help with communication in my experience. I assume you are familiar with the 2 SD "leader/communication" concepts we talk about here sometimes? Perhaps not literally true as hard thresholds, but some truth there IMHO.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Yeah, you’re not half bad for a star-bellied Sneech. Maybe when your work here is done we could send you into the wild to do something about the Blue Cheka on Twitter.

    Most relevant to this conversation is that I think there are many high IQ (and even more fairly high IQ) people like that (the good things). They are just quietly working away in their jobs, spending time with their families, etc.

    That is my sense as well, especially in an age like the present one. We’re like dark matter one can infer from the ineptitude of our putative elites.

    During our conversation he quietly listened to me completely recite a 9 digit SKU then entered it into his computer. If you know anything about digit span you know what that implies

    Decent (or better) intellect plus working with a lot of SKUs within a certain system reveals what batch of numbers tends to go with what so that those 9 digits are (much) less random to him than to you. Worked in inventory management first job with GE out of school. Other assignment there we had middle-aged men with eighth-grade educations doing advanced Deming-style sadistics. Practice and purpose go a long way.

    His calm, competent demeanor and immediate understanding of things I said was a breath of fresh air.

    Our new mailman is like that too. The end of the (internal) Brain Drain has had many salutary effects, one of which is a newfound appreciation for everyday jobs done well, both among those who have them and those who are served by them.

    I assume you are familiar with the 2 SD “leader/communication” concepts we talk about here sometimes?

    Absolutely. I had the benefit of a Montaigne-style early upbringing while my dad was in Nam, so I have a higher comfort level with skipping levels, but of course higher-level thinking is a thing and only higher-level thinkers are really going to be conversant with it. The problem one runs into is when the higher-level becomes detached from the others (flying into the Sun/head in the clouds), especially when one takes perverse pride in said detachment.

    g is great, but it’s not going to prevent you from being an asshole and reaping the whirlwinds that follow from that.

    Canonical texts:

    http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures

    http://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/published_works/ac/counter-enlightenment.pdf

  184. @Dieter Kief
    My lumping together remark was not psychological, but rather technical. I do lump together and think rather associative; you could have almost read it as an excuse... So - no problem here on my side.

    I've read Rindermann's book and - praised it publicly. So - there's lots of common ground.


    The cheating capacity you mentioned is rarely mentioned otherwise - or buried completely in game-theory linen, which makes it look useful throughout. I don't doubt that it can be useful to cheat - but I doubt that it is useful throughout - and plays out nicely anyhow. (See my Faust post No. 178 above).

    I want to make it short now and ask you: Is it true, that the Trump voter is rather the regular guy (with on average lower IQ), and that the opposition against Trump is rather high IQ - and that this does not mean, that the Trump victory came for no good reasons and did not serve any reasonable purposes - whereas the higher IQ democratic coalition of the fringes might have, if successful - had some rather negative political consequences?

    (The same is true for Brexit, I'd say).

    Brexit & Trump might be two examples, that might make it reasonable to doubt, that higher IQ policies are necessarily more rational and better for society as a whole, even though they do make sense if seen from the (higher IQ Anywheres in the case of the Brexit).

    (Another example would be Wall Street 2008 ff. - a highly dysfunctional high IQ subprime mortgage business, which in the end hurt the lower and the middle classes severely - (cf. Matt Taibbi's The Vampire Squid Strikes Again) and made the bankers richer even though, at the expense of pension funds and what not - the Chicago parking meter's profits...

    What's not part of the IQ debate are the costs a given society has to pay for its high IQ members. My feeling is, that those vary greatly in history and in different types of societies. A subject nobody tends to look into. You might find big differences if you'd compare Denmark in that hindsight - or Germany - and - the US.

    Replies: @res, @Desiderius

    Trump voter with Trump promoter on left.

    https://twitter.com/calebqwash/status/1212149363885129731

    I think there was a study that showed that the real energy for Trump was from community leader/professionally successful/higher-IQ types who lived in proximity to those bearing the brunt of Globalism etc. who were concerned about the health of their communites/intitutions/regions.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Desiderius

    I know that lots of Trump supporters were bright people and that there was some sort of coalition formed as shown in your post.

    But in plain numbers, those brighter than average who supported Hillary must have been much more than those who supported Trump - my feeling would be ca. 10:1 - they aren't doing that bad IQ wise at the NYT and the Wall St. Journal, etc.. - And the same would be true for Brexit, at least where I live and from what I encounter and hear. - As I said, I don't doubt, that the somewheres can make a point, that the Brexit, for example, would be in their interest. The EU bureaucracy is a Job-Machine for people from 120 or so on - all over Europe. Quite a few from my peer-group found their place there.

    What I doubt is, that this personal interest should be a measure for the greater societal good. I think the IQ debate lacks this societal perspective and that this is what helps to make the equation higher IQ = higher social outcome. at times, yes, but at other times - no.

    Another aspect that might be underrated is,that high IQ people are a societal stressor at times - that's the slots part Hal wrote about above.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  185. At the same time, abstractions can be valuable as well.

    What is valuable is the skillful integration of the concrete and abstract. The superpower of Jews and Americans.

  186. @Not Raul
    @Jane Plain

    I’m glad you brought that up, Jane.

    “Money lending” was never a primary source of income for more than a small minority of Jews in the Middle Ages. I’m sick of hearing pseudo-intellectuals drone on and on about how “Jews are smart cuz usury.” So inane!

    In the “Holy Roman Empire”, many of the richest bankers were Catholic, such as the Welser family, the Fugger family, the Bardi family, the Peruzzi family, and the Medici family.

    Replies: @HA, @HA

    After listing a large list of occupations for medieval Jews, Botticini and Eckstein state (p. 39):

    Starting in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Jews in France, England, Germany and northern and central Italy increasingly specialized in moneylending, to the point of becoming identified with this highly-skilled and profitable profession.

    There’s more detail throughout the book indicating the dispersal required to chase after these positions (indicating that — as noted — in significant sections of Europe, that is the trade they were identified with), but this was what was available in the preview section at Amazon. There’s also this:

    As well documented by Toch, the early medieval charters…confirmed that the Jews in Euyrope were permitted to own land and that a great number of them….possessed fields, gardens and venyards and owned, transferred and mortgaged landholdings. Had they wanted to, they could have been famers.

    Toch seems to be the key scholar who first began to dismantle the notion that Jews were somehow forced into usury due to limitations imposed by gentiles.

    No one is denying that there’s only so many moneylending slots, and if there were numerous sons, at some point they would have to find something else to do.

  187. @Old Palo Altan
    @Dieter Kief

    I was just about to say something like this, Dieter, when you beat me to it.

    I can add that it continued rather longer than your sources intimate: two direct ancestors of mine were born in Piedmont in the middle of the 16th century, one is even referred to in contemporary documents in the region they went to (the Netherlands) as "de lombart", and they were both "tafelhouders van leeninghe", i.e. money lenders and, inevitably, bankers. It seemed to be monopolistic: one of them held the post in Alkmaar, and bought the same position (while keeping the first) in two other towns nearby. Although they went to the northern Netherlands, they were Catholic, and one married into an important legal family which had remained Catholic at the same time as it had remained, too, something like hereditary advisors (Raadsheren) to the famously Protestant Princes of Orange.
    But then the Dutch have always been tolerant where money is concerned. As late as the 18th century the richest family in the very wealthy city of Amsterdam was Catholic.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Interesting!
    When I thought about these posts here this afternoon on the Reichenau, I wondered why the obvious distinction between lending money out for pawns vs. credits which are only backed by a contract over interest rates hadn’t been discussed here more deeply.

    I think that the Church made a useful (=wise) distinction here, which might have turned out to be quite beneficial because the structurally unlimited interest rates allow for much more risk (and societal tensions) in the money lending business then the pawn based version of it. This version is limited by its very nature and might have tamed the longing for ever more money, which is inherent in the structurally unlimited nature of the credit.

    Past wisdom isn’t that hard to grasp, but dire nonetheless. What can turn out to be really expensive at times is to ignore the – rational glow?! – of such examples of past wisdom.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    @Dieter Kief

    I can only agree, although at the same time protesting my utter ignorance of anything to do with finance.

    Do your cycling trips take you as far as Reichenau? I found it enchanting in summertime, but wonder what its attractions can be in mid-winter.

  188. @Dieter Kief
    @Old Palo Altan

    Interesting!
    When I thought about these posts here this afternoon on the Reichenau, I wondered why the obvious distinction between lending money out for pawns vs. credits which are only backed by a contract over interest rates hadn't been discussed here more deeply.

    I think that the Church made a useful (=wise) distinction here, which might have turned out to be quite beneficial because the structurally unlimited interest rates allow for much more risk (and societal tensions) in the money lending business then the pawn based version of it. This version is limited by its very nature and might have tamed the longing for ever more money, which is inherent in the structurally unlimited nature of the credit.

    Past wisdom isn't that hard to grasp, but dire nonetheless. What can turn out to be really expensive at times is to ignore the - rational glow?! - of such examples of past wisdom.

    Replies: @Old Palo Altan

    I can only agree, although at the same time protesting my utter ignorance of anything to do with finance.

    Do your cycling trips take you as far as Reichenau? I found it enchanting in summertime, but wonder what its attractions can be in mid-winter.

  189. @Desiderius
    @Dieter Kief

    Trump voter with Trump promoter on left.

    https://twitter.com/calebqwash/status/1212149363885129731

    I think there was a study that showed that the real energy for Trump was from community leader/professionally successful/higher-IQ types who lived in proximity to those bearing the brunt of Globalism etc. who were concerned about the health of their communites/intitutions/regions.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    I know that lots of Trump supporters were bright people and that there was some sort of coalition formed as shown in your post.

    But in plain numbers, those brighter than average who supported Hillary must have been much more than those who supported Trump – my feeling would be ca. 10:1 – they aren’t doing that bad IQ wise at the NYT and the Wall St. Journal, etc.. – And the same would be true for Brexit, at least where I live and from what I encounter and hear. – As I said, I don’t doubt, that the somewheres can make a point, that the Brexit, for example, would be in their interest. The EU bureaucracy is a Job-Machine for people from 120 or so on – all over Europe. Quite a few from my peer-group found their place there.

    What I doubt is, that this personal interest should be a measure for the greater societal good. I think the IQ debate lacks this societal perspective and that this is what helps to make the equation higher IQ = higher social outcome. at times, yes, but at other times – no.

    Another aspect that might be underrated is,that high IQ people are a societal stressor at times – that’s the slots part Hal wrote about above.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Dieter Kief

    You're vastly overestimating the (relative) size of your cohort. They have/had much greater influence than numbers.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  190. HA says:
    @Not Raul
    @Jane Plain

    I’m glad you brought that up, Jane.

    “Money lending” was never a primary source of income for more than a small minority of Jews in the Middle Ages. I’m sick of hearing pseudo-intellectuals drone on and on about how “Jews are smart cuz usury.” So inane!

    In the “Holy Roman Empire”, many of the richest bankers were Catholic, such as the Welser family, the Fugger family, the Bardi family, the Peruzzi family, and the Medici family.

    Replies: @HA, @HA

    Let me finish the previous comment by pointing out that no one is saying “usury made them smart, duh”. The B&E argument — as I understand it — is that the rabbi/Pharisee focus on literacy and scholarship — and the high costs associated with making that happen — had the effect of excluding small farmers from their rolls in the first few centuries after the destruction of the second temple. Moreover, literacy also gave them an edge in certain lucrative jobs — money-lending being a prime example — that, according to the history that is available, Jews sought out and became associated with (though never to the point of becoming a monopoly, and never without lots of cooperation from gentile rules). That’s basically it, in a nutshell. No one “became smarter” as a result, sadly. What happened was that the dumb ones (or poorer groups that were more likely to contain dumb people) were effectively filtered out over time.

    In response to this eminently plausible thesis, I’m seeing people trying to pull the same scam that Planned Parenthood tried to pull a few years ago by providing a list of “all their services” and then saying, see, abortion is only one of a pretty long list, so stop noticing it. No one with any sense bought that argument because no one pretends that the reason that Planned Parenthood exists (or is hated) is to provide pap smears or, or whatever. It’s the abortions that generate all the hatred and a major portion of the cash flow. Yes, of course, even moneylender Jews had to eventually find other jobs for their extra sons given that there’s only so many moneylenders you can have in one place, but that’s a deflection. The B&E argument (and again, this seems to originate not with them, and it’s no longer really controversial in academia) is that despite being just one occupation in long list that they enumerate, moneylending was a profession that in some Western European countries they willingly practiced “to the point of becoming identified with” it, as opposed to being something they were forced into doing by outside forces. Likewise, there’s a long list of occupations that the WorldZionistOrganization article I linked to about Jews in Russia enumerates, but it ends with the observation that “most [Jews] however, earned their livelihood by the sale of liquor.”. As in greater-than-50-percent. If anyone is outraged by that, take it up with the authors. Otherwise, stop pretending those were just two occupations out of many and are therefore in no way significant.

    Likewise, the Whataboutism regarding the Fuggers or the other bankers who came centuries later is a complete non sequitur, because as was previously noted those families like the Renaissance Italians who along with the Knights Templar, who were the bankers of the Crusades, managce to transform moneylending from what it had been in medieval times, though Jews no doubt played a role in that shift, too. In particular, they catered to qualified investors (i.e. royals) didn’t “exploit the poor” as both Jewish and Christian clerics would have phrased it back then (and the general consensus on interest had started to shift by then). Also note that other groups that DID make money off of the poor in medieval times — e.g. the Lombards — were likewise reviled, though apart from a line or two, B&E don’t spend any time comparing the resentment that different groups earned. (I recall, however, a sentence about how the Jews were sometimes able to obtain a special exemption from the usual moneylending restrictions, but they didn’t get into details.)

    Certainly there were other factors involved in making Judaism so focused on scholarship/literacy aside from economic ones — the Sadducees were mostly irrelevant once the temple was destroyed, the Zealots were wiped out by the Romans, and the Essenes seem to have up and disappeared somewhere along the line. And yes, economics is only one part of the story, and for all I know, maybe B&E over-emphasize it. I’m not qualified to assess that. But though they don’t mention IQ or genetics, their argument aligns pretty well with Cochran and Harpending (from what I can gather) and also the general observation that even today, it is the scholars who are the stars of the show in Orthodox Judaism.

    What B&E have added to the conversation is an accounting (so to speak) of the costs needed to make that scholarship/literacy happen (and to keep all those yeshivas functioning and to maintain that culture of learning), and also the tradeoffs that would have been required. That seems to be a large reason for the ample praise the book has generated. I should warn anyone who considers reading it, however, that it’s not a fun book, and kind of dry, actually, but the authors are economists, after all, so don’t expect this to be some action-packed thriller with cliffhanger endings in every chapter.

    To the extent all the detractors have to offer is straw-man arguments (where exactly did anyone, pseudo-intellectually or otherwise, claim that “literacy made ’em smart”?) and sputtering about anti-semitism, that simply shows that that they have nothing constructive in the way of a counter-argument. It’s also pretty clear that they’re flailing at a book they haven’t even bothered to read. That pretty much tells you all you need to know.

  191. @Dieter Kief
    @Desiderius

    I know that lots of Trump supporters were bright people and that there was some sort of coalition formed as shown in your post.

    But in plain numbers, those brighter than average who supported Hillary must have been much more than those who supported Trump - my feeling would be ca. 10:1 - they aren't doing that bad IQ wise at the NYT and the Wall St. Journal, etc.. - And the same would be true for Brexit, at least where I live and from what I encounter and hear. - As I said, I don't doubt, that the somewheres can make a point, that the Brexit, for example, would be in their interest. The EU bureaucracy is a Job-Machine for people from 120 or so on - all over Europe. Quite a few from my peer-group found their place there.

    What I doubt is, that this personal interest should be a measure for the greater societal good. I think the IQ debate lacks this societal perspective and that this is what helps to make the equation higher IQ = higher social outcome. at times, yes, but at other times - no.

    Another aspect that might be underrated is,that high IQ people are a societal stressor at times - that's the slots part Hal wrote about above.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    You’re vastly overestimating the (relative) size of your cohort. They have/had much greater influence than numbers.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Desiderius


    But in plain numbers, those brighter than average who supported Hillary must have been much more than those who supported Trump – my feeling would be ca. 10:1 – they aren’t doing that bad IQ wise at the NYT and the Wall St. Journal, etc..
     
    10:1 is just a feeling.***** But in Steve Sailer's coverage of the election campaign the fact that the megaphone was overwhelmingly held by Hillary-supporters (quite a few of them being bright, too) was a recurring standard theme.

    Matt Taibbi pointed out from his observations at the Trump campaign, that the brainier media crowd always mocked the Trump-supporters. He even made the point, that this perception was not wrong in itself, but that it led the media crowd into a self-overestimating echo-chamber so that they deafened themselves and couldn't do any longer what is their real purpose - instead of reporting the facts, they gave their readers and listeners the feeling of superiority about the dumb Trump-masses.

    If I might go back for a second to your remark, that skepticism would be good in this context: The root cause I see for this scepticism is, that the higher IQ crowd causes not only gains, but also societal costs - which can't be annihilated by an equation between the standard IQ-insights about brighter people being on average better off and living longer etc. here and Heiner Rindermann's findings about the progress that came along with Cognitive Capitalism.

    ****** I do hope that someone like Jonathan Haidt will have a close (methodologically sound) look at the real numbers. I haven't seen those so far. - Could be my fault.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  192. @Desiderius
    @Dieter Kief

    You're vastly overestimating the (relative) size of your cohort. They have/had much greater influence than numbers.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    But in plain numbers, those brighter than average who supported Hillary must have been much more than those who supported Trump – my feeling would be ca. 10:1 – they aren’t doing that bad IQ wise at the NYT and the Wall St. Journal, etc..

    10:1 is just a feeling.***** But in Steve Sailer’s coverage of the election campaign the fact that the megaphone was overwhelmingly held by Hillary-supporters (quite a few of them being bright, too) was a recurring standard theme.

    Matt Taibbi pointed out from his observations at the Trump campaign, that the brainier media crowd always mocked the Trump-supporters. He even made the point, that this perception was not wrong in itself, but that it led the media crowd into a self-overestimating echo-chamber so that they deafened themselves and couldn’t do any longer what is their real purpose – instead of reporting the facts, they gave their readers and listeners the feeling of superiority about the dumb Trump-masses.

    If I might go back for a second to your remark, that skepticism would be good in this context: The root cause I see for this scepticism is, that the higher IQ crowd causes not only gains, but also societal costs – which can’t be annihilated by an equation between the standard IQ-insights about brighter people being on average better off and living longer etc. here and Heiner Rindermann’s findings about the progress that came along with Cognitive Capitalism.

    ****** I do hope that someone like Jonathan Haidt will have a close (methodologically sound) look at the real numbers. I haven’t seen those so far. – Could be my fault.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Dieter Kief

    As res has noted most of the +2 SD and above crowd are sitting the whole thing out. The megaphony partisans are largely +1 SDs (or worse, see Blitzer on Jeopardy) who mistake themselves for +2 and +3 and so work themselves into all sorts of knots on that basis. My sense is that the +2.5 Odysseus true leader types are finally returning from (what? vidja? porn? foreign adventures? hyperlocalism? magical STEMland?) to reclaim their own, but that could just be my optimistic nature.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  193. @Dieter Kief
    @Desiderius


    But in plain numbers, those brighter than average who supported Hillary must have been much more than those who supported Trump – my feeling would be ca. 10:1 – they aren’t doing that bad IQ wise at the NYT and the Wall St. Journal, etc..
     
    10:1 is just a feeling.***** But in Steve Sailer's coverage of the election campaign the fact that the megaphone was overwhelmingly held by Hillary-supporters (quite a few of them being bright, too) was a recurring standard theme.

    Matt Taibbi pointed out from his observations at the Trump campaign, that the brainier media crowd always mocked the Trump-supporters. He even made the point, that this perception was not wrong in itself, but that it led the media crowd into a self-overestimating echo-chamber so that they deafened themselves and couldn't do any longer what is their real purpose - instead of reporting the facts, they gave their readers and listeners the feeling of superiority about the dumb Trump-masses.

    If I might go back for a second to your remark, that skepticism would be good in this context: The root cause I see for this scepticism is, that the higher IQ crowd causes not only gains, but also societal costs - which can't be annihilated by an equation between the standard IQ-insights about brighter people being on average better off and living longer etc. here and Heiner Rindermann's findings about the progress that came along with Cognitive Capitalism.

    ****** I do hope that someone like Jonathan Haidt will have a close (methodologically sound) look at the real numbers. I haven't seen those so far. - Could be my fault.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    As res has noted most of the +2 SD and above crowd are sitting the whole thing out. The megaphony partisans are largely +1 SDs (or worse, see Blitzer on Jeopardy) who mistake themselves for +2 and +3 and so work themselves into all sorts of knots on that basis. My sense is that the +2.5 Odysseus true leader types are finally returning from (what? vidja? porn? foreign adventures? hyperlocalism? magical STEMland?) to reclaim their own, but that could just be my optimistic nature.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Desiderius

    I remember that the staff of the NYT, for example, is - just like that of the Wall St. Journal 140+ on average- (as the Clintons might be too, btw.). - You do the math. And we all know what these papers stood for.

    Haidt says that 80+ % of the humanities professors (even at elite institutions) are liberals - that sure implies some of the Odysseuses.

    Then there' s the rather spergy 3 std.+ crowd - guys who just don't engage in politics and all that jazz... because they contemplate the Riemann-Thomann model or the by their very nature limitless limitations of Quantum-physics whithin the boundaries of sub-atom particles which in their models form quasi-wavelike surfaces that allow for a position to get a hold on the the wave-particle interaction etc. (I admit, I just made this stuff up. Today I read in Der Spiegel, that there are women in physics, who reject the big-bang theory and tend to prefer a big-bonding model (this now is no joke - that's what somebody in Der Spiegel No. 1, 2020 wrote - and if only to make Sigmund Freud laugh in the heavens above...).

    A last point, then I'll go back to Jean Paul's unsurpassable***** Ideengewimmel - When Trump was enough to make a difference, what good are all the highest IQ-supermen in the closet? I mean, I know that there is the rather bright Stephen Miller in the White House and that Dominic Cummings had been working for Brexit and is now a Boris Johnson aide - and I'm fine with that. - Cummings has a quite interesting blog, btw.

    ***** He who is not able to please the living should not be allowed to mourn the dead. No. 996, P. 170 in the 1996 edition of Ideengewimmel not translated as of yet = a great opportunity for somebody in the US to make a major contribution to the strengthening of the American Mind.

    (Jean Paul once remarked that he does not bother much to learn languages - I, he continued, usually start reading in any kind of book, whatever the language and - after a while reach a point, where I can figure out what it all means; - as so often with Jean Paul, you can't really say how serious he was)***.

    *** But that implies, a) that you can't definitely rule out, that he was not serious. - Being serious might a') not have prevented him from deceiving himself (and others...) - I'd agree on that!

    Replies: @Desiderius, @anon

  194. @Desiderius
    @Dieter Kief

    As res has noted most of the +2 SD and above crowd are sitting the whole thing out. The megaphony partisans are largely +1 SDs (or worse, see Blitzer on Jeopardy) who mistake themselves for +2 and +3 and so work themselves into all sorts of knots on that basis. My sense is that the +2.5 Odysseus true leader types are finally returning from (what? vidja? porn? foreign adventures? hyperlocalism? magical STEMland?) to reclaim their own, but that could just be my optimistic nature.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    I remember that the staff of the NYT, for example, is – just like that of the Wall St. Journal 140+ on average– (as the Clintons might be too, btw.). – You do the math. And we all know what these papers stood for.

    Haidt says that 80+ % of the humanities professors (even at elite institutions) are liberals – that sure implies some of the Odysseuses.

    Then there’ s the rather spergy 3 std.+ crowd – guys who just don’t engage in politics and all that jazz… because they contemplate the Riemann-Thomann model or the by their very nature limitless limitations of Quantum-physics whithin the boundaries of sub-atom particles which in their models form quasi-wavelike surfaces that allow for a position to get a hold on the the wave-particle interaction etc. (I admit, I just made this stuff up. Today I read in Der Spiegel, that there are women in physics, who reject the big-bang theory and tend to prefer a big-bonding model (this now is no joke – that’s what somebody in Der Spiegel No. 1, 2020 wrote – and if only to make Sigmund Freud laugh in the heavens above…).

    A last point, then I’ll go back to Jean Paul’s unsurpassable***** Ideengewimmel – When Trump was enough to make a difference, what good are all the highest IQ-supermen in the closet? I mean, I know that there is the rather bright Stephen Miller in the White House and that Dominic Cummings had been working for Brexit and is now a Boris Johnson aide – and I’m fine with that. – Cummings has a quite interesting blog, btw.

    ***** He who is not able to please the living should not be allowed to mourn the dead. No. 996, P. 170 in the 1996 edition of Ideengewimmel not translated as of yet = a great opportunity for somebody in the US to make a major contribution to the strengthening of the American Mind.

    (Jean Paul once remarked that he does not bother much to learn languages – I, he continued, usually start reading in any kind of book, whatever the language and – after a while reach a point, where I can figure out what it all means; – as so often with Jean Paul, you can’t really say how serious he was)***.

    *** But that implies, a) that you can’t definitely rule out, that he was not serious. – Being serious might a’) not have prevented him from deceiving himself (and others…) – I’d agree on that!

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Dieter Kief

    To the extent it is only 80% it is due to the 20% keeping their heads down, as going by party affiliation or whatnot it is now effectively 100%, and that to which they're required to pledge allegiance is scarcely liberal. Few if any Odysseus types in that crowd. Perhaps an odd Nestor.

    As for the 140s at the WSJ et al. You've got the Strassels here and there who do good work, and even at the Times, as with Wikipedia, there is still much worth reading if one avoids the "controversial," which may be by intention. g also can't make up for the lethal combination of poor character and maleducation, and the education piece was already a disaster when I was trying in vain to find a decent syllabi in the early 00's Ivy.

    , @anon
    @Dieter Kief

    I remember that the staff of the NYT, for example, is – just like that of the Wall St. Journal 140+ on average–

    Where do you remember that from? Did you see their SAT's, or their Mensa apps, or what?

    Pinch Sulzberger never released his SAT's. Prudent.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

  195. @Dieter Kief
    @Desiderius

    I remember that the staff of the NYT, for example, is - just like that of the Wall St. Journal 140+ on average- (as the Clintons might be too, btw.). - You do the math. And we all know what these papers stood for.

    Haidt says that 80+ % of the humanities professors (even at elite institutions) are liberals - that sure implies some of the Odysseuses.

    Then there' s the rather spergy 3 std.+ crowd - guys who just don't engage in politics and all that jazz... because they contemplate the Riemann-Thomann model or the by their very nature limitless limitations of Quantum-physics whithin the boundaries of sub-atom particles which in their models form quasi-wavelike surfaces that allow for a position to get a hold on the the wave-particle interaction etc. (I admit, I just made this stuff up. Today I read in Der Spiegel, that there are women in physics, who reject the big-bang theory and tend to prefer a big-bonding model (this now is no joke - that's what somebody in Der Spiegel No. 1, 2020 wrote - and if only to make Sigmund Freud laugh in the heavens above...).

    A last point, then I'll go back to Jean Paul's unsurpassable***** Ideengewimmel - When Trump was enough to make a difference, what good are all the highest IQ-supermen in the closet? I mean, I know that there is the rather bright Stephen Miller in the White House and that Dominic Cummings had been working for Brexit and is now a Boris Johnson aide - and I'm fine with that. - Cummings has a quite interesting blog, btw.

    ***** He who is not able to please the living should not be allowed to mourn the dead. No. 996, P. 170 in the 1996 edition of Ideengewimmel not translated as of yet = a great opportunity for somebody in the US to make a major contribution to the strengthening of the American Mind.

    (Jean Paul once remarked that he does not bother much to learn languages - I, he continued, usually start reading in any kind of book, whatever the language and - after a while reach a point, where I can figure out what it all means; - as so often with Jean Paul, you can't really say how serious he was)***.

    *** But that implies, a) that you can't definitely rule out, that he was not serious. - Being serious might a') not have prevented him from deceiving himself (and others...) - I'd agree on that!

    Replies: @Desiderius, @anon

    To the extent it is only 80% it is due to the 20% keeping their heads down, as going by party affiliation or whatnot it is now effectively 100%, and that to which they’re required to pledge allegiance is scarcely liberal. Few if any Odysseus types in that crowd. Perhaps an odd Nestor.

    As for the 140s at the WSJ et al. You’ve got the Strassels here and there who do good work, and even at the Times, as with Wikipedia, there is still much worth reading if one avoids the “controversial,” which may be by intention. g also can’t make up for the lethal combination of poor character and maleducation, and the education piece was already a disaster when I was trying in vain to find a decent syllabi in the early 00’s Ivy.

  196. @Dieter Kief
    @Desiderius

    I remember that the staff of the NYT, for example, is - just like that of the Wall St. Journal 140+ on average- (as the Clintons might be too, btw.). - You do the math. And we all know what these papers stood for.

    Haidt says that 80+ % of the humanities professors (even at elite institutions) are liberals - that sure implies some of the Odysseuses.

    Then there' s the rather spergy 3 std.+ crowd - guys who just don't engage in politics and all that jazz... because they contemplate the Riemann-Thomann model or the by their very nature limitless limitations of Quantum-physics whithin the boundaries of sub-atom particles which in their models form quasi-wavelike surfaces that allow for a position to get a hold on the the wave-particle interaction etc. (I admit, I just made this stuff up. Today I read in Der Spiegel, that there are women in physics, who reject the big-bang theory and tend to prefer a big-bonding model (this now is no joke - that's what somebody in Der Spiegel No. 1, 2020 wrote - and if only to make Sigmund Freud laugh in the heavens above...).

    A last point, then I'll go back to Jean Paul's unsurpassable***** Ideengewimmel - When Trump was enough to make a difference, what good are all the highest IQ-supermen in the closet? I mean, I know that there is the rather bright Stephen Miller in the White House and that Dominic Cummings had been working for Brexit and is now a Boris Johnson aide - and I'm fine with that. - Cummings has a quite interesting blog, btw.

    ***** He who is not able to please the living should not be allowed to mourn the dead. No. 996, P. 170 in the 1996 edition of Ideengewimmel not translated as of yet = a great opportunity for somebody in the US to make a major contribution to the strengthening of the American Mind.

    (Jean Paul once remarked that he does not bother much to learn languages - I, he continued, usually start reading in any kind of book, whatever the language and - after a while reach a point, where I can figure out what it all means; - as so often with Jean Paul, you can't really say how serious he was)***.

    *** But that implies, a) that you can't definitely rule out, that he was not serious. - Being serious might a') not have prevented him from deceiving himself (and others...) - I'd agree on that!

    Replies: @Desiderius, @anon

    I remember that the staff of the NYT, for example, is – just like that of the Wall St. Journal 140+ on average–

    Where do you remember that from? Did you see their SAT’s, or their Mensa apps, or what?

    Pinch Sulzberger never released his SAT’s. Prudent.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @anon

    Help me I think I'm falling - - - I've read it here, on iSteve. I thought that that is common knowledge? The on average highest IQ staff writers can be found at the New York Times, the Washington Post - The Wall Street Journal and - now I hesitate: The New Yorker and - ? - The Atlantic Monthly - if I remember right. Didn't find the Steve Sailer Post. Times and Wall St. Journal at or around 140.

  197. @anon
    @Dieter Kief

    I remember that the staff of the NYT, for example, is – just like that of the Wall St. Journal 140+ on average–

    Where do you remember that from? Did you see their SAT's, or their Mensa apps, or what?

    Pinch Sulzberger never released his SAT's. Prudent.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Help me I think I’m falling – – – I’ve read it here, on iSteve. I thought that that is common knowledge? The on average highest IQ staff writers can be found at the New York Times, the Washington Post – The Wall Street Journal and – now I hesitate: The New Yorker and – ? – The Atlantic Monthly – if I remember right. Didn’t find the Steve Sailer Post. Times and Wall St. Journal at or around 140.

  198. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

    The on average highest IQ staff writers can be found at the New York Times, the Washington Post – The Wall Street Journal and – now I hesitate: The New Yorker and – ? – The Atlantic Monthly – if I remember right.

    Ti Nehishi Coates, is that you?

    Didn’t find the Steve Sailer Post. Times and Wall St. Journal at or around 140.

    Yet they do not act like it. Many of these people write as if they are still in high school or mid high. They fall for scam after scam, they are hugely gullible and incapable of even “google it” level research.

    Plus the provincialism! It’s as if that New Yorker cover from years ago is their actual worldview.

    When the WSJ became more and more a fashion publication rather than a financial paper I quit reading it. People with 140 IQ’s should not make logic errors on a near-daily basis, and should hardly ever botch grammar or spelling. Yet when I subject myself to the Bezos blog or the Times such errors are painfully obvious.

    I don’t see it. Rather, I see midrange 110-115 mediocrities who couldn’t get a degree in anything other than journalism or advertising, who are forever currying favor with the “cool kidz” during STUGO meetings.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @anon

    Isn't it Ta Nehisi Coates? I mean - since you mentioned the spelling?

    I don't say that they act reasonably because they are IQ-wise quite a bit above average at the Wall St Journal or the NYT. As a matter of fact, my point here was opposed to that notion. But maybe you don't care much either way. You don't have to, of course - I'm fine with that too.

  199. @anon
    The on average highest IQ staff writers can be found at the New York Times, the Washington Post – The Wall Street Journal and – now I hesitate: The New Yorker and – ? – The Atlantic Monthly – if I remember right.

    Ti Nehishi Coates, is that you?

    Didn’t find the Steve Sailer Post. Times and Wall St. Journal at or around 140.

    Yet they do not act like it. Many of these people write as if they are still in high school or mid high. They fall for scam after scam, they are hugely gullible and incapable of even "google it" level research.

    Plus the provincialism! It's as if that New Yorker cover from years ago is their actual worldview.

    When the WSJ became more and more a fashion publication rather than a financial paper I quit reading it. People with 140 IQ's should not make logic errors on a near-daily basis, and should hardly ever botch grammar or spelling. Yet when I subject myself to the Bezos blog or the Times such errors are painfully obvious.

    I don't see it. Rather, I see midrange 110-115 mediocrities who couldn't get a degree in anything other than journalism or advertising, who are forever currying favor with the "cool kidz" during STUGO meetings.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Isn’t it Ta Nehisi Coates? I mean – since you mentioned the spelling?

    I don’t say that they act reasonably because they are IQ-wise quite a bit above average at the Wall St Journal or the NYT. As a matter of fact, my point here was opposed to that notion. But maybe you don’t care much either way. You don’t have to, of course – I’m fine with that too.

  200. anon[380] • Disclaimer says:

    Isn’t it Ta Nehisi Coates? I mean – since you mentioned the spelling?

    You are correct. It is Tada Genius Kotex. My error.

    I don’t claim an IQ of 140, nor am I being paid to do this, why would you hold me to the ultra-high standards of the Bezos blog journo-lists?

    I don’t say that they act reasonably because they are IQ-wise quite a bit above average at the Wall St Journal or the NYT. As a matter of fact, my point here was opposed to that notion.

    I’ve been in workplaces with people who really were in the 140 IQ range, and the scribblers of journo-list cannot even hope to compare. Not verbally, not abstractly, not in terms of spatial visualization. People who really have a 140 IQ are not stumped by an elementary syllogism, and can walk through a multi-link logical argument. People who work for the Bezos blog or the Wall Street Fashionista fail at both, repeatedly. “Guns cause crime!”, “Stop and frisk is rayciss”, “blank slate”, the list goes on.

    If the SAT still contained analogies they’d fail that section. They are stupid. They are incurious. They can’t do research at the High School level. They have a megaphone because of these properties, because they can be fooled and ordered around, not because of some alleged high intelligence. I have not seen any evidence of anything above the general “gentleman’s C degree in liberal arts”. Nor have you shown me any.

    But I get it, I should ignore my lying eyes / ears / brain and just believe whatever you say. Right?

    But maybe you don’t care much either way. You don’t have to, of course – I’m fine with that too.

    Does Matty Yglesias show evidence of an IQ of 140? If so, what does that evidence look like?

    Anyway, I’m not fond of liars, so as a general rule I dislike American journo-lists. They are stupid and we should laugh at them whenever possible.

  201. Perhaps I’ve been hasty. The Twitter timeline of noted NY Times history expert N. Hanna Jones, aka Ida Bae Wells, who has a significant role in the 1619 history retconning project, is certainly worth reading. Nothing says “high IQ educated person” like a public spat with Andrew Sullivan over penis size, I’m sure.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS