[Paleopsych] WP: (Jewish IQ) Richard Cohen: Aptitude Adjustment
Premise Checker
checker at panix.com
Wed Jun 22 19:38:09 UTC 2005
Richard Cohen: Aptitude Adjustment
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061502159_pf.html
Thursday, June 16, 2005; A29
Back before I became the legendary Cohen of Claims for a major
insurance company, I was the lowly mail boy. Part of my job was to
pick up mail from the corner office of the branch manager, an
avuncular chap with a tirelessly inoffensive manner that, in his day,
had made him a legendary salesman. One day he told me that he knew I
would succeed splendidly in the insurance biz -- not because I was
industrious or smart or had a bent for property damage claims but
because, as he put it, Jews did well in business. As if in response, I
showed him how wrong he was. I got fired two years later.
Now comes an article in the New York Times to suggest that the branch
manager was on to something. It said that scientists at the University
of Utah had linked certain genetic diseases found only among European
Jews with "natural selection for enhanced intellectual ability." In
other words, Jews are smarter because over about a thousand years they
adapted to discriminatory practices that limited their livelihood to a
restricted range of commercial occupations. Those who succeeded tended
to have more children and so, over time, European Jews in general
improved their intelligence.
Some scientists find the theory credible; some do not. As for myself,
I am immeasurably comforted by it. Jews are smart. This does not mean
that all Jews are smart and that no Jews are dumb. It only means that,
in general, the proposition holds. Among other things, American Jews
-- about 2 percent of the population -- make up 27 percent of this
country's Nobel laureates. Something's going on here.
I cannot be certain that Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard,
has read the article. But if he did, I bet he wondered why it is
possible to suggest that certain Jews are smarter than other people
but not remotely possible to suggest that women might not be as
brilliant in science and engineering as men. When Summers did
precisely that back in January -- when he wondered out loud about such
matters as "intrinsic aptitude" -- he got his head handed to him. He
was not, mind you, stating this as a fact -- just throwing it out
along with other factors that might account for why men outnumber
women on the science, engineering and math faculties of first-rate
universities. What he did not do -- and this was his mistake -- was
limit the possibilities to the only politically correct one: sexual
discrimination of one sort or another.
But if Jews could adapt to their environment in a certain way, why
couldn't women or men? After all, to the eye, there is no distinction
between a Jew of European origin and a non-Jew of European origin --
or even a Jew of non-European origin. Yet to that same eye, there is
plenty to distinguish a man from a woman. They have bodies designed
for different things. If, as the Utah scientists propose, Jews adapted
to their environment to produce better businessmen (and not better
farmers or soldiers), then why couldn't men or women have adapted to
their particular environments in a similar way? Maybe -- just maybe --
there's a link between not being able to express your feelings and
solving Fermat's Last Theorem? (Notice the question mark.) I
understand full well that beliefs in racial or ethnic superiority or
inferiority have accounted for tragedies beyond comprehension --
everything from the Holocaust in Europe to slavery in America. But at
root, these were ideologies in which facts either did not matter or
were concocted to serve a predetermined end. This is what happened
with Summers. He was shouted down not because he was wrong, but
because he ought to be wrong; not because he might not be right, but
because he should not be right. It did not matter to many of his
critics that at least since the 1980s, researchers have found boys
doing better at math than girls -- not all boy and all girls, mind
you, just those at the highest ranges of achievement. Among the very
best, boys are the very bestest.
The reason the Utah study of Jews produced no outcry is that it
suggested Jews were, like the children of Lake Wobegon, above average.
The reason Summers got into trouble is that he wondered if, so to
speak, women were below average. But if one is possible, why not the
other? The answer escapes me -- and it cannot be, as we all know from
the Utah study, because I'm dumb.
[2]cohenr at washpost.com
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list