Are Jews born smart?

by **AnnaLivia** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:16 am

"However, it's an easy fact to keep forgetting" ah yes...life is a cycle of forget and remember, forget and remember... it's only people who fail to remind themselves "I could be wrong", who are really dangerous. that was Hitler's problem. it's George Bush's problem, too. just look what it causes. and i have to say knowing and understanding starvation hasn't helped much. a little ACTION would be nice. anyway, our DNA says we're all more than 99% alike, right down to our genitalia, yet we continuously seem to overlook our samenesses and search diligently for our differences. i don't think you can easily convince me that's very smart. maybe i've just read too much Finnegans Wake...where the lowly hen has got it all going on: "Lead, kindly fowl! They always did: ask the ages. What bird has done yesterday man may do next year, be it fly, be it moult, be it hatch, be it agreement in the nest. For her socioscientific sense is sound as a bell, sir, her volucrine automutativeness right on normalcy: she knows, she just feels she was kind of born to lay and love eggs (trust her to propagate the species and hoosh her fluffballs safe through din and danger!)" bok bok bok

by **banned** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:07 am

Really? I thought we were 98% similar to chimps, or, in the case of GW Bush, 99.99999% similar (the only difference being, chimps can eat pretzels without it making them fall off the couch.)

by **robertdreed** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:27 am

which is shared by at least a few others, is that the weird "stigmata" from the so-called Pretzel Incident were actually the results of a Close Encounter with a glass meth pipe that got too hot. Of course, that's what happens when you drive cab too long, you get a little cynical about peoples stories sometimes...okay, it was a pretzel, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But I'd still keep my distance if I were behind him in the checkout line at the mini-market at 3am...wouldn't want him to think I was staring. <a href="http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushpretzelbruise.htm">politicalhumor.about.com/...bruise.htm</a>

by **banned** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:06 am

...he had a CE3K with a coffee table. But I'd believe anything, that guy is pumped so full of drugs he's lucky he flies AF1--a drug sniffing dog would never let his ass on a commercial plane. "A fool and his bong are rarely parted." <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

by **robertdreed** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:24 pm

"Asians...well, remember that Asian kid on Barney? I wanted to weep every time they made the poor little bastard dance. "Awkward" doesn't cover it." Without ever having seen an episode of "Barney", I can tell you this much: if the casting people had wanted an Asian kid who could dance, they would have gotten one. I'll restrain myself from commenting on the "fools and bongs" one-liner, beyond saying that I wish that people would stow such "good-natured joshing" until the Law gets their foot off of the neck of cannabis users. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 12/3/05 11:33 am

by **proldic** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:27 pm

see, we agree sometimes

by **robertdreed** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:36 pm

I hope we agreed both times, on the two points I made in that last comment. I hope. We've agreed before, there's a record of that...when we agree, I let you know, sometimes. I'm just not as sure of my conclusions as you. Or, at any rate, I don't make as many conclusions. I abhor premature certainty. For instance, I'm leaning toward agreement with you on the Plamegate thing, but I'm still reserving judgment...waiting for the photo to develop, as it were. When I feel I can afford to, I prefer to watch and wait. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 12/3/05 12:40 pm

by **Dreams End** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:08 pm

This thread is all over the place...but I'll toss this in. First off, I'd be curious as to what test was used for this study. Since I work with a lot of kids who have various learning disabilities, we look at "IQ" tests but it comes in sections (usually the Wechsler). When the sections match up in score you can make a statement about "IQ" but sometimes the sections have discrepancies. A skilled teacher can use this information to help the student. An unskilled or biased sociologist would draw erroneous conclusions in attempting to compare the overall score to those of other students. There's also simply enough cultural bias to explain both the "smart" Jews, and the "less intelligent" blacks. How about a question that wants you to match, say, a "cup" to a "saucer". May not seem class biased to you, (especially if you are English) but that's actually something beyond many young people's experience. Also, if they aren't from a literate home, the general fund of knowledge can be so low that even pictures of certain animals, for example, might not be as familiar, despite being obvious to most. (I'm just thinking of examples I've seen.) Here is a description of the verbal section of a common IQ test, the Wechsler: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Verbal scales: Information: Similar to "Trivial Pursuit," this subtest measures fund of factual information. It is strongly influenced by culture. An American education and intact long-term memory will contribute to a higher score. Sample question (not really on the tests): "What is the capital of France?" Comprehension: This subtest measures understanding of social conventions and common sense. It is also culturally loaded. Sample question: "What is the thing to do if you find an injured person laying on the sidewalk?" Digit Span: Requires the repetition of number strings forward and backwards. Measures concentration, attention, and immediate memory. Lower scores are obtained by persons with an attention deficit or anxiety. Similarities: This subtest measures verbal abstract reasoning and conceptualization abilities. The individual is asked how two things are alike. Sample question: "How are a snake and an alligator alike?" Vocabulary: This test measures receptive and expressive vocabulary. It is the best overall measure of general intelligence (assuming the test-taker's native language is English). Sample question: "What is the meaning of the word 'articulate'?" Arithmetic: Consists of mathematical word problems which are performed mentally. Measures attention, concentration, and numeric reasoning. Sample question: "John bought three books for five dollars each, and paid ten percent sales tax. How much did he pay all together?" <a href="http://www.psychologicaltesting.com/iqtest.htm">www.psychologicaltesting.com/iqtest.htm</a><hr></blockquote> It's quite apparent where the bias would be in favor of a child with a wide variety of experiences in a literate household which has focused on providing educational opportunities for their children. Obviously, questions about geography, vocabulary and even animals would be biased in the sense that pure intelligence cannot be separated from cultural experience. And as for, "What do you do when you see someone lying on a sidewalk?". Depends on where you live, I imagine. In a violent or war-torn neighborhood, a proper answer might be to run. Another bias, dear to my own heart, is the "digit span" and many of the sections in the other section (called "performance" and including more abstract, symbolic work that theoretically should be divorced from cultural knowledge.) If you are ADD and asked to remember a bunch of numbers and repeat them back, you may not do too well. I used to do a lot of test prep coaching, such as for the SAT, which was originally adapted from an army intelligence test. We had a standard spiel about cultural bias. For example, what sports are most popular in the US? Answers would be football, basketball, baseball. What sports show up on the SAT the most? Golf, tennis, etc. I kid you not, I saw an actual SAT with a question about a regatta! Or you'd get Northeast biased questions (the test is made in Princeton, New Jersey), such as the analogy (a section no longer on the SAT, thankfully) "brownstone<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":b"> uilding". Not too many southerners got that one right. And that too was from a real SAT. One of my favorite stories was actually taken from a book that was an expose on the SAT, . Basically, one section of the test is always experimental, designed to determine the difficulty level of various questions. A question that very few get right would be hard one, etc. But it's not JUST difficulty they are testing. They want to see that, of the few who get the hard ones right, they are the SAME few who got the OTHER hard ones right. The idea is that, by whatever method, you have to make sure there scores are distributed on a bellcurve and that very few score too high, or the test can't pretend to measure whatever the hell it thinks it measures. Anyway, there was one analogy that started "low:cow". The high scoring, suburban, New England kids by and large missed it. Who got it right? Farm kids! But they were the wrong ones who are supposed to get the hard ones...so they chucked the question. ("low" is the verb that means the same as "moo"). The other fun fact is that girls score lower than boys on average on the SAT, but tend to actually OUTPERFORM boys during the first year of college. So whatever the SAT is said to predict...it doesn't. This probably has something to do with the "forced choice" system of answering. For reasons that may be more cultural than genetic, boys tend to do better at multiple choice type questions and girls at more open ended questions. There is a very definite skill in taking multiple choice tests that involves how to handle questions for which you aren't sure of the answers. It requires a certain aggressiveness to eliminate, pick from the remaining, and then QUICKLY move on. I've known students (boys actually, but with some learning difficulties) who do worse on multiple choice tests than open answer tests, even if it's the exact same questions. They don't question themselves if there are no competing answers. However, should they look at a variety of answers, they lose confidence in their own. Or, sometimes the opposite happens, and they pick an answer before finishing the problem because they see one that matches where they are in the problem at that moment. (Common "distractor" answers for math questions include numbers that match numbers in the actual problem and numbers that are reached HALFWAY THROUGH working out the solution.) Here's an example. If there were a math problem I had no idea about, and had the following answer choices: 3, 5, -5, 7, 9, I would, if no other answer suggested itself, choose 5 or -5, on the theory that a common error on the problem would be to get the sign wrong, so probably 5 or -5 is a "distractor" answer and the other one is probably correct. A final interesting fact is that, on the hardest questions, fewer students get them right than would if they randomly guessed. That is, you have a 20% chance of getting a question right by guessing, but 12 - 15% get the hardest ones right. This shows they know how to trick the unwary! There are also many types of intelligence. One type that typically favors males (but left this male WAAAAAY behind) is the mental manipulation of shapes. Boys do much better at being able to tell which shape is the same as another shape, only flipped around and rotated. Despite being male, I suck at this (I can talk my way through the answer but I can't "see" it, and talking through it takes lots of time.). Another male/female example would be that, on average, males can follow maps better than females (probably evolved from the inability to ask for directions!). However, females are far more likely to recall landmarks along the way. (This is based on a study I heard about...not just stereotypes). Other factors affect testing as well, such as emotional state, nutritional adequacy, generall stress levels and, interestingly, expectations of the tester. It's not too hard for kids to pick up subtle and even not so subtle cues about how they are expected to perform (a good test giver will know how to avoid that.) Overall, tests like the Wechsler can be very good at pinpointing weaknesses, but not in explaining where those weaknesses originate. A good summary report will often bring up cultural background as one possible explanation for shortcomings on certain sections. So the test can help teachers and others provide assistance to the student. But the Wechsler and other IQ tests are not particularly helpful for comparison purposes. Sure, someone at 150 will be clearly more intelligent than someone at 75. I researched the study and their claim is that Ashkenazim have an average of 12 - 15 points above the mean of 100. However, if we accept that there are a higher proportion of Jews in intellectual professions, then which comes first, the intelligence (courtesy of the genes for Tay-Sachs disease, say the studies authors) or the cultural background of having parents already who have intellect-based careers and expect the same from their children? In some communities, the expectation might be to work on the farm, or the local factory, or sports. And some communities have far fewer educational opportunities for kids, chances for pre-first enrichment programs, etc. etc. etc. I think we need to question such studies because, despite saying nice things about one minority group, it suggests we ought to give credence to similar studies that say not so nice things about others...a la "The Bell Curve." And now I get to tell my favorite "intelligence" stories, stories I offer to students all the time, to indicate that "intelligence" comes in MANY flavors. Growing up, one of my best friends (who was Jewish, actually) was brilliant, particularly in math. I think he was taking college classes in math during his sophomore year or something. We both attended an elite private school...my mother had been a secretary there. As a side note, I don't think most of the Jewish kids (and there weren't too many, as Nashville "old money" still tended to look down on Jews...another private school was more welcoming) were actually in the honors classes. In any event, he was considered a genius. One day, I came over to the house of my friend, the "genius" and there was a big fuss and smoke all over the place. His mother had asked him to clean out a recently used fireplace. And he did. With a vacuum cleaner, which promptly caught fire! Another time we were working on this incredible "computer" he designed for a math project. Using a series of lightbulbs and relay switches, he'd come up with a design for a calculator that could add up to 14. Not bad for an eighth-grader! We were soldering on some pieces and the soldering iron was plugged into an extension cord with a bit of the metal prongs still showing. My genius buddy decided to lay a metal wire across the prongs. Green sparks flew everywhere and the electricity was blown out for half the house. Yes, surely different types of intelligence. I'm also reminded of this anytime I need a skilled repairmen or carpenter. I just watch in awe as intractable problems for me are simply and easily solved. I can't know for sure that these fine handy men and women don't have high IQ's, but I suspect, from normal testing, they probably do not.

by **banned** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:08 am

As far as I know (and I just took an IQ test a few months back myself, which scored me within ONE POINT of the score I got in third grade in 1962), IQ tests do not measure "stuff" someone knows, it measures their ability to THINK. As far as knowledge of "stuff": knowing the capital of France doesn't necessarily make someone any more intelligent than someone who doesn't. However, if you've managed to live in American society for any length of time and gone through the educational system, piss poor as it is, and you haven't managed to pick up the factoid that Paris is the capital, it's arguable that you are at a minimum inattentive. Kinda like our Preznit. On the other hand, I know people whose minds are chock full of factoids, but they don't know whether to wind their ass or scratch their watch. Some of them have Ph.D.'s. If in fact some groups score lower in raw brainpower, you have to consider factors such as prenatal nutrition, intellectual stimulation in the home, whether the schools they attended were substandard, and even whether their current nutrition is enough to run a brain on. I have always required red meat in order to run the computer between my ears most efficiently and would bet that you could give me the same test after I've had a salad and after I've torn my way through a big old sirloin and I will score better after the latter. Poor prenatal nutrition, maternal use of alcohol and drugs, lack of stimulation as an infant, might in fact result in a child whose IQ was substandard. HOWEVER recently they have discovered that the brain continues to grow new neurons throughout life, so the question is, if you take some of these kids who have started out life behind the 8 ball, transfer them into an environment where they eat a healthy diet, are exposed to interesting and stimulating things to encourage intellectual curiosity, whether their IQs can be raised. Certainly you are always hearing about some kid who, because of a particularly excellent teacher turns their entire life around. It's also true that having a parent like many Asian kids do who has high standards and expectations is vastly different from coming home and finding Mom with her crack pipe screwing a strange man, as may happen to inner city or Appalachian kids. Then of course you have Asian kids who complain about being pushed too hard, or pushed to be doctors or rocket scientists when they'd rather be singers or travel agents. All I know is, go in any store or other business nowadays and if you find clerks who can make change or understand a complex sandwich order, you feel like you've stumbled on a gold mine. There is no question that there are a lot of people out there who do not have the basic skills to be employed other than as door stops. I have done various kinds of staff training and come away feeling that there are a lot of brains out there that don't work. It has nothing to do with being in possession of factoids--I've tried to train Stanford graduate students to run a cash register, what a frickin' nightmare! My impression is that there is damage to the hardware, or hardware that should have developed that did not. If you want an interesting take on that, Joseph Chilton Pearce, author of "The Magical Child", attributes it inter alia to television: not the CONTENT of teevee, but teevee itself, he claims, causes neurological damage; it entrains the brain in such a way as to interfere with the ability to think. Over the years as he has taught teachers, THEY have gotten dumber and dumber. Now, this idea tends not to be popular with younger people, but the truth is, if their brains don't work right how could they possibly assess that fact? Someone who has been an educator for 50 years and seen the changes in student abilities it seems to me is worth listening to, even if ultimately you don't agree with his explanation of the cause. My IQ puts me in the 98th percentile, but that has always been true. It's only in the last 5 to 10 years that I find myself at least once a day and sometimes more feeling as if I am talking to someone who is mentally damaged--and these people aren't ambulatory schizophrenics asking me for change, these are bank managers and government officials. THEY CANNOT REASON. They cannot understand a logical argument made by another nor can they tell when what THEY say makes no sense whatsoever. For awhile I told myself that people bullshit when the system they're in makes no sense (ie, how the postal service ate your letter), but it's more than that. The SYSTEM had to come from somewhere and it comes from more and more people who are incapable of mature analytical thought. One would think that this would be obvious from where our country is politically and economically as we speak. Si requiris monumentum, circumspice.

by **proldic** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:00 am

Yes, both times. As far as premature certainty vs being able to afford to watch and wait, well....aw shucks, we were just agreeing with each other.

by **rapt** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:19 pm

That was a very nice story banned. I have been flummoxed by the inability of many to see through this quite obvious scam, and a couple of things keep popping up in my research. (My research consists of scanning around me, reading here on RI, and occasionally watching some TV to see if it has changed.) Those things that pop up are 1) fear, which is manufactured by the media and which is a good excuse for denial. And 2) brainwashing as is done thru the medium of TV mainly, but also thru school, newspapers, etc. This has been going on for a long time. One could say it is an accident, or human nature, or greed; anything to shoehorn the phenomenon of "dumbing down" into a predictable occurrence. Make it normal, fun, acceptable and not worth mentioning. After a long enough period of submersion we can get away with a patriot act, demolition and murder, even a baseless war or two and the peeps will go along with it. This leads us to...(surely you know where I'm going with this)...the dumbing down is part of a larger long-term plan, one which has been hard to perceive from a normal human perspective. I need to know who is doing it and why. Already I have a pretty good grasp on the how part. Means is fairly well established; now we must discover the motive, and of course, the perp. Oh yeah, and we have identified two prime accomplices, media companies and the govt - it is only necessary to get them to talk on the record.

by **Dreams End** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:24 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>As far as I know (and I just took an IQ test a few months back myself, which scored me within ONE POINT of the score I got in third grade in 1962), IQ tests do not measure "stuff" someone knows, it measures their ability to THINK.<hr></blockquote> That's what it is supposed to measure. Your unchanging IQ simply means that you've moved into a new age group and your abilities are measured against that age group...not kids. And the ability to reason and think critically and independently is, in part, a learned skill. Independent thinkers are not really desired by bank presidents, however.

by **robertdreed** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:34 pm

I can't resist asking- what do you propose to do with your "certain conclusions"- walk in and arrest the President, like Jack Tiger in Clear And Present Danger? Raise the barricades? Can you find that many other people who are that convinced? Yeah, I can afford to watch and wait. That's the difference between someone capable of building a solid evidential case that can persuade increasing numbers of the hitherto unconvinced and skeptical- as opposed to going off half-cocked, like Barney Fife...or someone trying to raise a lynch mob. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 12/4/05 5:08 pm

by **proldic** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:33 pm

I wasn't really talking about going forward on a mass-activist pr level with the Plame case specifically, just putting down my 2 cents on the board which is for conspiracy and "deep political" discussion. But I am hopeful in the way that a lot of people are held back from change that I see as right in front of their face. Not all the time. It's not easy. It gets harder every day. But imo, this is one of the last areas left. Again, imo, as or more important than mass protests. Certainly not as "sexy". But my personal experience has been it is ultimately more fulfilling. I think there's many things that can be done right now in the US. Do you realize that I'm primarily a supporter of what I call pragmatic, populist democratic efforts, short-circuiting the "divide and conquer memes", exploiting commonalities ...some people call it "deep democracy", I don't know if I go for that phrase or everything that it implies, and I'm definitely not claiming that any one thing alone is our manna savior from heaven, but the idea is this: The battle varies from scene to scene, state to state, town to town, bio-region to bio-region -- whatever level a person is thinking at -- and whatever level you can connect people on. It is an approach that utilizes the tools that are before us, and makes realistic judgements about where "the people" are at. It avoids cultural affectations that limit that. It is a process that transforms the "activist" as much as it does "the masses". There are a number of different efforts that creative people can choose from without losing their "self-identity". The efforts demand creativity and drive and acumen. Some of the many recent campaigns that come to mind are "single payer" health care, and the efforts to strengthen and unify trade unions. And one of the most important struggles right now is for charter reforms such as initiative and referendum [an inherently libertarian cause] and for redistricting [to right the influence of upper-class gerrymandering]. And I'm not claiming that these are widespread, or that the "modern" [post-30's] left has done these things well or at all. They do happen to be fundamental currents in US history, and beyond, however. It's about building working-class political power.

by **nashvillebrook** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:45 pm

no, but Chinks are. i'm sorry -- i just had to. anyone else a Sarah Silverman fan? "Jesus is Magic"

Are Jews born smart?

jerky, your link didn't work

"our DNA says we're all more than 99% alike"

a pet theory of mine...

I just thought he got so drunk...

stereotypes

Re: stereotypes

Re: stereotypes

Re: stereotypes

The capital of France is Froggytown.

Re: stereotypes

Intelligence etc.

Re: Intelligence etc.

proldic...

wait and see

Re: Are Jews born smart?

Who is online