What if Jews are just better?

[Trausti]

Jews in pre-modern Europe faced significant discrimination. They could not own land. They were excluded from the trades. In many places they were confined to ghettos. But they could be money changers. They could engaged in mental/financial occupations. Over centuries this selected for high intelligence. Such that, when the Jews became free to leave the ghettos, the Rothschilds controlled Europe’s finances. Jews are wildly overrepresented with Nobel prizes and on the list of the world’s wealthiest. While creationists and Lysenkoists reject that humans are animals subject to natural selection, Nature doesn’t care about their feelings.

People are certainly subject to natural selection, but I don't see you present any research backing up your claim.

So in your view, parents don't pass their genes on to their children?

 

[rousseau]

Jews in pre-modern Europe faced significant discrimination. They could not own land. They were excluded from the trades. In many places they were confined to ghettos. But they could be money changers. They could engaged in mental/financial occupations. Over centuries this selected for high intelligence. Such that, when the Jews became free to leave the ghettos, the Rothschilds controlled Europe’s finances. Jews are wildly overrepresented with Nobel prizes and on the list of the world’s wealthiest. While creationists and Lysenkoists reject that humans are animals subject to natural selection, Nature doesn’t care about their feelings.

People are certainly subject to natural selection, but I don't see you present any research backing up your claim.

So in your view, parents don't pass their genes on to their children?

I didn't present any particular view. I suggested that if you're going to make a grand claim, you should attempt to prove it as true. Neither Repoman or Metaphor have done that - they've just stated what they believe is true with no supporting evidence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jews in pre-modern Europe faced significant discrimination. They could not own land. They were excluded from the trades. In many places they were confined to ghettos. But they could be money changers. They could engaged in mental/financial occupations. Over centuries this selected for high intelligence. Such that, when the Jews became free to leave the ghettos, the Rothschilds controlled Europe’s finances. Jews are wildly overrepresented with Nobel prizes and on the list of the world’s wealthiest. While creationists and Lysenkoists reject that humans are animals subject to natural selection, Nature doesn’t care about their feelings.

People are certainly subject to natural selection, but I don't see you present any research backing up your claim.

I'd presume it'd be pretty difficult, because evolution doesn't exactly work that​ quickly. Is there a comedian gene?

 

[Politesse]

In the fait accompli critical theory..

I have never heard of this school? They must be pretty damn obscure.

Eh, the impression is that the modern progressive left eschews any biological explanation for human group differences. Even individual differences.

Who advocates that position?

 

[fromderinside]

Uh, they aren't facts. They seem to be what Metaphor considers socially digestible hand waves in search of nonexistent data to support them. I haven't seen operational support for the following terms (see bolded) in first paragraph of OP, Nor do I think I shall.

In the fait accompli critical theory, postmodern, equity "understanding" of society, all groups are equal in all relevant respects, and so if there are disparate outcomes, it's because society has done something (bad) to cause groups to have differential outcomes. This is accepted without question by the modern left, even though no proof is ever offered *. It's certainly the case that people more accomplished than I have been fired for saying far less than I did in my 'what if men are just better?' thread.

* (Note: nor are you offering any here)

 

[Trausti]

So in your view, parents don't pass their genes on to their children?

I didn't present any particular view. I suggested that if you're going to make a grand claim, you should attempt to prove it as true. Neither Repoman or Metaphor have done that - they've just stated what they believe is true with no supporting evidence.

Okay.

Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence

 

[Trausti]

Jews in pre-modern Europe faced significant discrimination. They could not own land. They were excluded from the trades. In many places they were confined to ghettos. But they could be money changers. They could engaged in mental/financial occupations. Over centuries this selected for high intelligence. Such that, when the Jews became free to leave the ghettos, the Rothschilds controlled Europe’s finances. Jews are wildly overrepresented with Nobel prizes and on the list of the world’s wealthiest. While creationists and Lysenkoists reject that humans are animals subject to natural selection, Nature doesn’t care about their feelings.

People are certainly subject to natural selection, but I don't see you present any research backing up your claim.

I'd presume it'd be pretty difficult, because evolution doesn't exactly work that​ quickly. Is there a comedian gene?

Says who?

 

[rousseau]

So in your view, parents don't pass their genes on to their children?

I didn't present any particular view. I suggested that if you're going to make a grand claim, you should attempt to prove it as true. Neither Repoman or Metaphor have done that - they've just stated what they believe is true with no supporting evidence.

Okay.

Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence

Without diving into the paper, this certainly gets us closer to an actual argument.

 

[Trausti]

Okay.

Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence

Without diving into the paper, this certainly gets us closer to an actual argument.

If a population group is under selective pressure, and only those in the population group that can survive the selective pressure are able to reproduce, why would it be so surprising that the selective traits would eventually dominate that population group?

Physiological and Genetic Adaptations to Diving in Sea Nomads

The indigenous Bajau people (“Sea Nomads”) of Southeast Asia live a subsistence lifestyle based on breath-hold diving and are renowned for their extraordinary breath-holding abilities. However, it is unknown whether this has a genetic basis. Using a comparative genomic study, we show that natural selection on genetic variants in the PDE10A gene have increased spleen size in the Bajau, providing them with a larger reservoir of oxygenated red blood cells.

But evolution doesn't work that quickly!

 

[steve_bank]

U- fucking-believable. What utter nonsense.

 

[Politesse]

If a population group is under selective pressure, and only those in the population group that can survive the selective pressure are able to reproduce, why would it be so surprising that the selective traits would eventually dominate that population group?

Physiological and Genetic Adaptations to Diving in Sea Nomads

The indigenous Bajau people (“Sea Nomads”) of Southeast Asia live a subsistence lifestyle based on breath-hold diving and are renowned for their extraordinary breath-holding abilities. However, it is unknown whether this has a genetic basis. Using a comparative genomic study, we show that natural selection on genetic variants in the PDE10A gene have increased spleen size in the Bajau, providing them with a larger reservoir of oxygenated red blood cells.

But evolution doesn't work that quickly!

Actual population genetics studies aren't relevant to the analysis of folk taxonomies of race.

 

[laughing dog]

The author is putatively taking what they believe to the "fait compli" critical theory and applying it to Jews in an attempt to lampoon the theory and its adherent. The OP author is not taking their argument seriously.

Add that there is no rigorous definition or explanation of "fait compli" theory nor links to it and the author's established history of straw man attacks on "theories" which discomfort him, there is no reason to the take the OP seriously.

 

[rousseau]

If a population group is under selective pressure, and only those the population group that can survive the selective pressure are able to reproduce, why would it be so surprising that those with the selective traits would eventually dominate that population group?

Physiological and Genetic Adaptations to Diving in Sea Nomads

The indigenous Bajau people (“Sea Nomads”) of Southeast Asia live a subsistence lifestyle based on breath-hold diving and are renowned for their extraordinary breath-holding abilities. However, it is unknown whether this has a genetic basis. Using a comparative genomic study, we show that natural selection on genetic variants in the PDE10A gene have increased spleen size in the Bajau, providing them with a larger reservoir of oxygenated red blood cells.

But evolution doesn't work that quickly!

You're arguing with the wrong person. I have no qualms with the process of selective pressure and it's effects, I just prefer strong claims to be backed up with evidence before I accept them.

As mentioned, your paper gets us closer, but a proper treatment of this question would look at the entire body of research done on the topic and present an argument that is multi-faceted, and which accounts for both genetic and social influences. There is a kind of irony to those in the thread calling out the far-left for eschewing biological explanations, and then themselves failing to say absolutely anything about social processes, or social complexity. It is possible to not look at the issue as a binary.

And further than that, what does the phrase Jews are better mean in a broader, global context? People who follow the Jewish tradition are incredibly diverse, so it's likely that even if some sub-groups of them were pressured into higher IQ, that there are other groups which were not, which makes the phrase Jews are better meaningless, it's a broad, vague generalization that says nothing about what is an incredibly diverse topic.

And that points us to why if we want to talk about the topic we need to see the entire body of research from a professional, and form a thesis based on what we find. Not just handpick a paper about IQ and generalize about millions of people.

 

[starwater]

In the fait accompli critical theory, postmodern, equity "understanding" of society, all groups are equal in all relevant respects, and so if there are disparate outcomes, it's because society has done something (bad) to cause groups to have differential outcomes. This is accepted without question by the modern left, even though no proof is ever offered. It's certainly the case that people more accomplished than I have been fired for saying far less than I did in my 'what if men are just better?' thread.

Although I predict this thread to have a similar outcome as that one (that is, the people who categorically believe that nearly all relevant differences between men and women is due to social conditioning and/or discrimination, continuing to believe that), I nevertheless want to float another idea, and probably an idea that won't be too popular with the antisemitic left:

Jews are just better at almost every human endeavour (except, I think, sporting/athletic achievement).

What do I mean by this? I mean, for a group that is less than 0.2% of the world population, and 2% of the American population, Jewish achievement is staggeringly disproportionate to its population. Twenty percent of Nobel prize winners are Jewish, (and probably more if Jewish ancestry is considered more broadly). A quarter of Fields medallists (the highest prize in Mathematics) are Jewish.

The success is not confined merely to sciences; Jewish talent is staggeringly abundant in the arts as well. More than a third of Academy Award Best Director trophies went to Jewish directors; more than two-thirds of Tony-award winning composers and lyricists are Jewish. Jewish comedians number among the most successful of all time. Jewish achievement in politics and finance and economics and industry and medicine and literature are widely known.

In the first half of the twentieth century, American universities had quotas to keep out the allegedly 'feeble minded' Jewish population. No doubt similar quotas apply today under 'diversity' initiatives.

I think that Jewish success is partly--or perhaps mostly--explained by higher than average intelligence in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. But explaining differential success between groups as partly dependent on intelligence is anathema to the left. It is forbidden. It is verboten.

The only thing that can explain Jewish success relative to other groups is Jewish privilege. Jews are not just white-adjacent. They must be superwhites.

Mazel tov

Again another of Metaphor's posts in Political Discussions that has nothing to do with politics.

 

[Metaphor]

In the fait accompli critical theory..

I have never heard of this school? They must be pretty damn obscure.

It's an adjective for critical theory in general.

 

[Metaphor]

I didn't think it was possible to get more than twenty or thirty strawmen in the first paragraph of an OP. Silly me.

Try listing one.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor you haven't presented an argument, you've presented a bunch of facts without any context, and so there's no reason to believe that Jews are better based on what you've included in the OP.

To actually make this argument you'd likely need to do years and years of research, or at least link to someone who has already done so. Until that time I don't see any reason to believe the claim.

To believe what claim? The claim about Jewish achievement, or the claim that Jewish achievement is at least partly explained by higher Jewish intelligence?

 

[Metaphor]

I saw Bret Weinstein say there are vanishingly small difference in genetic cognitive abilities. But it looked like he was lying. Of all the third rails he is already stepping on, he probably knows better than to take on the final boss third rail.

All of his good work will be destroyed. I don't think I am be dramatic here. He would be seen as a Stefan Molyneux.

You would absolutely be correct that his views would be immediately dismissed and he personally would be demonized further.

 

[Metaphor]

Uh, they aren't facts. They seem to be what Metaphor considers socially digestible hand waves in search of nonexistent data to support them. I haven't seen operational support for the following terms (see bolded) in first paragraph of OP, Nor do I think I shall.

In the fait accompli critical theory, postmodern, equity "understanding" of society, all groups are equal in all relevant respects, and so if there are disparate outcomes, it's because society has done something (bad) to cause groups to have differential outcomes. This is accepted without question by the modern left, even though no proof is ever offered *. It's certainly the case that people more accomplished than I have been fired for saying far less than I did in my 'what if men are just better?' thread.

* (Note: nor are you offering any here)

You need only observe the changes to and output from American academia to see that this is true. Wage gaps between the sexes and races are instantly identified as the result of disparate treatment, for example.

 

[steve_bank]

I gre up in 50s-60s hearing slurs and sterotypes form relatives and other kids.

There are positive and negative stereotypes both of which are distortions.

One I heard from an uncle. if you want a lawyer get a Jew, they are naturally devious.

All forms of stereotypes are harmful.

We all know whites have no rhythm and blacks are only good at sports....