Image:
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
Although the Holocaust was propelled by charges that Jews were genetically inferior to Aryans, a new study in the Journal of Biosocial Science published online in June supports the opposite notion: Ashkenazi Jews may be genetically predisposed to higher intelligence.
In the past, powerful figures, including Adolf Hitler, manipulated pseudoscientific ideas to fuel prejudice. But legitimate biological techniques now allow researchers to identify the functions of specific genes. Gregory Coch-ran, the infamous independent evolutionary biologist who in 1992 proposed that homo-sexuality is caused by an infectious disease, has teamed up with anthropologists Henry Harpending and Jason Hardy of the University of Utah. They claim that Ashkenazi Jews--an ethnic group that includes physicist Albert Einstein, psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud and composer Gustav Mahler--are more intelligent because of genetic mutation.
"People would like every group to be exactly the same," Cochran says, "but they're not." The study claims that intelligence evolved in this genetically isolated population because, historically, Ashkenazim had cognitively demanding occupations such as financiers and merchants. Prowess in these fields provided prosperity and, so the theory goes, more success in reproduction. Thus, the "IQ gene" passed down through generations.
At the same time, the researchers noted that genetic diseases common to the group, including Tay-Sachs and Gaucher's, result from increased levels of a chemical that also promotes neuronal growth. After assessing the genetic clustering of mutant genes and correlating these with IQ scores, the researchers contend that the genetic diseases are linked to a propensity for greater intelligence. The survival edge conferred by higher IQs in the group makes up for individual penalties from the diseases.
Most scientists insist that cultural factors play critical roles in the development of a person's intelligence. But Cochran is convinced that across generations, a person's environment is insignificant compared with strong biological factors. "As genetics marches on, there are a lot of things people think are cultural, and they're turning out not to be," he says.
The sordid history of mixing genetics, ethnicity and intellect guarantees a spotlight on this work. But only time and rigorous research will tell if genes are the most important factor in conferring smarts.
See what we're tweeting about
29 Comments
Add Comment"gene for intelligence"? soon we are again going to be killing off and "sterilizing" those people who "do not have a good enough genotype". I refuse to witness this horror, even if it means committing suicide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHistory repeats itself. that is all I can say...
Eugenics again...
:(
--
Edited by paperwaster24 at 05/02/2008 1:43 PM
Exactly how many IQ points does this genetic twist confer to Jews?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTen IQ points may make a slight difference, but that difference is more than offest by having parents that tell you they'd die of shame if you dropped out of school.
Half of the student body in Harvard is either Asian or Jewish. I don't think that's a genetic factor. I think it's the product of cultures that place special emphasis on study and hard work.
Oh yes, that tired old race/ethnicity-intelligence argument again! But what are we talking about anyway? Nobody really knows what "intelligence" is. The people who want to assign more of it to certain social groups as opposed to others think it means the ability to achieve a high score on an IQ test. A very narrow definition indeed, but convenient if you want to justify the status quo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a lot of things...including better genes due to selective breeding and an environment that values success.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAND, if you don't think that there are inherent differences between the races...you're living in the manufactured dreamworld created by the liberals. There is FAR more than just skin color differences. These arguments keep coming up because people SEE the vast differences in success rates between the races. You can't convince smart people that something is red when they clearly see it's blue. Likewise you can't convince them that some group is "equal" when they can clearly see they are not.
You can "blame" their lack of success on me...white people...or you can look for the REAL reason they fail more than others. I say it's their genetics AND their home environment. The same thing that makes other races more successful.
So, how are you going to "do it"? Pills? Hanging? I wouldn't waste MY life for them...
"So, how are you going to "do it"? Pills? Hanging? I wouldn't waste MY life for them..."--quoted from post by joerocker
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat exactly are you proposing that we "do" via pills or hanging, joerocker? I'm asking because that sounds uncomfortably close to the line separating genuine dialogue from Nazi-type "final solution" talk, and I wanted to give you a chance to clarify it before I report it as abuse.
The facts are that the concept of race is purely a social construct with no biological validity, and that the IQ test measures a very narrow spectrum of cognitive abilities.
That last line was for paperwaster24, he said he would commit suicide before having to deal with racial differences. It was not directed toward any race or class of people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHad that finger on the "report abuse" button didn't you? Typical...squelch that speech! If it doesn't agree with the PC current view...squash it!
joerocker, if I'd "had my finger on the abuse button" the report would have gone already. but, as noted, I wanted to give you a chance to clarify it, which you did, so my finger remains nowhere near the abuse button, as it has been since I read your post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI notice you didn't address my substantive point, preferring instead to smear me as some sort of PC abuse patrol.
You mean THIS question?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe facts are that the concept of race is purely a social construct with no biological validity, and that the IQ test measures a very narrow spectrum of cognitive abilities.
Come on...be serious. Skin color, hair type, eye shape, nose shape, and those are just the OUTWARD differences between the races. What is REALLY a "purely social construct" is that the races are equal, THIS has no biological validity. The different races are not only physically different, they're also physiologically different internally. Different races suffer different diseases too. There is MUCH more different between the races than just what meets the eye. MUCH more... But "socially" we can't talk about it. Imagine the consequences if science declared blacks to be intellectually inferior. We can't have that right? So, we have a "social construct with no biological validity" and we declare everyone equal...in every way...even though we all "know" it's not true. Look anywhere in the world and blacks are at the bottom of any ranking. Now you tell me...ARE they equal?
Is that what you wanted to hear? Still close to the abuse button? I'm not advocating anything against blacks or any other race. I'm simply stating what I know as facts and those facts don't match up with a "social construct with no biological validity" that's all.
As for the comment about being the PC patrol...if you had read CAREFULLY what I had typed, you'd have been able to figure it out. I referenced that I wouldn't give up MY life...an obvious reference to the poster 1 or 2 posts above.who mentioned suicide to avoid talking about race. OK?
well, joerocker, i can cite numerous scientists from a wide variety of fields, including anthropology, biology, psychology, the neurosciences. . . which would you like? what evidence do you have for your view, or is it just common [non]sense? also, you still haven't replied to my point about the narrowness of the IQ test.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisas to the "abuse patrol" issue, it wasn't clear to me that you were referring to the previous post, because i hadn't seen it at that point. others i know who read your post but hadn't seen the previous one had the same reaction as i did.
What evidence do I have? Look around... Anywhere in the world the "white people live" is a "nice place to live". Agreed? Europe, the US, Canada, Australia. All white. Doesn't that tell you something?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe same scientists who had homosexuality removed from the list of psychiatric disorders? Do you REALLY trust the politically motivated scientists? Who do you think pays for research these days...the government and special interests.
How about the ultimate IQ test...the ability to survive without governmental handouts...
Hmmm. Europe wasn't such a great place to live until pretty recently, once its rulers decided to stop playing mutual mass murder games after their most horrifying iteration in the 3rd Reich. The U.S., Canada, and Australia only became "white" once the land was taken at gunpoint from those who lived there. I don't know how that discomforting fact fits into the discussion of "intellligence" but it certainly is thuggish behavior to say the least, and if that is what comes with intelligence I think we would all better off without it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"How about the ultimate IQ test...the ability to survive without governmental handouts...": by that measure all of our major corporations must be pretty dumb, since corporate welfare dwarfs all social spending in the U.S. by several orders of magnitude. Anyway, the truth is that, worldwide, most people who are not white are not only surviving without government handouts but on less than $2/day. Not too well, of course, but they are at least making it from one day to the next, so I guess that makes them smarter than you! And in the U.S., welfare for human persons [as opposed to the corporate variety] has been virtually eliminated, unlike the mortgage interest and real estate tax deductions, for example.
Yes, I DO trust scientists, at least those who are not funded by corporations. I think the scientific method is far more reliable than one's own perceptions filtered through biases, self-interest, and ignorance. You and I will never agree on anything, I fear. Removing homosexuality from the list of psychiatric disorders was in my view only the right thing to do. I am acquainted with and/or related to several gays and lesbians, and they certainly are no more psychiatrically disordered than anyone else I know.
And Africa STILL isn't a nice place to live.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou fail to mention all that the "white technology" has brought. Without the "white technology" you wouldn't be sitting there in front on your computer, in your comfy house, driving your car, watching TV, the list goes on and on. Or...would you rather that none of that was invented...by the "white culture". None of this "cool stuff" came from Africa, Asia, or the Indians did it? If we (white people) didn't take over...we'd still be living in huts and digging for roots and grubs. Not what "I" want. Thuggish or not...we're living better now than at any other time. You can thank the whites for that.
So, you compare a corporation which is NOT a living person to actual people? I don't see the connection. How can a business be compared to a person? I guess you didn't have any REAL comparisons and couldn't find ANY retort to my statement so you tried to divert our attention to something that doesn't make any sense.
The ultimate IQ test in MY opinion is how well you live your life. And the ultimate IQ test for an entire people is how well they, as a group, survive in the world. Whites have done quite well. Others...not so well. Would you suggest another way to judge intelligence other than how prosperous you can make your life? Smart people live better than stupid people. Agreed?
So, you think that I am not doing as well as that example you cited...$2 a day? I assure you...I'm living on much better...orders of magnitude better to be exact. You're really being quite silly. You're argument makes you look...well, not quite as intelligent...
Most...if not ALL research being done is sponsored by corporations or the government. Many times 2 or more studies are done concurrently and the one that most fits what the sponsor is looking for gets publicized. You're again not showing much intelligence if you believe ANYTHING is unbiased.
You can see my bias, why not theirs? They hide theirs better and it takes more intelligence to see through it. So you and you're ilk may never be able to see it without help from people like me who are here to help you to see the truth in things.
Gay people are NORMAL? Hmmm...an animal that fruitlessly tries to mate with a partner it's own sex is normal? I don't think so. The gay agenda is the same as the minority agenda. It's LIES to get you to accept them as normal/equal.
Sorry to burst your bubble...
You ARE correct about one thing...we MAY never agree. You still believe in Santa Clause, I don't anymore. You still believe in the propaganda, I don't. Open your eyes and look around...and really SEE what is happening out there...
Getting back to the OP...Jews are into bettering themselves and future generations, they've evolved through selective breeding offspring with higher intelligence than your typical minority who seems to spend more time picking out new wheels for their POS car than they do deciding whom to have children with. Agreed?
OK, I can only handle one ridiculous notion right now as time is limited, so will only take on the gays issue. I'll be back later for the rest. So you think that sex is wrong unless it is with the intention of conceiving? Should elderly people be allowed to have sex? Or, I suppose we should zero in on menopausal women, since men technically can fertilize an egg at any age. So isn't that nice, once women are in or past menopause, no sex for them, so the old men who are presumably their partners will have to go after YOUR wife. What about couples in which one or both are infertile? Are they also psychiatrically disordered if they have sex? How about disabled people who physically can't engage in penis-to-vaginal sex? Maybe that's why Christopher Reeve is dead, because he and his wife had figured out some other way to have some pleasure and intimacy and God struck him down! It was just gay propaganda that told us his death was due to pressure sores. Face it, joerocker, you're a dinosaur. No one under 40 cares about sexual orientation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou've got it all backwards...it's NOT the ACT of sex that is important, it's WANTING to have sex with the SAME sex that is abnormal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMen and women are ATTRACTED to each other sexually because it's in the genes, it's hardwired into your brain to want sex ONLY with women. You're PROGRAMMED to find sexually attractive "womanly" features.
A brain that is hardwired to have sex with the same sex...is malformed.
It's like breathing, eating, drinking...you're hardwired to do it...you HAVE to do it. Sex is the same way...if you're NORMAL you HAVE to do it with the OPPOSITE sex.
A man does NOTHING for me sexually, neither do many ethnic women. I consider most black women as appealing as a man...not appealing at all. It's nature looking out for me, not having me waste time on a fruitless endeavor.
How could a "scientist" see sexual behavior any other way? Any sexual behavior that is not geared toward reproduction is not normal...and therefore abnormal. Political forces have had homosexuality removed for lists of disorders...wrongly so.
Do you understand it's the ATTRACTION that is abnormal? Would you consider sexual attraction between an old man and a schoolgirl abnormal? How about a young boy and an old grandmother? A man and a baby girl? A man and another man? Don't you see that ALL of these are abnormal but one has been "accepted"?
You're line is simply being drawn in a different place than mine.
Oh, yes, I'm over 40. My views are a LOT different than yours. Maybe you should admit your mistakes and come around to "our" point of view. Just look what you've done with the world we've given you... Everything "WE" built, you're allowing to go to crap...
Forget the "everyone's equal" BS and realize that everyone and every group have different talents...capitalize on those differences...don't keep going down the path of mediocrity just so some people can keep up...
I await your response to the other points too...
OK, I think I've got it now, homosexuality is a thoughtcrime! BTW I think it is interesting that you appear to be assuming I am a man. For the record, I will neither confirm nor deny this rumor, and I don't care about your ethnosexual preferences either [but would observe that perhaps you doth protest too much]. Regarding your speculations about man-baby girl sex, old man-schoolgirl sex, grandmother-young boy sex, what concerns me about these is the harm to children. Sex between consenting adults is strictly their business and "normal" has nothing to do with it. Another concept that nobody really knows what it means. You also appear to assume I'm under 40. Actually, I'm 52. Just evolving a little faster than average, I guess.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNext! "So, you compare a corporation which is NOT a living person to actual people? I don't see the connection. How can a business be compared to a person? I guess you didn't have any REAL comparisons and couldn't find ANY retort to my statement so you tried to divert our attention to something that doesn't make any sense." Here, you are unfortunately displaying your ignorance. Under American law, corporations are considered "legal persons" with all the rights of human persons. The custodian at my job has a plaque on his wall that states he refuses to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. I feel the same, so check out these websites and then we can talk: http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=183
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood.
If Africa still isn't a nice place to live, that can be traced to the fact that its economies are being bled dry through odious debts incurred by dictators, who stole the money while America and much of Europe pretended not to notice. So, instead of spending money on infrastructure development, schools, healthcare, etc. they are being compelled to send it to American and European banks while children are dying.
Again, time is limited, gotta go. I do have one question: if you are so distrustful of science, why are you reading Scientific American?
I guess the truth is starting to feel rather uncomfortable. As I noted in my previous post, the gentleman doth protest too much. They do say that it is the men who trumpet their straightness the loudest are the most likely to be latent gays. I guess this will be the last word in that case. Too bad. I was really starting to enjoy this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, so it appears you don't want to legislate homosexuality away, but merely want a return to the days of considering gays and lesbians to be "abnormal", whatever that means. A small step towards pluralism and generosity of spirit! I commend you for that, joerocker. And fare thee well. May you resolve the contradictions raging beneath the surface and live a serene and peaceful life.
I think he may want it recriminalised so he can feel dirty when he does it =D
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith all due respect, Joerocker's views are a great example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Simply put, there are so many confounding factors that have resulted in the current state of the various races on earth, that to draw conclusions (or imply conclusions via hypotheses) between race and some other variable such as intelligence is misleading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour superficial observations on race, and sexuality for that matter, are arcane. You have a very simplistic view of the world where everything is black and white (pardon the pun). The reality is that nothing is that simple; to determine a relationship between, say, race and intelligence would require several things that we simply do not nor will ever have access to, such as:
- An equal starting point for all the races, including climate, food supply, social environment/history, etc.
- An intelligence measure that is not culturally biased.
- An agreement on what forms of "smarts" constitute intelligence (e.g., math vs memory vs creativity vs comprehension etc.).
It's amusing to see that whenever someone proposes a link between race and intelligence, there are always people that chime in and say, "Of course there's a link!" when in fact there's no way to know this, there's lots of contradictory evidence, and even if a difference between races could be established, tracing the difference back to genetics (as opposed to other factors) would be nearly impossible.
Mike
Look at the great overview that the APA has done on intelligence. It confirms that genes and the environment both contribute. Not unlike breeds of dogs and their intelligence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, when comparing across races we cannot tease out which factors contribute to differences because races exist in different social environments (shaped by history etc.). The only possible way we could compare across races would be if we could randomly switch brains and bodies and see how well each "race" of brain did averaged out against how their "racial" appearance was treated. This is because races have preconceived ideas about each other and these perceptions can be self-fulfilling prophecies.
As to the notion that "race" does not exist - there are certainly more differences within races then between them. But the mean differences between them tell a lot about the abilities of a group. For example, the Inuit proportionally are shorter and have shorter limbs then the thin long-limbed African Masai. Which one would you assume would be better at adapting to a hot climate? The concept of race gives us predictive strength. Sickle-cell anemia co-evolved with malaria morbidity and only affects certain races. None of these gene distributions is clear-cut but the predictive quality of knowing about race is tremendously important for medical diagnostics. To think that the abilities of the mind would not follow the rules of natural selection seems non-scientific and political. Anecdotally, everyone in reality considers race a useful way of characterizing people. And in fact, race is used when we discover skulls, as "races" have different ratio of genes for things like tooth formation (see sinodonty).
Race matters in areas such as Harvard or Yale - academic institutions that collect the far right tip of the distribution of intelligence. If all races' IQs (a measure of academic ability) are plotted as a standard distribution curve and we see small mean differences between the "bells"- say only 5 points - that still means that although the majority of the populations overlap, the top 5% would almost entirely come from the population that has a mean of only 5 points higher. The tail exists un-overlapped.
Due to nature OR nurture, with real differences in population means you would expect that when you sample elite groups - in sports or academics - you will not see a random sampling of all the contingent populations, but a concentration of the population that has the highest mean in that area (assuming the standard deviations are similar).
"Ashkenazi Jews may be genetically predisposed to higher intelligence." Possibly true, but then their culture myst have dumbed them down a bit, because it would appear they still believe in a great lawgiver and enforcer in the sky.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCochran is completely right when he says that Ashkenazi have a more than average hard-wired intelligence. This proposition is so simple that it should be self-evident to anyone not bogged down in idealist humbug.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand he, or whoever, is wrong when says that national socialist Germans persecuted Jews because of their supposed mental inferiority. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Germans knew very well that Jews were more than a match for them and acted accordingly.
And beware, it's all the Jews who are mentally superior, not just the Ashkenazi. In classical times there was no trace of them and nonetheless Jews were elbowing to take control of the world, just as they do today. As you may know, you can't control the world if you are not mentally superior
Joerocker and Norichka, I loved reading your back-and-forth posts. A nice, lively discussion held in a generally amicable way. Thanks very much to you both.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe irony is that Jewish secularism was "invented" by Spinoza. Also, the first Jews in USA were Sephardic. The laws of Judaism have been compiled by Jews of Arab countries for the past 4,000 years, without exception. I think that the predisposition of Ashkenazim towards secular studies was, in fact, inherited from their journeys in Europe. Europeans (Newton, Heisenberg, Plank, ect) are known for their command of modern science-not just Ashkenazim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt could be that the survival of the fittest rule has been applied to jews as they've been forced to move from place to place over the centuries, constantly adapting and needing to succede quickly in order to survive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo succede in this endevor would require, amongst other things (such as intelligence), some good habits. These are are transmitted to children through education and upbringing. Considering how jews are much closer and exclusive as a group compared to other social-cultural groups, it could be that optimal habits have been passed down from generation to generation. Because the group is so close, these habits then are not shared with the rest of humanity and are left for the "privileged" jews.
Besides WWII and ancient egypt, the jews have been a rejected group throughout history and all around the world. For example, the messenger of Islam, the prophet Mohamed, evicted the Jews of Medinah (in Saudi Arabia) and killed many hundreds of the dissident jews. This shows that the Jews were more exposed to the survival of the fittest rule than other groups.
There is also probablity that the continuous movement of the jewish group to new places increased the risks they were facing. For instance, they are amongst the first to move west in the USA, thats why they're so dominant the move industry. The risks in fact were so much higher for them than the rest of humanity that the "weaker" couldnt survive, or reproduce. With a classic application of the "Survival of the fittest" rule, the stronger live and pass down their genes, making the jewish gene pool superior to others, at least in that respect.
Combined with the good habits, qnd the "higher quality gene pool"; the "exclusivity" of the group creates a stronger and more frequent interaction with other group members. This increases the fraternal love present amongst and between the jewish community members, provding a rich social network.
A recent "Scientific American Mind" article discussed how having strong and diverse social networks actually increases intelligence and general well being. In the end, this could be the reason why the jewish community provided us with brilliant minds in diverse fields throughout history, like Einstein and Spielberg.
With the internet and tools such as facebook we can increase the brotherly love between us. By seeking a constant flow of information from and to our loved ones, we enrich our social circles and better ourselves, by being smarter, nicer, and more at peace with ourselves.
joerocker: Everybody knows that there is great physiological differences between humans. No one disputes that. The only thing people dispute is the notion that these differences justify a hierarchical order between humans. So yes there is massive differences between blacks and whites but to say that either blacks or whites are a superior species is like saying a Doberman is a superior dog to a German Shepard: It's pointless. And it doesn't take that much of intelligence to understand that. Which, thank God supports the notion that not all whites are idiots because you are...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNature and nurture interact and reinforce each other. But nature comes first. No one, including a liberal, can gainsay that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read the article as well as the comments on here. I sensed many different things and most of it is all inaccurate. Everyone is intelligent because intelligence is linked to survival. This article was wrong by saying "Although the Holocaust was propelled by charges that Jews were genetically "inferior" to Aryans, a new study in the Journal of Biosocial Science published online in June "supports the opposite notion": Ashkenazi Jews may be genetically predisposed to higher intelligence." No one is superior to any other person no matter how many pseudo-science reports are published. Yes, certain survival traits can be passed down but that doesn't mean that just because one person is literate and the other isn't that he/she is more intelligent. They may possess advantages in that area but it is nothing that can't be taught and applied. Now to the person that said "blacks are the lowest in all the rankings" that is just plain ignorant. I won't say racist because there isn't enough differences in our genetic structure to classify another race/species other than the human race. Most "blacks" have not experienced the same social, mental, physical, emotional and economic advantages as "whites". Africa is the home of the treasures and that includes knowledge and spirituality. Their European brothers came and stripped this earthly kingdom of many things and these people haven't be able to access many things since. They grew in many "intelligent" ways but not in others. Given the opportunity, environment and right social structure they can achieve many things. This is shown by Dr. Philip Emeagwali who developed the world's fastest computer and is called " A father of the internet". He also scored a 190 if I am correct on a IQ test. So read up before you make comments like that. We are all intelligent in a way. We have have qualities that will be an advantage and also a disadvantage to us. So with saying all that I conclude that we are all equal within our difference. We must continue to evolve as a collective race of people.
Peace.
I wonder whether you have a gene for intelligence or not.Who said anything about killing people?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispaperwaster is an idiot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this