Before all other things, I study power and politics. Keen awareness of elite theory keeps one alert of Schmittian exceptions, which is to say when special allowances are made in one case but not in others. The vexed area of IQ research is one such case. For example, notorious race-denier Jordan Peterson, who believes that white collectivism is an unspeakable evil, in the next breath will happily repeat the claim that Jews have a mean IQ of 115. This same sleight of hand is played by Steven Pinker who dismisses The Bell Curve as it pertains to race, but in another context pulls out the same stat: ‘Their average IQ has been measured at 108 to 115, one-half to one standard deviation above the mean.’ In elite theory, we call a story that justifies the dominance of one group over others a political formula. The de facto hypothesis, as per Vilfredo Pareto, is that no political formulas are true and none can stand up to real scrutiny because they seldom if ever have any basis in fact; in effect, they are simply legitimacy myths used to post-hoc rationalise why this group is in power as opposed to any other group. Thus, before looking at any other information whatsoever, elite theory would look at 1. the over-indexing of Jewish people in positions of power in America, and 2. the reasons given for this by their apologists such as Peterson and Pinker, and conclude 3. the myth of Jewish high IQ is not a fact, but a political formula devised to legitimate power. Ah, but surely IQ statistics should be relatively easy to find and this claim – unlike other political formulas such as ‘I have been sent by God’ or ‘I speak for the will of the people’ – can be proven using hard data, no? Well, let’s have a look.
First, before I start, I will accept no proxies for actual IQ scores which are typically offered. By far the two most common examples are World Chess Champions and Nobel Prize Winners. The first can be dealt with very simply. It is pointed out that 44% of World Chess Champions are Jewish, it is less common to point out that 100% of chess champions come from just nine nations, and, until very recently when the Chinese have started to dominate, just six. Before 1948, it seems that London acted as the centre of chess and entrants had to raise a £10,000 wager just to take part. Unsurprisingly, in that earlier period a lot of the champions were British. After 1948, FIDE was established but from almost the moment of its inception, it was dominated by the Soviet Union and specifically the Russians. After this point, almost all the champions are Russian except for, notably, one American – Bobby Fischer, who you can read about in your own time – and more recently Indian and Chinese champions who have started to break through precisely at the moment China is emerging as a new superpower. Strange how that works. On the Nobel Prize all I will say is that elite theory can serve us well once more: Nobel Prizes are not a neutral institution; they are not selected in an open manner, but tightly controlled through a committee. They demonstrate nothing beyond what power selects. The claim that prizes from this body are an objective measure of anything, therefore, must be discarded. Nothing else needs to be said. I will now look for the objective standard most commonly cited: the measure of the IQ Test!
Let us turn to Charles Murray, who, in an astonishing passage in an article called ‘Jewish Genius’ in 2007, had this to say:
Insofar as I am suggesting that the Jews may have had some degree of unusual verbal skills going back to the time of Moses, I am naked before the evolutionary psychologists’ ultimate challenge. Why should one particular tribe at the time of Moses, living in the same environment as other nomadic and agricultural peoples of the Middle East, have already evolved elevated intelligence when the others did not?
At this point, I take sanctuary in my remaining hypothesis, uniquely parsimonious and happily irrefutable. The Jews are God’s chosen people.
In other words, he rearticulates an older political formula to justify the supposed superiority of these people. In fact, the historical record shows that Jews did not historically have this reputation for cleverness and it is a relatively recent claim which is easily dismantled as R. Brian Ferguson has done.
If we work backwards from the Ferguson paper, we find another article from 2005 called ‘The Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence’ by Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, Henry Harpending. What is their evidence for the claim that Ashkenazi Jewish IQ is higher than everyone else’s? Let me quote them:
Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data. They score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average, corresponding to an IQ 112-115. This has been seen in many studies (Backman, 1972; Levinson, 1959; Romanoff, 1976), although a recent review concludes that the advantage is slightly less, only half a standard deviation Lynn (2004).
Okay, so these researchers haven’t conducted any IQ tests on anyone but rather cite other papers that have supposedly done this work already; so intrepid researchers we can work backwards again to find the evidence. Being your dedicated scholar, I did that. The only one that is inaccessible is the study by J.S. Romanoff which was an unpublished dissertation only available on a microfilm reel at the National Library of Israel – friends I am your dedicated scholar, but I’m not that dedicated!
Let us start with Richard Lynn’s ‘The Intelligence of American Jews’ from 2004. Here we find two astonishing facts. First is that Lynn seems to estimate Jewish verbal IQ, not from actual test results, but from ‘American General Social Surveys carried out by the National Opinion Research Centre in the years 1990–1996’ because ‘Vocabulary size is a good measure of verbal intelligence.’ In other words, he is guessing the verbal IQ from the total number of different words the respondents of this survey knew. It is hardly the smoking gun one expects. Perhaps more astonishingly, Lynn’s paper reveals that the claim for Jewish high verbal IQ comes from a study conducted in 1970 with a sample size of only 65 boys from a single school:
Another problem with a number of the studies that have found that Jews have higher verbal IQs than gentiles is that several of them are based on very small sample sizes. For instance, Seligman (1992, p. 130) writes that ‘Jewish verbal superiority appears unmatched in any other ethnic group. An often-quoted 1970 study performed by the Ann Arbor Institute for Social Research shows Jewish tenth-grade boys with an average verbal IQ equivalent of 112.8 (on the Stanford-Binet metric) about three quarters of a standard deviation above the average for non-Jewish white boys’. This is the Bachman (1970) study in which the number of Jewish boys was 65.
Turning to this obscure study we find that it did not use the standard IQ test, but the Ammons Quick Test devised in 1962. The widely cited data – repeated by such luminaries as Peterson and Pinker – can be found on page 55.
The problems with this data should be obvious: it is too small, only 15-year-old boys are tested, and all of them are from the same background. Why did Bachman produce this basically unusable table? Because, in fairness to him, his study was never about race differences in IQ; a clue can be found in the title of that study: The Impact of Family Background and Intelligence on Tenth-Grade Boys: Youth in Transition.
Let us move onto the next study: Backman 1972. Once again, the data does not contain IQ scores, but rather later researchers have estimated IQ Scores by extrapolating it from Project TALENT data. It is revealed on page 3 that Project TALENT measures subjects like so:
The six mental ability factors examined were: Verbal Knowledges (VKN) –.a general factor, but primarily a measure of general information; English Language (ENG) – a measure of grammar and language useage; Mathematics (MAT) – a measure of high school mathematics with a minimum of computation; Visual Reasoning (VIS) – a measure of reasoning with spatial forms; Perceptual Speed and Accuracy (PSA) – a measure of visual-motor coordination under speeded conditions; and Memory (MEM) – a measure of short-term recall of verbal symbols.
Thus, we can see that the mathematics component is not exactly an IQ test but ‘a measure of high school mathematics with a minimum of computation’. Again we are in the realm of proxies using 12th-graders rather than actual IQ data, but nonetheless what does the data tell us? Let’s take a look:
While some people like to look at this and pull out higher male Jewish scores in mathematics, the thing that jumped out to me was the fact that it claims poor black boys are better at mathematics than rich Jewish girls. I’m surprised our friends on the left have not latched onto that one. Is this data replicated anywhere? Do we see black boys outperforming Jewish girls in mathematics today? Can these scores from 1972 be held to be representative of these racial groups? Since when do ‘Orientals’ have superior English grammar skills to whites? Are we just going to ignore the fact that, according to this, poor Black male ‘verbal IQ’ is slightly above poor Jewish male ‘verbal IQ’? You can do what you wish; erring on the side of caution, I would be more prone to say that this is junk science akin to looking at the GCSE scores of Hindu girls in Britain today and using them to suggest that they are intellectually much superior to white boys.
Because it seems no one actually does IQ research by, y’know, giving lots of people IQ tests, for our next port of call we need to go right back to 1959 to a study by B.M. Levinson. Now we’re relying on data from more than 64-years ago to make generalisations about Amy Schumer, Anthony Blinken and Ben Shapiro! Let’s ignore for a moment the point made by Sander L. Gillman that intelligence can decay; his example is that Olivia Newton-John was the granddaughter of ‘the 1954 Nobel prize winner Max Born’ – to me this seems to assume much about both Born’s and Newton-John’s respective IQs. But what does Levinson say? This paper was trying to measure the difference between the verbal IQs of monolingual and bilingual Jews. These are the findings:
At least here we have actual IQ test scores, but alas look at the tiny sample sizes. We are now expecting the test results from these 57 children from 1959 to tell us about Jewish people as a whole or even just Ashkenazi Jews? Would you feel confident in citing this as evidence for, well, anything? You might, but I would not.
Israel, which should be a good test case of Jewish intelligence, is not much help in this regard. The Times of Israel has lamented its low achievement in mathematics in the surprisingly titled ‘Why Yoni and Yael Can’t Do Math’. The reason, we are told, is because Israel possesses ‘a society-wide lack of discipline and disdain for rules’.
Arabs are separated out in the data as shown, and inequality between the best and worst Hebrew students is wide, but then the article quickly points out that ‘even Israel’s best students are not that stellar compared to top students in other developed countries’. That’ll be those Ashkenazis I keep being told are the cleverest people in the world. Unlike many of the other measures we’ve looked at, this is a standardised international test that makes for fair country-to-country comparisons.
So now we are at the other end of the rabbit hole, have we come out the other side with the slam-dunk data which Peterson and Pinker present as fact? It’s plain that we have not. Their claim is something like ‘Jews are overrepresented in American positions of power and influence because of their high IQ’ but a more accurate articulation of this argument would be something like ‘Jews are overrepresented in American positions of power and influence because 65 fifteen-year-old boys scored well on a quick test in 1970 and 57 monolingual Jewish children in 1959 scored well on a Stanford Binet Test.’ The argument is never presented that way. Their argument has come out of this process greatly damaged. What of my argument? Let us revisit the de facto hypothesis of elite theory as it pertains to this case: the myth of Jewish high IQ is not a fact, but a political formula devised to legitimate power. You can be the judge of that.
I recall a comment by Carlyle that Jews were known for their cleverness. And a similar comment by Tolkien. The stereotype goes way back anyway. They had to be limited from universities with (very generous) quotas in the early 20th century because so many of them were scoring so highly on admittance tests. Well above their proportion of the population. It's also hard to not think about the great 20th century geniuses like Erdos and Von Neuman. People who could simulate an entire computer in their mind, while holding conversations with three different mathematicians at once. And made major science and math breakthroughs once a month. And were all Jews born in a small region of Hungary around the same time.
I believe in population differences in all mental attributes, and truth in stereotypes. So it doesn't seem implausible to me. It's a terrible political formula to have, in an age where belief in genetics, IQ, and population differences are verboten. It's rarely spoken of publicly. Unlike a normal political formula that has to be hammered into people. Yet it continues on. I think because it resonates as true.
Unz did a pretty good takedown of the theory in the essay Myth of American Meritocracy (on youtube now, skeptical waves channel.) His most convincing argument is that Jews are way more over-represented in less meritocratic universities like Harvard and Yale. And way less overrepresented in the most selective and meritocratic universities like MIT and Carnegie Mellon. This is pretty shocking for the theory. But they are still very overrepresented. I recall a similar stat that Jews were less overrepresented in the "highest IQ fields" like math and physics. And way more overrepresented in the lower IQ fields like humanities. Another convincing stat was how much less overrepresented Jews are in the Math Olympiad, a pretty fair competition of intellect.
The world's most prestigious statistician, Andrew Gellman, actually endorsed the essay and posted it on his blog when it came out. However a week or so later he did a follow up. Posting other works that claimed to debunk it. They really criticized the reliability of Unz's stats. It's not Unz's fault though, there just aren't good statistics on the number of Jews in any institution. Some sources try to exaggerate the number as much as possible, counting half Jews and even quarter Jews. Unz tried to estimate it by Jewish last names (with an adjustment factor, since only some percent of Jews have Jewish last names.) There were inconsistencies in his estimates, but I think he was basically accurate.
Gellman also made a big deal about the breakdown of the IQ differences. With Jews supposedly only having really high Verbal IQ. And less so nonverbal IQ (but still higher than average.) This may be true, but it's not completely convincing. Since "verbal" IQ isn't just "you're good at words". It correlates strongly with a lot of surprising things like memory and math reasoning ability. I forget the full breakdown, but it's not what I expected it to be. The reason IQ is usually given as one number is because the components correlate so strongly, and aren't easily separable. And if you thought great IQ stats were hard to get, good luck getting finer grained stats like that.
The SAT test used in elite universities is basically an IQ test. Correlating with IQ tests, almost as much as different IQ tests correlate with each other. And it's really the only measure of intelligence universities have on applicants, everything else being total bullshit. It has been changed several times to make it worse and less like an IQ test. I think the big changes were made in the 90's. And many universities started dropping it entirely post-woke. I would LOVE to see if the distribution of Jews changed after that, and how much. That could be a very strong data point to disprove the theory.
Regardless of the truth, I just hate the hypocrisy. You mention Peterson, who clearly believes in IQ research and population differences. But he will never ever publicly talk about it in regards to whites doing better than minorities. Even though his main thing is supposed to be attacking wokeness. How do you even begin to dispute systemic racism claims, without referencing that basic fact of reality? Yet he has not the slightest problem in publicly bringing up higher Jewish IQs to excuse their overrepresentation. It's mind boggling.
He's far from the worst. The whole lot of intellectuals and "scientists" promoting systemic racism theory will never mention jewish overrepresentation, ever. I recall a popular blogger I used to read, Scott Alexander Siskind. He has a whole long post on his old blog supporting the Jewish IQ theory. And yet he bans people ever mentioning human biodiversity. And has a bunch of posts lecturing people on "scientific research" about systemic racism against African Americans. It's unreal.
This is a situation where it doesn't matter what the truth is. If it turns out to be true, they are hypocrites and liars. If it turns out to be false, they are hypocrites and liars. You don't need to squint at charts and tables to realize this.
Leather Apron Club has a great video on this as well.