Jewish Genius, by Charles Murray, Commentary, April 2, 2007

[JohnEngelman]

COMMENTARY has never published a systematic discussion of one of the most obvious topics of all: the extravagant over representation of Jews, relative to their numbers, in the top ranks of the arts, sciences, law, medicine, finance, entrepreneurship, and the media...

New York City’s public-school system used to administer a pencil-and-paper IQ test to its entire school population. In 1954, a psychologist used those test results to identify all 28 children in the New York public-school system with measured IQ’s of 170 or higher. Of those 28, 24 were Jews...

I begin with the assumption that elevated Jewish intelligence is grounded in genetics. It is no longer seriously disputed that intelligence in Homo sapiens is substantially heritable. In the last two decades, it has also been established that obvious environmental factors such as high income, books in the house, and parental reading to children are not as potent as one might expect...

From the time Jews became established north of the Pyrenees-Balkans line, around 800 C.E., they were in most places and at most times restricted to occupations involving sales, finance, and trade. Economic success in all of these occupations is far more highly selected for intelligence than success in the chief occupation of non-Jews: namely, farming. Economic success is in turn related to reproductive success, because higher income means lower infant mortality, better nutrition, and, more generally, reproductive “fitness.”

https://www.aei.org/articles/jewish-genius/

------------

In Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter XI, "Nation and Race," Adolf Hitler wrote, "What leads one people to starvation, trains the other for hard work."

He was unintentionally praising the Jews, while explaining hostility to them. Antisemitism has been called "the socialism of fools." Those who are angry about their situation in life, and unwilling to direct that anger at rich people of their ethnicity, often find it easy to hate rich Jews. Hatred of rich Jews easily segues to hatred of all Jews, some of whom are poor.

Initially Hitler was sympathetic toward Jews. In Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter II, "Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna," he wrote:

"I aw the only distinguishing mark in their stranger religion The fact that they had been persecuted in that account...turned my aversion against unfavorable remarks about them almost into abhorrence...

"I was depressed by the memory of certain events in the Middle ages which I did not wish to see repeated."

Then Hitler failed in his efforts to become an artist and an architect. In Vienna he saw many Jews who had succeeded where he had failed. He began to resent Jews and to invent excuses to hate them.

In Mein Kampf Hitler expressed his hatred of Jews. His reasons, of course, are unpersuasive.

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

What ya gotta hate for, man? Can't you just let go and be fucking happy without being a douchenozzle?

 

[ll74]

Charles Murray is a fuckhead.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Charles Murray expresses truths many people know to be true, but fear to express. Because Charles Murray has made a fortune from his books, especially The Bell Curve, he does not need to worry about being fired from an academic position, and he can continue to tell the truth. I hope he lives long enough to be fully vindicated.

Unfortunately, Charles Murray is often prevented from speaking on college campuses. If his detractors were confident that he is mistaken, they would welcome candid debates on his assertions. Most of his detractors are afraid that what he writes is true, and that it implies the need for eugenics.

 

[ll74]

Charles Murray expresses truths many people know to be true, but fear to express. Because Charles Murray has made a fortune from his books, especially The Bell Curve, he does not need to worry about being fired from an academic position, and he can continue to tell the truth. I hope he lives long enough to be fully vindicated.

Unfortunately, Charles Murray is often prevented from speaking on college campuses. If his detractors were confident that he is mistaken, they would welcome candid debates on his assertions. Most of his detractors are afraid that what he writes is true, and that it implies the need for eugenics.

Nobody wants to hear his bullshit except the racists like yourself. That's why he isn't welcome anywhere.

 

[KeithD]

There's also a prevalence of gays in the arts. Must have something to do with openness to creativity and intelligence.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Nobody wants to hear his bullshit except the racists like yourself. That's why he isn't welcome anywhere.

The sale of Murray's books has made him independently wealthy.

 

[ll74]

The sale of Murray's books has made him independently wealthy.

Awesome for him. There's lots of racists in the world.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Awesome for him. There's lots of racists in the world.

There are a lot of people who want to know the truth about IQ differences between individuals, and average IQ differences between races.

 

[YDB95]

Unfortunately, Charles Murray is often prevented from speaking on college campuses. If his detractors were confident that he is mistaken, they would welcome candid debates on his assertions.

If anything, it's the other way around. It's standard procedure with nonfictional books to send out a few hundred avance-release copies for peer-reviewing. Murray made a point of not doing that with The Bell Curve: the few copies that did get out were handpicked by Murray himself and the American Enterprise Institute, so no one who wasn't extremely likely to agree with his thesis had a chance to do any in-depth investigation of his methods before the book was out. This, in turn, meant the book was initially met with a lot of outrage at its inflammatory conclusions but not a lot of specifics on just why they were wrong. Fans like yourself have cited this ever since as proof that Murray was right, but the truth is he'd simply made sure no one who knew how to spot his errors and faulty reasoning would have a look at the book until it was already released.

Most of his detractors are afraid that what he writes is true, and that it implies the need for eugenics.

No; we simply don't see the need to give bigots any more platforms to spew their bullshit when it has been thoroughly discredited.
It's not hard to find plain-English explanations of how and why it's been discredited. Here's a good jumping-off point: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1997/01/the-bell-curve-flattened.html

 

[ll74]

There are a lot of people who want to know the truth about IQ differences between individuals, and average IQ differences between races.

That's not what a racist is.

 

[JohnEngelman]

If anything, it's the other way around. It's standard procedure with nonfictional books to send out a few hundred avance-release copies for peer-reviewing. Murray made a point of not doing that with The Bell Curve: the few copies that did get out were handpicked by Murray himself and the American Enterprise Institute, so no one who wasn't extremely likely to agree with his thesis had a chance to do any in-depth investigation of his methods before the book was out. This, in turn, meant the book was initially met with a lot of outrage at its inflammatory conclusions but not a lot of specifics on just why they were wrong. Fans like yourself have cited this ever since as proof that Murray was right, but the truth is he'd simply made sure no one who knew how to spot his errors and faulty reasoning would have a look at the book until it was already released.



No; we simply don't see the need to give bigots any more platforms to spew their bullshit when it has been thoroughly discredited.
It's not hard to find plain-English explanations of how and why it's been discredited. Here's a good jumping-off point: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1997/01/the-bell-curve-flattened.html

If you understand the article you link to, express it in your own words. If you cannot do that you do not understand it. I have explained The Bell Curve in my own words time and time again.

Can you name books that have been peer reviewed? The Mismeasure of Man, by Stephen Jay Gould, is often considered to be the decisive rebuttal of The Bell Curve. Was The Mismeasure of Man peer reviewed? The Mismeasure of Man is assigned to thousands of college students, who are required to agree with it to get a good grade. The Mismeasure of Man is loaded with untruths.

Professor Arthur Jensen's "most controversial work, published in February 1969 in the Harvard Educational Review, was titled "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" It concluded, among other things, that Head Start programs designed to boost African-American IQ scores had failed, and that this was likely never to be remedied, largely because, in Jensen's estimation, 80% of the variance in IQ in the population studied was the result of genetic factors and the remainder was due to environmental influences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Jensen

Was Professor Jensen's article peer reviewed? Whether or not it was, the response was what you would probably approve of. Left wing thugs disrupted Professor's classes. He received death threats. He occasionally required police protection.

The following chart proves that Professor Jensen is correct:


The failures of Head Start, No Child Left Behind, and other efforts to close the race gap in academic performance and test scores also verify Professor Jensen's assertions.

 

[ll74]

If you understand the article you link to, express it in your own words. If you cannot do that you do not understand it. I have explained The Bell Curve in my own words time and time again.

Can you name books that have been peer reviewed? The Mismeasure of Man, by Stephen Jay Gould, is often considered to be the decisive rebuttal of The Bell Curve. The Mismeasure of Man is assigned to thousands of college students, who are required to agree with it to get a good grade. The Mismeasure of Man is loaded with untruths.

Professor Arthur Jensen's "most controversial work, published in February 1969 in the Harvard Educational Review, was titled "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" It concluded, among other things, that Head Start programs designed to boost African-American IQ scores had failed, and that this was likely never to be remedied, largely because, in Jensen's estimation, 80% of the variance in IQ in the population studied was the result of genetic factors and the remainder was due to environmental influences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Jensen

Was Professor Jensen's article peer reviewed. Whether or not it was, the response was what you would probably approve of. Left wing thugs disrupted Professor's classes. He received death threats. He occasionally required police protection.

The following chart proves that Professor Jensen is correct:

View attachment 2192613
The failures of Head Start, No Child Left Behind, and other efforts to close the race gap in academic performance and test scores also verify Professor Jensen's assertions.

Not only is the graph 10+ years old, it is horribly constructed......you don't put cost and scores on the same axis....and the graph is a reason why you don't.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Not only is the graph 10+ years old, it is horribly constructed......you don't put cost and scores on the same axis....and the graph is a reason why you don't.

The only thing that has changed since 2010 is that more tax money has been wasted in futile efforts to use dollars to turn dunces into scholars.

No one but a huckster for Charles Atlas claims that it is possible to turn a sickly, fifteen year old "ninety seven pound weakling" into an award winning athlete. Nevertheless, liberals continue to pretend that the right environment, i.e. one managed by themselves, would turn virtually every student into an accomplished scholar capable of learning intellectually demanding professions. No amount of failure abates them of that foolish, expensive delusion.

 

[ll74]

The only thing that has changed since 2010 is that more tax money has been wasted in futile efforts to use dollars to turn dunces into scholars.

No one but a huckster for Charles Atlas claims that it is possible to turn a sickly, fifteen year old "ninety seven pound weakling" into an award winning athlete. Nevertheless, liberals continue to pretend that the right environment, i.e. one managed by themselves, would turn virtually every student into an accomplished scholar capable of learning intellectually demanding professions. No amount of failure abates them of that foolish, expensive delusion.

The graph is shit.

 

[YDB95]

If you understand the article you link to, express it in your own words.

If you bothered clicking on the link, you would know I already did do that.

I have explained The Bell Curve in my own words time and time again.

Yes, but that does not necessarily mean 1) that you understand it, or 2) that it is an intellectually defensible piece of scholarship. All it does mean is that you like what you believe it says.

Can you name books that have been peer reviewed?

Hundreds of them. I have three degrees, I was in and out of higher education for a very long time, and I know the respect of one's academic peers is earned. It's not just that Charles Murray is a flaming racist - though he is - it's also that his arguments are garbage.

The Mismeasure of Man, by Stephen Jay Gould, is often considered to be the decisive rebuttal of The Bell Curve. Was The Mismeasure of Man peer reviewed?

Yes, it has. It literally took me less than one minute on Google to find half a dozen (mostly negative, for what it's worth) reviews. And while the revised edition criticizes The Bell Curve, it's misleading at best to call it a rebuttal when the original edition came out fourteen years before The Bell Curve.

The Mismeasure of Man is assigned to thousands of college students, who are required to agree with it to get a good grade.

Cite please. I don't mean some loser on ratemyprof claiming he got a lousy grade because he disagreed with it, I mean real evidence. What you are describing flies in the face of the critical thinking skills that college is supposed to teach, and I don't believe for a second that you have any evidence whatsoever that it has ever happened.

The Mismeasure of Man is loaded with untruths.

Professor Arthur Jensen's "most controversial work, published in February 1969 in the Harvard Educational Review, was titled "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" It concluded, among other things, that Head Start programs designed to boost African-American IQ scores had failed, and that this was likely never to be remedied, largely because, in Jensen's estimation, 80% of the variance in IQ in the population studied was the result of genetic factors and the remainder was due to environmental influences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Jensen

Was Professor Jensen's article peer reviewed?

Yes, and the reviews were mostly negative. Notably, he misused the concept of "heritability", which really represents variations of traits like intelligence within a population. Jensen used it to measure differences between populations. He has also been criticized for ignoring evidence that doesn't fit his theses (exactly as you do every time you post here).

Whether or not it was, the response was what you would probably approve of. Left wing thugs disrupted Professor's classes. He received death threats. He occasionally required police protection.

No, I don't approve of that. Free speech applies to racists, too.

The failures of Head Start, No Child Left Behind, and other efforts to close the race gap in academic performance and test scores also verify Professor Jensen's assertions.

No, they don't. What they do verify is that the aftermath of slavery and Jim Crow are not destroyed yet, and that's not likely to change as long as the Republicans go on openly pandering to racists and winning elections based on that pandering.

 

[JohnEngelman]

The graph is shit.

You do not prove that by asserting it. The graph demonstrates that Professor Jensen, who was persecuted for telling the truth, told the truth: with too few exceptions to merit consideration, the illegitimate children of welfare mothers and petty criminals cannot be educated, and are unemployable.

 

[JohnEngelman]

If you bothered clicking on the link, you would know I already did do that.


Yes, but that does not necessarily mean 1) that you understand it, or 2) that it is an intellectually defensible piece of scholarship. All it does mean is that you like what you believe it says.

Hundreds of them. I have three degrees, I was in and out of higher education for a very long time, and I know the respect of one's academic peers is earned. It's not just that Charles Murray is a flaming racist - though he is - it's also that his arguments are garbage.

Yes, it has. It literally took me less than one minute on Google to find half a dozen (mostly negative, for what it's worth) reviews. And while the revised edition criticizes The Bell Curve, it's misleading at best to call it a rebuttal when the original edition came out fourteen years before The Bell Curve.

Cite please. I don't mean some loser on ratemyprof claiming he got a lousy grade because he disagreed with it, I mean real evidence. What you are describing flies in the face of the critical thinking skills that college is supposed to teach, and I don't believe for a second that you have any evidence whatsoever that it has ever happened.

Yes, and the reviews were mostly negative. Notably, he misused the concept of "heritability", which really represents variations of traits like intelligence within a population. Jensen used it to measure differences between populations. He has also been criticized for ignoring evidence that doesn't fit his theses (exactly as you do every time you post here).


No, I don't approve of that. Free speech applies to racists, too.

No, they don't. What they do verify is that the aftermath of slavery and Jim Crow are not destroyed yet, and that's not likely to change as long as the Republicans go on openly pandering to racists and winning elections based on that pandering.

Accusing anyone of being a racist does not prove he is mistaken or lying. It indicates that his assertions cannot be refuted.

What happened to the ancestors of Negroes in the past does not effect their performance and behavior now. Jews were persecuted for nearly two thousand years. This persecution culminated in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, today Jews dominate positions requiring superior intelligence.

Another thing for you to consider is that since the civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty which were passed into law after 1963, the behavior of most blacks has gotten worse. Their academic performance has hardly improved at all. You cannot explain that. Charles Murray and I can: human evolution has not prepared most Negroes for the demands of civilization. Characteristics that enabled the ancestors of Negros to thrive in the tribal environments of sub Saharan Africa cause many contemporary Negroes to earn felony convictions in civilized countries.

 

[YDB95]

Accusing anyone of being a racist does not prove he is mistaken or lying. It indicates that his assertions cannot be refuted.

No, it indicates that said assertions are racist.

What happened to the ancestors of Negroes in the past does not effect their performance and behavior now. Jews were persecuted for nearly two thousand years. This persecution culminated in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, today Jews dominate positions requiring superior intelligence.

I've said it before, but what the heck: it's a VERY different kind of oppression. Not to mention the Jews' relative success is actually a direct result of their oppression. They weren't allowed to own land, so they went into professions like banking and law and medicine that didn't require owning their own space.

Another thing for you to consider is that since the civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty which were passed into law after 1963, the behavior of most blacks has gotten worse. Their academic performance has hardly improved at all. You cannot explain that.

I can and I have, as have other people here. You've just ignored it because it didn't fit with what you choose to believe.

Charles Murray and I can: human evolution has not prepared most Negroes for the demands of civilization. Characteristics that enabled the ancestors of Negros to thrive in the tribal environments of sub Saharan Africa cause many contemporary Negroes to earn felony convictions in civilized countries.

If that were even a little bit true, you'd have to throw your "Jews are superior" argument out the window. They also got their start in the desert, after all.

 

[Chobham]

First of all the graph is informative, but only partially so. What needs to be added is the rate of inflation of the dollar over the same period. In 2010 it would take $5.62 to buy what $1.00 dollar would buy in 1970 for a cumulative inflation rate of 462%. It's obvious that the cumulative inflation rate for monies spent on education are far greater than the monetary inflation rate but not as bad as the graph suggests.

 

[JohnEngelman]

No, it indicates that said assertions are racist.

So what? What you call racism I call telling the truth about Negro race, keeping in mind that there are exceptions to the rule.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I've said it before, but what the heck: it's a VERY different kind of oppression. Not to mention the Jews' relative success is actually a direct result of their oppression. They weren't allowed to own land, so they went into professions like banking and law and medicine that didn't require owning their own space.

If that were even a little bit true, you'd have to throw your "Jews are superior" argument out the window. They also got their start in the desert, after all.

That is just my point. Oppression genetically selected the Ashkenazim for superior intelligence. What goes out the window is the argument that oppression is the reason blacks tend to be less intelligent than white Gentiles, and much less intelligent than Ashkenazi Jews.

In the ancient world Jews were not noted for superior intelligence. This only became obvious after the French Revolution when discrimination against Jews living in Christian countries became less severe. Between the ancient world and the nineteenth century was a society that restricted Jews to professions requiring intelligence, and which selected them genetically for intelligence.

As far as blacks are concerned, they were not enslaved by whites of European birth or ancestry. They were enslaved by other blacks in Africa and sold to white slave traders. Slavery was rife in sub Saharan Africa. Black slaves in Africa were often the victims of cannibalism and human sacrifice.

You claim to have three college degrees. I assume therefore that you are aware of the French Enclopedia that was written and published in France before the French Revolution. It was contributed to by Diderot, d'Alembert, and Voltaire, among others. Again, as one with three college degrees I complement you by assuming that you know who those three men were.

The following excerpts are taken from the Enclopedia's essay entitled "Negroes." It was written by Le Romain, who in his essay calls Negro slavery a "loathsome commerce, which is contrary to natural law." He also writes:

"There are Negroes who ambush each other while the European vessels are lying at anchor, and they bring those whom they have captured to the vessels to sell them and have them loaded on board against their wills. Then one sees sons selling their fathers, fathers their children. Still more frequently one sees Negroes who are not linked by family ties put a price of a few bottles of brandy, or bars of iron on each other's freedom."

These quotes come from the anthology of the French Encyclopedia published by the Library of Liberal Arts, which again I assume you are familiar with.

So, the Negro slaves were not enslaved by whites; they were enslaved by other blacks.

I have read that black slaves in the thirteen colonies, and later in the United States tended to grow taller and live longer than black slaves and free blacks in Africa. That indicates better health.

Now, I am not in any way justifying slavery. I think the slave trade and slavery were the worst mistakes European settlers and their descendants made in the Americas. I also believe on the basis of all the available evidence that blacks in the United States have been introduced to a civilization incomparably superior to anything they have created on their own. American Negroes have better average health and incomes than Negroes living in any black majority, black run country in the world, with the interesting exception of Bermuda, which nevertheless is dominated by a white minority of about 35%.

So, I do not think whites are pushing blacks down. I think we are holding them up.

 

[JohnEngelman]

First of all the graph is informative, but only partially so. What needs to be added is the rate of inflation of the dollar over the same period. In 2010 it would take $5.62 to buy what $1.00 dollar would buy in 1970 for a cumulative inflation rate of 462%. It's obvious that the cumulative inflation rate for monies spent on education are far greater than the monetary inflation rate but not as bad as the graph suggests.

What you say is true. The graph does not seem to be adjusted for inflation. Nevertheless, since 1970 much more money has been invested in public school education, with little or nothing to show for it. This confirms the assertions Professor Arthur Jensen was persecuted for making.

What black majority public schools need more than anything else is stricter discipline. Those schools are usually dangerous places where little learning occurs. They are particularly dangerous for whites, Asians, and blacks who "act white" by trying to learn.

It should be much easier to expel students who cannot be educated and who interfere violently with the education of students who are trying to learn. Unfortunately, black majority public schools are under pressure to reduce the expulsion rate. Anyone who thinks the expulsion rate in black majority public schools should be reduced should work as a substitute teacher in several of them for several years.

 

[JohnEngelman]

There's also a prevalence of gays in the arts. Must have something to do with openness to creativity and intelligence.

I believe that homosexuality is a genetic inclination that correlates with intelligence. I believe it is transmitted from generation to generation in much the same way sickle cell anemia is.

 

[Chobham]

I believe that homosexuality is a genetic inclination that correlates with intelligence. I believe it is transmitted from generation to generation in much the same way sickle cell anemia is.

I'll believe that when they find the gay gene(s). I believe that there are other forces at work. I suspect it may have more to do with chemicals in the environment, especially during early development.