Many today suggest reading and education increase IQ. The Jews had mandated education for all males earlier than other cultures.
“…
Elementary school learning was considered compulsory by Simeon ben Shetah in 75 BCE and by Joshua ben Gamla in 64 CE. The education of older boys and men in a beit midrash can be traced back to the period of the Second Temple . The Talmud, states that children should begin school at six, and should not be kept from education by other tasks.
Totally spitballing here (but that's the fun) --weren't the Scots a very warlike people who got rapidly civilized by a superior enemy? Maybe the dumb guys got killed?
Yes generally considered uncivilized, war-like and culturally inferior. It’s an amazing transition. Wonder if anyone’s investigated the huge leaps alScots made or have a theory about what drove it?
Sure. However, people with better intellectual ability can much better organize knowledge. So it causes them much less energy to maintain a certain unit of knowledge. Or maintain so much more knowledge units than people with smaller amount of ability.
Just look at testing for analogies as a metric for verbal intelligence. Obviously, analogies are "knowledge". But those with higher verbal IQ are much better at it. So much so, that they took analogies section out of the SAT verbal.
Absolutely. How does that challenge “Early learning does not increase intellectual ability it simply inputs knowledge.” The intellectual ability is primarily genetic and the drive to increase knowledge is cultural because the value to survival is recognized - or am I missing something?
I possibly misunderstood Baronthefly's point and therefore your response to it. I thought he was going back to 75 BCE to argue that you can't increase IQ in an individual by making him read, that it takes many many generations. Re-reading it, he might just be saying that Jews tend to read more, always have, and so their kids got a little smarter than the illiterates surrounding them. I was arguing against that point.
Assuming that is what he meant, then your post becomes telling him that he is wrong; you cannot make someone smart within a generation simply by making him read more.
The problem with this argument is that, apart from the Ashkenazi, the other major Jewish groups don't seem particularly smart nor have they made outsized intellectual accomplishments. There is considerable variability among these groups that all trace their culture back to period of the Second Temple.
Don’t Israelis think the Mizrahi are stupid and lazy? They don’t like the Ethiopian Jews either. Perhaps the Sephardic are a ring below the Ashkenazi but above other groups.
I’ve alleys thought Ashkenazi did so well financially and culturally because of Christian and Enlightenment influence combined with European genetic admixture, which allowed them to combine th e best parts of being Jewish and Christian and European.
Yes, I've read that the Sephardic Jews are talented, but I've seen little data to suggest they are any more talented than Western Europeans. If they are, it's certainly not obvious.
In Richard Lee's book THE CHOSEN PEOPLE: A STUDY OF JEWISH INTELLIGENCE AND ACHIEVEMENT, he claims that a study of the IQ of the Sephardic Jews in the Balkans found it to be 99.
I had a Sephardic boss one tell me that maybe we Ashkenazi were a little smarter, but the Sephardic were more conniving. I said, Dude, don't brag about that. That's exactly what pisses off the antisemites.
There is evidence of Sephardic over achievement in history. They were advisors to royalty in Spain (a big part of the discover and colonization of the New World BTW) but that could be down to it being advantageous to have advisors who could never have a claim to the crown.
I guess if you look around the world 99 is pretty a pretty good average.
Yes, an average European IQ is pretty good, and it looks even better because many Sephardim, after their exodus from Iberia, settled in places where that IQ is well above average - regions like North Africa, Eastern Europe (the Balkans, Romania) and Turkey.
The Jewish Enlightenment, or Haskalah, was an intellectual and cultural movement among European Jews from the late 18th to the 19th century, roughly 1770s to 1880s. It sought to modernize Jewish life by encouraging integration into broader European society, promoting secular education, and embracing rational thought while preserving Jewish identity. Here’s a concise overview:
Key Features of the Haskalah:
1 Origins and Context:
◦ Emerged in Western Europe, particularly in Germany, with figures like Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786) as a central figure.
◦ Influenced by the broader European Enlightenment, which emphasized reason, science, and individual rights.
◦ Responded to the marginalization of Jews in European societies and the restrictive conditions of ghetto life.
2 Goals:
◦ Education Reform: Advocated for secular education alongside traditional Jewish studies, including learning European languages, sciences, and humanities.
◦ Cultural Integration: Encouraged Jews to adopt local customs, dress, and languages (e.g., German or French) to reduce social barriers while maintaining Jewish religious or cultural identity.
◦ Modernization of Judaism: Promoted critical study of Jewish texts, religious reform, and a balance between tradition and modernity.
◦ Civic Equality: Supported efforts to gain equal rights and citizenship for Jews in European nations.
3 Key Figures:
◦ Moses Mendelssohn: A philosopher who advocated for Jewish emancipation and translated the Hebrew Bible into German, making Jewish texts accessible to a broader audience.
◦ Naphtali Herz Wessely: Promoted educational reforms and Hebrew poetry.
◦ Isaac Euchel: Founded Hameassef, a Hebrew-language journal that spread Haskalah ideas.
4 Regional Variations:
◦ Western Europe (e.g., Germany, France): Focused on integration and emancipation, with Jews adopting secular education and local languages.
◦ Eastern Europe (e.g., Poland, Russia): Emphasized Hebrew and Yiddish literature, cultural revival, and resistance to both assimilation and traditionalist orthodoxy.
◦ Later spread to the Russian Empire, where it influenced movements like Zionism and Jewish socialism.
5 Impact:
◦ Cultural: Revived Hebrew as a literary language, laying groundwork for modern Hebrew literature and Zionism.
◦ Religious: Sparked debates leading to the emergence of Reform Judaism and modern Orthodox movements.
◦ Social: Contributed to Jewish emancipation in Europe, as Jews gained more legal rights (e.g., during the Napoleonic era).
◦ Challenges: Faced resistance from traditional Jewish communities, who feared assimilation, and from some European societies, who opposed Jewish integration.
6 Legacy:
◦ Paved the way for modern Jewish movements, including Zionism and secular Jewish culture.
◦ Influenced the development of Jewish scholarship and the integration of Jews into modern nation-states.
◦ Created tensions between traditionalism and modernity that continue to shape Jewish identity.
The Haskalah was a transformative period that balanced Jewish tradition with Enlightenment ideals, reshaping Jewish life in Europe and beyond. If you want specific details, like its impact in a particular region or key texts, let me know!
Ashkenazi Jewish education has deep roots in their cultural and religious traditions, going back centuries. From the Middle Ages in Europe, they prioritized literacy because studying the Torah and Talmud was central to their identity. By the tenth century, boys were taught Hebrew and religious texts in small community schools called yeshivas, often starting as young as three or four. This wasn’t just rote learning—it involved rigorous debate and critical thinking, sharpening analytical skills early on. Because Ashkenazi Jews were often barred from owning land or entering certain trades, they leaned hard into intellectual pursuits. By the Renaissance, their scholars were diving into secular subjects like math, astronomy, and medicine, especially in places like Poland and Germany where they had thriving communities. This created a culture where education wasn’t just valued—it was survival. Families, even poor ones, made sacrifices to keep kids in school, and being a scholar was a status symbol. Fast forward to the nineteenth century, as Jews gained more rights in Europe, Ashkenazi communities embraced secular education too. They flocked to universities when allowed, excelling in fields like science and law. This drive carried into the twentieth century—think Einstein, Freud, or von Neumann—all Ashkenazi, all products of a culture obsessed with learning. Studies estimate Ashkenazi Jews in the U.S. have college graduation rates around sixty to seventy percent, way above the national average. Today, their educational edge shows in overrepresentation in fields like academia and tech. But it’s not just genetics—centuries of valuing study, debate, and intellectual risk-taking, plus access to urban centers with top schools, built this legacy. On the flip side, some argue this focus created pressure or narrow paths, but the data’s clear: education’s been a cornerstone for Ashkenazi success. Anything specific you want to dig into here?
"This speculation relies on several contestable assumptions, including low rates of interbreeding between Jews and non-Jews, strong selection, and high heritability of intelligence."
Low rates of mixing: check. There are numerous studies for example on good heritability of the Cohen Y-haplotype. Moreover, 2.0-2.5k years of exile (80-120 generations) have not expunged a strong connection to the Mid-East.
Compared to them, Carthagenians/Punics showed a rapid European replacement between the established Canaanite colony in Carthago at the dawn of the iron age to the destruction of Carthago in the 2nd century BCE. Razib Khan did a recent substack report on that. https://www.razibkhan.com/p/the-punic-paradox-genetically-romes
Originally, yes. Themselves, they were called Canaanites. Greeks and Romans called them Phoenicians for the mollusc dye they used to stain wool and other materials to manufacture clothing. Later on, it was shortened to Punics. Canaanites were merchant seafarers that for example travelled up to Cornwall (to purchase tin from Cornish tin-mines, tin was a key ingredient in bronze). Because their main business was being a merchant, In the scripture "Canaanite" is sometimes used synonymous with merchant, for example in the "Woman of Valor" song in the Proverbs, or in the Prophecy of Obadiah.
They (Canaanites) founded a lot of cities in Spain, Mediterranean France, Sicily and Southern Italy. However, they liked Carthago best, because it was further away from most other big power centers like Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and Rome.
Oh right. the Phoenicians were from that part of the world originally. I wonder how they relate to all the other people's who have lived there. I wonder why the Romans went with Philistines when renaming the area instead of the Phoenicians. Prestige maybe.
Remember, Romans hated Punics. On the other hand, Plishtim were Indo-European sea people and there is DNA evidence to back this up too. So Greco-Romans saw them as their previous incarnation.
We do know that Phoenicians/Canaanites had a DNA profile somewhat different from the Europeans. Otherwise, one couldn't have found a gradual replacement of Canaanite DNA with that of Europeans during the history of Carthago.
With respect to Israelis - one doesn't really know. Both spoke similar West-Semitic languages, and initially, Israelis (like the Moabites and Ammonites) used a Canaanite script (Israelis switched to Assyrian/Aramaic script during the Babylonian exile). There are lots of excavated Israeli settlements on the Shomron hillsides from 12-8 centuries BCE, but so far no DNA readouts. We do know that these settlements didn't contain pig bones, while Canaanites did eat pork. And of course, Canaanites had those dreadful child sacrifices, which Cartagenians stuck to, too.
Why didn't the Egyptians establish colonies around the Mediterranean like the Greeks and Phoenicians did? Surely, they had the excess population at times. Autocratic megalomania kept them busy building at home?
Hhm, hhm, how should I say this. I opine the Egyptians were a bit on the sturdy and not so agile side. Sons of the Earth and all that. Nile River Valley was extremely fertile without having so much to do in terms of back-breaking labor. While sea-faring was risky.
I would love to argue against this guy's point, but it's so slippery. It's impossible to form a counterargument because at different times he appears to be saying everything and nothing. Why do these guys not provide a strict definition of "social construct" and criteria for distinguishing it from a "biological construct", for example? Is he arguing against the idea that being black tells you everything you need to know about an individual? Does he think people on the other side of the discussion think there's no variation between black people? Ultimately it sounds like he's arguing against the most extreme, stupidest people on the internet.
I'm surprised to learn that in the early 20th century the consensus among biologists was that all behaviors were genetic. Is that true? I thought the idea that genes e.g. determined criminality, were considered extreme and unproven back then. If everyone agreed all behavior was genetic, when did they switch to the "blank slate" idea? I know that was prominent at least in the 1960s.
I used to speculate that "blank slate" was a way for spiritual people to hold on to it when faced with the onslaught of new biological knowledge and the post WWII fad of existentialism/nihilism.
If you read much W S Churchill, he's very much into the character of "races"--ethnicities and nations. As is Conan Doyle. Not surprising for the class-obsessed.
More signs of the great hip-hop culture: RIVER NORTH — Four people were killed and 14 were wounded late Wednesday in a mass shooting outside a River North restaurant and lounge hosting a mixtape release party for rapper Mello Buckzz, police said.
The shooting appears to be the worst in years for Chicago.
At 11:02 p.m., a dark-colored car went past Artis Restaurant, 311 W. Chicago Ave., and a person in the car shot at a crowd of people standing outside, police said. The people in the car drove off.
What is notable in these kinds of undertakings is that they are never interested in just figuring stuff out. They never say "of course these are interesting questions, here are the major plausible explanations, let's look at the evidence for each and see where we get". They start out from "bad people keep talking about this explanation, here's a whole book / article / talk about why it is wrong". The original interesting question just gets lain aside, but it's still interesting so of course people still keep returning to it.
Many today suggest reading and education increase IQ. The Jews had mandated education for all males earlier than other cultures.
“…
Elementary school learning was considered compulsory by Simeon ben Shetah in 75 BCE and by Joshua ben Gamla in 64 CE. The education of older boys and men in a beit midrash can be traced back to the period of the Second Temple . The Talmud, states that children should begin school at six, and should not be kept from education by other tasks.
…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_education?wprov=sfti1#History
If a culture puts a high value on education, do the less-educable reproduce as often?
Yet the Scots went from largely illiterate to "inventing the modern world" in a few generations.
Totally spitballing here (but that's the fun) --weren't the Scots a very warlike people who got rapidly civilized by a superior enemy? Maybe the dumb guys got killed?
If it helps, I dig your sweaters and enlightenment.
Yes generally considered uncivilized, war-like and culturally inferior. It’s an amazing transition. Wonder if anyone’s investigated the huge leaps alScots made or have a theory about what drove it?
Exactly - one tried to reestablish Bengamla school system in NYC, but the Dem authorities didn't like the idea. Was successful in Florida though...
This is simply confusing intellectual ability with ignorance (lack of knowledge.)
Early learning does not increase intellectual ability it simply inputs knowledge.
Sure. However, people with better intellectual ability can much better organize knowledge. So it causes them much less energy to maintain a certain unit of knowledge. Or maintain so much more knowledge units than people with smaller amount of ability.
Just look at testing for analogies as a metric for verbal intelligence. Obviously, analogies are "knowledge". But those with higher verbal IQ are much better at it. So much so, that they took analogies section out of the SAT verbal.
I think the idea is that an entire culture that values learning will, on average, select for people better at learning.
Absolutely. How does that challenge “Early learning does not increase intellectual ability it simply inputs knowledge.” The intellectual ability is primarily genetic and the drive to increase knowledge is cultural because the value to survival is recognized - or am I missing something?
I possibly misunderstood Baronthefly's point and therefore your response to it. I thought he was going back to 75 BCE to argue that you can't increase IQ in an individual by making him read, that it takes many many generations. Re-reading it, he might just be saying that Jews tend to read more, always have, and so their kids got a little smarter than the illiterates surrounding them. I was arguing against that point.
Assuming that is what he meant, then your post becomes telling him that he is wrong; you cannot make someone smart within a generation simply by making him read more.
Threads are confusing.
The problem with this argument is that, apart from the Ashkenazi, the other major Jewish groups don't seem particularly smart nor have they made outsized intellectual accomplishments. There is considerable variability among these groups that all trace their culture back to period of the Second Temple.
Don’t Israelis think the Mizrahi are stupid and lazy? They don’t like the Ethiopian Jews either. Perhaps the Sephardic are a ring below the Ashkenazi but above other groups.
I’ve alleys thought Ashkenazi did so well financially and culturally because of Christian and Enlightenment influence combined with European genetic admixture, which allowed them to combine th e best parts of being Jewish and Christian and European.
Or the less-bright Ashkenazis couldn't hack it as oppressed minorities and converted or died out.
Shouldn't this be true of all the Jewish groups, though? All of them lived in places where it was more beneficial to convert than remain Jewish.
Yes, I've read that the Sephardic Jews are talented, but I've seen little data to suggest they are any more talented than Western Europeans. If they are, it's certainly not obvious.
In Richard Lee's book THE CHOSEN PEOPLE: A STUDY OF JEWISH INTELLIGENCE AND ACHIEVEMENT, he claims that a study of the IQ of the Sephardic Jews in the Balkans found it to be 99.
I had a Sephardic boss one tell me that maybe we Ashkenazi were a little smarter, but the Sephardic were more conniving. I said, Dude, don't brag about that. That's exactly what pisses off the antisemites.
There is evidence of Sephardic over achievement in history. They were advisors to royalty in Spain (a big part of the discover and colonization of the New World BTW) but that could be down to it being advantageous to have advisors who could never have a claim to the crown.
I guess if you look around the world 99 is pretty a pretty good average.
Yes, an average European IQ is pretty good, and it looks even better because many Sephardim, after their exodus from Iberia, settled in places where that IQ is well above average - regions like North Africa, Eastern Europe (the Balkans, Romania) and Turkey.
The Jewish Enlightenment, or Haskalah, was an intellectual and cultural movement among European Jews from the late 18th to the 19th century, roughly 1770s to 1880s. It sought to modernize Jewish life by encouraging integration into broader European society, promoting secular education, and embracing rational thought while preserving Jewish identity. Here’s a concise overview:
Key Features of the Haskalah:
1 Origins and Context:
◦ Emerged in Western Europe, particularly in Germany, with figures like Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786) as a central figure.
◦ Influenced by the broader European Enlightenment, which emphasized reason, science, and individual rights.
◦ Responded to the marginalization of Jews in European societies and the restrictive conditions of ghetto life.
2 Goals:
◦ Education Reform: Advocated for secular education alongside traditional Jewish studies, including learning European languages, sciences, and humanities.
◦ Cultural Integration: Encouraged Jews to adopt local customs, dress, and languages (e.g., German or French) to reduce social barriers while maintaining Jewish religious or cultural identity.
◦ Modernization of Judaism: Promoted critical study of Jewish texts, religious reform, and a balance between tradition and modernity.
◦ Civic Equality: Supported efforts to gain equal rights and citizenship for Jews in European nations.
3 Key Figures:
◦ Moses Mendelssohn: A philosopher who advocated for Jewish emancipation and translated the Hebrew Bible into German, making Jewish texts accessible to a broader audience.
◦ Naphtali Herz Wessely: Promoted educational reforms and Hebrew poetry.
◦ Isaac Euchel: Founded Hameassef, a Hebrew-language journal that spread Haskalah ideas.
4 Regional Variations:
◦ Western Europe (e.g., Germany, France): Focused on integration and emancipation, with Jews adopting secular education and local languages.
◦ Eastern Europe (e.g., Poland, Russia): Emphasized Hebrew and Yiddish literature, cultural revival, and resistance to both assimilation and traditionalist orthodoxy.
◦ Later spread to the Russian Empire, where it influenced movements like Zionism and Jewish socialism.
5 Impact:
◦ Cultural: Revived Hebrew as a literary language, laying groundwork for modern Hebrew literature and Zionism.
◦ Religious: Sparked debates leading to the emergence of Reform Judaism and modern Orthodox movements.
◦ Social: Contributed to Jewish emancipation in Europe, as Jews gained more legal rights (e.g., during the Napoleonic era).
◦ Challenges: Faced resistance from traditional Jewish communities, who feared assimilation, and from some European societies, who opposed Jewish integration.
6 Legacy:
◦ Paved the way for modern Jewish movements, including Zionism and secular Jewish culture.
◦ Influenced the development of Jewish scholarship and the integration of Jews into modern nation-states.
◦ Created tensions between traditionalism and modernity that continue to shape Jewish identity.
The Haskalah was a transformative period that balanced Jewish tradition with Enlightenment ideals, reshaping Jewish life in Europe and beyond. If you want specific details, like its impact in a particular region or key texts, let me know!
Ashkenazi Jewish education has deep roots in their cultural and religious traditions, going back centuries. From the Middle Ages in Europe, they prioritized literacy because studying the Torah and Talmud was central to their identity. By the tenth century, boys were taught Hebrew and religious texts in small community schools called yeshivas, often starting as young as three or four. This wasn’t just rote learning—it involved rigorous debate and critical thinking, sharpening analytical skills early on. Because Ashkenazi Jews were often barred from owning land or entering certain trades, they leaned hard into intellectual pursuits. By the Renaissance, their scholars were diving into secular subjects like math, astronomy, and medicine, especially in places like Poland and Germany where they had thriving communities. This created a culture where education wasn’t just valued—it was survival. Families, even poor ones, made sacrifices to keep kids in school, and being a scholar was a status symbol. Fast forward to the nineteenth century, as Jews gained more rights in Europe, Ashkenazi communities embraced secular education too. They flocked to universities when allowed, excelling in fields like science and law. This drive carried into the twentieth century—think Einstein, Freud, or von Neumann—all Ashkenazi, all products of a culture obsessed with learning. Studies estimate Ashkenazi Jews in the U.S. have college graduation rates around sixty to seventy percent, way above the national average. Today, their educational edge shows in overrepresentation in fields like academia and tech. But it’s not just genetics—centuries of valuing study, debate, and intellectual risk-taking, plus access to urban centers with top schools, built this legacy. On the flip side, some argue this focus created pressure or narrow paths, but the data’s clear: education’s been a cornerstone for Ashkenazi success. Anything specific you want to dig into here?
It seems like they reached their desired conclusion first.
"This speculation relies on several contestable assumptions, including low rates of interbreeding between Jews and non-Jews, strong selection, and high heritability of intelligence."
Contestable?
High heritability: check
Strong selection: check
Low rates of mixing: check. There are numerous studies for example on good heritability of the Cohen Y-haplotype. Moreover, 2.0-2.5k years of exile (80-120 generations) have not expunged a strong connection to the Mid-East.
Compared to them, Carthagenians/Punics showed a rapid European replacement between the established Canaanite colony in Carthago at the dawn of the iron age to the destruction of Carthago in the 2nd century BCE. Razib Khan did a recent substack report on that. https://www.razibkhan.com/p/the-punic-paradox-genetically-romes
The Carthaginians were Canaanites? I had no idea. I will read the link with great interest.
Originally, yes. Themselves, they were called Canaanites. Greeks and Romans called them Phoenicians for the mollusc dye they used to stain wool and other materials to manufacture clothing. Later on, it was shortened to Punics. Canaanites were merchant seafarers that for example travelled up to Cornwall (to purchase tin from Cornish tin-mines, tin was a key ingredient in bronze). Because their main business was being a merchant, In the scripture "Canaanite" is sometimes used synonymous with merchant, for example in the "Woman of Valor" song in the Proverbs, or in the Prophecy of Obadiah.
They (Canaanites) founded a lot of cities in Spain, Mediterranean France, Sicily and Southern Italy. However, they liked Carthago best, because it was further away from most other big power centers like Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and Rome.
Oh right. the Phoenicians were from that part of the world originally. I wonder how they relate to all the other people's who have lived there. I wonder why the Romans went with Philistines when renaming the area instead of the Phoenicians. Prestige maybe.
Remember, Romans hated Punics. On the other hand, Plishtim were Indo-European sea people and there is DNA evidence to back this up too. So Greco-Romans saw them as their previous incarnation.
We do know that Phoenicians/Canaanites had a DNA profile somewhat different from the Europeans. Otherwise, one couldn't have found a gradual replacement of Canaanite DNA with that of Europeans during the history of Carthago.
With respect to Israelis - one doesn't really know. Both spoke similar West-Semitic languages, and initially, Israelis (like the Moabites and Ammonites) used a Canaanite script (Israelis switched to Assyrian/Aramaic script during the Babylonian exile). There are lots of excavated Israeli settlements on the Shomron hillsides from 12-8 centuries BCE, but so far no DNA readouts. We do know that these settlements didn't contain pig bones, while Canaanites did eat pork. And of course, Canaanites had those dreadful child sacrifices, which Cartagenians stuck to, too.
A period of history of which I remain broadly ignorant. Something to do when retirement arrives. Thanks.
Why didn't the Egyptians establish colonies around the Mediterranean like the Greeks and Phoenicians did? Surely, they had the excess population at times. Autocratic megalomania kept them busy building at home?
Hhm, hhm, how should I say this. I opine the Egyptians were a bit on the sturdy and not so agile side. Sons of the Earth and all that. Nile River Valley was extremely fertile without having so much to do in terms of back-breaking labor. While sea-faring was risky.
I would love to argue against this guy's point, but it's so slippery. It's impossible to form a counterargument because at different times he appears to be saying everything and nothing. Why do these guys not provide a strict definition of "social construct" and criteria for distinguishing it from a "biological construct", for example? Is he arguing against the idea that being black tells you everything you need to know about an individual? Does he think people on the other side of the discussion think there's no variation between black people? Ultimately it sounds like he's arguing against the most extreme, stupidest people on the internet.
I'm surprised to learn that in the early 20th century the consensus among biologists was that all behaviors were genetic. Is that true? I thought the idea that genes e.g. determined criminality, were considered extreme and unproven back then. If everyone agreed all behavior was genetic, when did they switch to the "blank slate" idea? I know that was prominent at least in the 1960s.
I used to speculate that "blank slate" was a way for spiritual people to hold on to it when faced with the onslaught of new biological knowledge and the post WWII fad of existentialism/nihilism.
If you read much W S Churchill, he's very much into the character of "races"--ethnicities and nations. As is Conan Doyle. Not surprising for the class-obsessed.
Seems like this conversation might be useful if we saw the GCC data. What share is genetic and what share is culture?
More signs of the great hip-hop culture: RIVER NORTH — Four people were killed and 14 were wounded late Wednesday in a mass shooting outside a River North restaurant and lounge hosting a mixtape release party for rapper Mello Buckzz, police said.
The shooting appears to be the worst in years for Chicago.
At 11:02 p.m., a dark-colored car went past Artis Restaurant, 311 W. Chicago Ave., and a person in the car shot at a crowd of people standing outside, police said. The people in the car drove off.
What is notable in these kinds of undertakings is that they are never interested in just figuring stuff out. They never say "of course these are interesting questions, here are the major plausible explanations, let's look at the evidence for each and see where we get". They start out from "bad people keep talking about this explanation, here's a whole book / article / talk about why it is wrong". The original interesting question just gets lain aside, but it's still interesting so of course people still keep returning to it.