Wow, I never knew Montaigne's mother was Jewish. And he has had such an enormous influence on all subsequent thought.

Ah, just checked wiki. Of Spanish extraction and raised Protestant. Still though, Montaigne and Spinoza, such central figures in western thought. Wasn't Montaigne the first to systematically humanize 'the other'?

Does this say more about the intelligence of Jews or European populations ?.Since professions run in families I wouldn't be surprised ,like other professions,science produces noble prize winners from the same class/families and begins to exclude other outsiders like many other professions.Hence in the future almost all the prize winners would be Jewish.If we had a Noble prize for politics how many european jews would be awarded the prize?

Wasn't Montaigne the first to systematically humanize 'the other'?

i think that's a stretch :-) montaigne was one of the first to grapple with the ramifications of the natives of the new world....

The first is the fully realized conceptualization of monotheism, expressed through one of the literary treasures of the world, the Hebrew Bible. It not only laid the foundation for three great religions but, as Thomas Cahill describes in The Gifts of the Jews (1998), introduced a way of looking at the meaning of human life and the nature of history that defines core elements of the modern sensibility. The second achievement is not often treated as a Jewish one but clearly is: Christian theology expressed through the New Testament, an accomplishment that has spilled into every aspect of Western civilization.

i am kind of confused by this (or more precisely, i think this is just wrong). we know who the church fathers who shaped christian theology were. to my knowledge, origen, athanasius, gregory of nazianzus, etc. were not christians of jewish origin. christian theology seems pretty clearly something for which the greek cultural matrix was necessary, and the prime driver. amongst the church fathers the theologians are even invariably greek speakers (latin speakers such as augustine can be considered an exception, but his work is wide ranging and not focused on theology like origen, for example). obviously the jews get some of the credit for being the source of the basic religious ideas, but, there were jews around while christian theology was being developed, but they were apart from it, and it seems that later judaism (e.g., the theology of maimonides) shows the same influence of greek philosophy after a period of acculturation.

as for the first, this is much more defensible. but, anyone who knows about the origin of judaism between the 10th and 2th centuries also knows that the influence of zoroastrian religious ideas were likely critical. so the issue is not as clear cut as charles would make it, though it is quite miraculous that an obscure people could produce a book like the hebrew bible which we cherish to this day.

Since professions run in families I wouldn't be surprised

this fails to explain the explosion of european jews between 1800 and 1900 onto the intellectual scene after emancipation and partial assimilation allowed them entrance to classical professions (some of which, like medicine, they overwhelmed).

I have trouble sharing the sentiment that the Old Testament is a work of unique high genius. Mormons reflexively assert the same thing about the Book of Mormon which, unsurprisingly, reads like it was written by a half-literate farm boy. (Oh, wait, but everybody just knows the Mormons are wacky)

Conservatives gush about the unique beauty/wisdom of the bible because they are conservative, not because of any objectively demonstrated properties of the ancient collection. I'm content to see historical circumstance as the reason Europeans came to value the theology of this particular tribe. The C-H-H theory requires no ancient amendments.

Augustine argued that the subpar literature of the Bible was what made it most attractive. Humble etc.

as for the first, this is much more defensible. but, anyone who knows about the origin of judaism between the 10th and 2th centuries also knows that the influence of zoroastrian religious ideas were likely critical. so the issue is not as clear cut as charles would make it, though it is quite miraculous that an obscure people could produce a book like the hebrew bible which we cherish to this day.

Zoroastrianism is not considered fully realized monotheism?

His point about low IQ Jews falling away from the religion is exactly what I argued previously.
The simple way to test this is to check the percentage of the the Polish and surrounding area populations that have Jewish specific mtDNA.

Keil,

Pharaoh Akhenaten was the first know promoter of monotheism - it's interesting that Moses is supposed to have lived during his reign. My theory is that the people who fled Egypt during this time, led by Moses or not, did so as a result of religious persecution, but they may just have been Egyptian monotheists who settled in ancient Canaan, among the Jews, and evangelized them.

I have trouble sharing the sentiment that the Old Testament is a work of unique high genius.

well, i won't dispute the unique part. the stories of the old testament are no more genius (to my eye) than the epic poems of homer, or the indian mythological cycles. i also share the general skepticism of assessing the hebrew bible as a literary feat of magnificent scope, e.g., think leviticus and numbers. that being said, that assessment is more subjective then pointing out the human penchant for supernatural narrative and showing the production of other ancient peoples (some whom saw their mythologies preserved in the hebrew bible!).

Zoroastrianism is not considered fully realized monotheism?

this is debatable. part of the problem is that modern zoroastrians tend to emphasize that their religion is monotheistic to a greater extent than some scholars believe warranted, and they believe this is due to the

a) islamic rule, where the contention that they were monotheists gave them protection against

b) the parsi encounter with european christian thought, which resulted in attempts to make zoroastrianism more similar to christianity. the same process can be seen among hindus, some of whom argue that "people don't know that hinduism is really monotheistic...."

Surely you have to judge individual books, not the whole thing. Genesis isn't the same kind of book as Job, which isn't the same thing as Chronicles or Kings, which isn't the same thing as the Psalms.

In English, I'd say that as literature, King James Version of the bible was indeed a work of genuine genius. I'm not sure it means that the English were God's chosen people, though I guess they, like everyone, believed themselves to be.

If you buy the Overclocking theory, it's really easy to see why Jews removed from the strong influence of intelligence on fitness would have lost a lot of their advantages--the genes that improved intelligence also imposed big fitness costs, like having your baby die at one year old from Tay-Sacks.

Murray is wrong, of course. Non-Ashkenazi Jews do not have high IQ scores today: see Lynn and David. Nor is there the slightest sign that that Jews were sharper than average in Classical times: not one single paragraph in preserved classical literature suggests that anyone had that impression. Nor did the Byzantines.

Murray has not made a close study of the available history, he has ignored available psychometric results, and is oblivious to the genetic data - even though I told him about all those things. The mutations that look like IQ boosters - for example the sphingolipid mutations - are pretty much confined to the Ashkenazi.

Genetic isolation is a precondition for this kind of selection and I can imagine that it happened in some Jewish group other than the Ashkenazi. The Iberian Jews, if anyone. The same is true for them having mostly urban occupations - it's a precondition. But that shift hadn't happened at all by Classical times - it began hundreds of years later and was only more-or-less complete by 800 AD. And only among the Ashkenazi was there a shift to (almost entirely) white-collar jobs. And the effects of any such selection among non-Ashkenazi Jews clearly no longer exist: look at the psychometrics and the occupation/educational pattern in Israel.

Since the average IQ in England is probably higher than that of non-Ashkenazi Jews, will Murray next become a British Israelite?

On the other hand, I guess he did a reasonable job of reporting our work.

One other point: the mutations that look like boosters are mostly new (~1000 years old) as well as being confined to the Ashkenazim.

gcocharan:

Is there any evidence that these were rare genes in surrounding populations that got picked up by the Jews? Those genes would have had one fitness among gentiles, another among Jews in the specific circumstances you describe.

Do you have a sense of whether there are other mutations that didn't have a genetic disease or other fitness cost associated with them, that also got driven to high levels or fixation among Jews? It seems like easily-reached mutations that gave costless improvements in intelligence would have already been driven to fixation in whatever population had them.

albatross,

It's interesting that Ashkenaz was the Hebrew name for Germany, and the Ashkenazim emerged in the Germanic lands of Central Europe, later moving East to Poland. It's also interesting that according to Lynn the Germans, Dutch and Polish population have the highest IQ's in Europe - is there a connection? I'd say yes, that the early Jewish male-mediated settlements, picked up some of their high IQ genes from Central European women.

gcochran,

I think your theory explains much, however as I commented previously, I think some of the diseases you included, like Tay-Sachs, probably provide some protection against diseases propagated by living in high density squalor - like TB. The infection rate is 1 in 250 among non-Jews, 1 in 50 among Irish and 1 in 27 among Ashkenazim and Cajuns.

I dislike big apostates and I cannot lie;
You other imams cannot deny;
When a girl walks in with her niqab displaced
I want a suicide belt around my waist

It's also interesting that according to Lynn the Germans, Dutch and Polish population have the highest IQ's in Europe

No, you're probably thinking of the Buj study. IQ & Global Inequality lists the IQ of Germany and Poland as 99 (same as Sweden and Finland) and the Netherlands as 100 (same as Norway and Britain).

I think there's a lot to be said for IQ, but it's a bit of a stretch to take seriously the difference between 99 and 100. Whereas 115 vs 100 - that difference must surely be larger than measurement error.

You are correct. The intention was that Lynn's data show those populations are not unique in IQ for that region of Europe.

"Nor is there the slightest sign that that Jews were sharper than average in Classical times"

True, but proves too much. The Ashkenazi Jews themselves were nothing special before the late 18th century. As I've pointed out before, until then it was the Sephardim, of Spanish and Portuguese descent, who were the Jewish intellectual and commercial elite.

gcochran

Is there any evidence to suggest that the higher Ashkenazi IQ has anything to do with the local female population? According to this page, "many Jewish populations are related to neighboring non-Jewish groups maternally". Could the Ashkenazi recent arrivals have married the more intelligent local women?

LH

"The Ashkenazi Jews themselves were nothing special before the late 18th century. As I've pointed out before, until then it was the Sephardim, of Spanish and Portuguese descent, who were the Jewish intellectual and commercial elite."

Yep, and the entirely-Ashkenazi Hasidim are nothing special intellectually *now* - they disdain modern science and any other secular knowledge as "epikoros" - heresy. Clearly, having a 115 median IQ (if indeed they do - has anyone checked?) is merely a prerequisite to intellectual achievement, and not its only requirement.

Simply having the neurons doesn't create the will to use them. Productively anyway.

(AFAIK, Robert Aumann is the only great Ortho Jewish scientist. Any others? The Hasidim and Ultra-Os are entirely bereft of scientists. Corrections welcomed.)

My Diana, what bigotry!

Genetically you'd want to count first-generation fallen-away Orthodox and Hasidic scientists under the "Orthodox" umbrella.

A Google finds an "Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists" which is about what you'd expect.

John, by that line of reasoning all A-Jews are descended from fallen-aways. My point is that here you have a fairly large pool of A-Jews...and near-zero scientific productivity. They believe in creationism. So clearly having the intellect doesn't by force of the neurons impel one towards scientific achievement.

Add emoticons if you want me to get your jokes. :)

His point about low IQ Jews falling away from the religion is exactly what I argued previously.
The simple way to test this is to check the percentage of the the Polish and surrounding area populations that have Jewish specific mtDNA

From what I've seen not much has been detected. I would think that it would be more likely that male Jews of lesser intelligence would be more likely to leave and be absorbed by the surrounding community than females.

I'm also curious as to what impact the rules regarding who a Jew is, which follows the maternal line, and what the requirements were for converting to Judaism may have in elevating Ashkenazi IQ. By having 'Jewishness' handed down along the maternal line among patrilinear peoples is a clever way of increasing the number of the group and possibly selected who will be a member of the group.

If a Jewish women were to marry a non-Jew, then by definition their children would be Jews; however, if a Jewish man were to marry a non-Jew, her children would likely be seen as a Jew by the non-Jewish community. Either way, the children of a mixed marriage would likely be absorbed into the Jewish community, but the key would be who could convert and who couldn't. I would think this had a positive selective effect on Jewish groups. Only the ablest gentiles were able to convert to Judaism.

From the little I've read of I.B. Singer, Jewish males seemed to have a thing for Polish females who they would dream of rescuing from Polish males, who were often depicted as drunken, slobbering and stupid, but that having a non-Jew accepted into (thru ultimately conversion) the Jewish community was no easy task.

however, if a Jewish man were to marry a non-Jew, her children would likely be seen as a Jew by the non-Jewish community.

Likely? I don't know how the things were in the past, but only recently I heard (from the girl in question) about a case when Jewish family strongly disagreed with a love affair of their son and that Gentile girl because it "would make their grandchildren non-Jews". And the young man then ended the relationship.

Some people at Sailer's blog are claiming that Sephardics have the same IQs as Arabs. Is that right?

Some people at Sailer's blog are claiming that Sephardics have the same IQs as Arabs. Is that right?

Sephardic IQ in Israel is around 85-90, while outside of Israel it's around 100. The same gap is seen with Ashkenazi, with Israeli Ashkenazi IQ at around 100, and non-Israeli IQ is over 110. In other words, for Jews, Israel reduces your IQ by more than 10 points.

Arab IQ is similar to Israeli Sephardic IQ (Lebanon:86, Egypt:83, Iraq:87)

Brandon,

Has Conchran et al ever fully address the giant IQ discrepancy between European Ashkenazim vs Israeli Ashkenazim? Or for that matter with European Sephardim vs Israeli Sephardim?

There's a lot more going on here than genetics.

Also, do they acknowledge Lynn's estimates on Ashkenazic IQ?

There's also a pretty flipping obvious mass-extinction sort of event to deal with, w.r.t. current Ashkenazi intelligence. It would be really interesting to see how much of an impact intelligence, personality, health, etc., had on the decision to either emigrate from Europe in the century or so before the holocaust, or to get out in the years just before the holocaust, when you could see that things were headed south for Jews.

I was here at GNXP as a participant for about two weeks back in June 2005. I submitted a response to the Cochran/Harpending paper, immediately after its publication was announced. We had several threads going at once, including one on a brief essay that I submitted to Razib, which made an argument almost identical to the one Murray is making here. Those were some heated discussions, weren't they?

To Charles Murray's generally excellent essay, I would like to add one more point.

Expulsion and migration is like a form of musical chairs. Any time that Jewish populations are expelled from one place, entire households are forced to migrate to new communities. European rulers provided charters for Jewish communities that restricted the number of families, that required payment of high lump sum taxes by the community as a whole.

Jews who had valuable literacy skills and could serve as importers, skilled artisans, manufacturers, merchants, administrators and tax farmers for estates, moneylenders and financiers, and so forth were easily able to find new communities where new rulers would welcome them.

Expulsion from England, France, Spain, Portugal, or some German or Italian principality, as happened so many times from the 13th to 16th centuries, gave a selective advantage to the most capable Jews. The most capable manage to find new homes and continue practicing Judaism, while others fall away.

In the 16th and 17th centuries, many Conversos (secret Jews of Spain and Portugal) slipped away from the Iberian Peninsula and returned to Judaism in the Netherlands, England, Italy, and other countries. Of course, they were the ones that had the skills and the means to do so, to find new careers and occupations in new countries.

One of the most capable European rulers in the 15th century was the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, who welcomed Jews expelled from the Iberian Peninsula to his lands almost the way a big Silicon Valley company goes job recruiting at Stanford and Berkeley.

Human migration is very selective, and the kinds of migrations that were forced upon Jews of the Middle Ages and Early Modern periods helped to produce the present day Jewish population. Those who had commercial and financial skills were more likely to migrate successfully, to find new communities where they could continue to live as Jews.

I don't think I with the thesis of Howard above: "The most capable manage to find new homes and continue practicing Judaism, while others fall away."

There is every evidence throughout history that the majority of Jews over time assimilated and converted and most did so without bing forced to. The entire core meme within our history against things Greek derives entirely from the fact that most of us became Greek due to its intellectual and cultural advantages.

At the same time one cannot ignore the basic fact that we are blinded by the idea that Judaism is not a proselytizing religion/culture. Historically it has been profoundly so.

By the Way Howard, during the Ottoman conquest the Ottomans had killed hundreds of thousands of Jews who were already living and practicing Judaism though the late Byzantine Empire. More Jews were killed in Salonica in 1430 when the Ottomans scourged the city than were imported by the "enlightened" Sultan. Those imported by the Sultan did not become an elite in any way. They were more likely than anything to be hard laborers at the ports whose commerce and wealth was dominated by Greeks and Armenians (anther Ottoman conquest irony)