I just began my tour—my book’s been out one week—and it’s been a great ride with only a few speed bumps. The only prickly issue has been the debate over “race.†After all, my book came out in the wake of James Watson’s comments about Africa and blacks that led to his public self-immolation.
“Race†IS a thread throughout my book. It’s not that I endorse the concept—it’s a slippery term with lots of not-so-nice historical baggage. But I discuss it throughout. You have to if your reviewing the history of the Israelites and Jews. Humans are different because of their geographical roots, and evolution. How do we talk about it? That’s the challenge. In a previous book, Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We’re Afraid to Talk About It, I managed to navigate the debate over “race†and genetic differences pretty well. I pointed out, for example, that 494 of the top 500 of the all time fastest 100 meter times are held by a runner of primarily West African ancestry (that’s almost all African Americans, for example); yet West Africans are terrible, at the elite level, in distance running. The flip is true of East Africans, such as Kenyans: great distance runners, lousy sprinters. It’s “in the genesâ€--the way evolution has shaped different ancestral populations (let’s get off this simplistic black/white stuff). Even recent intermixing of “races†hasn’t wiped out SOME deep differences.
Abraham’s Children extends the debate to the issue of disease proclivities, which is the real focus of human genome research. I raise that critically important subject by discussing, and in one chapter, Jewish IQ. So far, the public reaction has been civil. I talked before a packed house at CalTech in Pasadena in an event sponsored by the Skeptic Society. Nothing was off limits there, and we had an open debate. Then I moved on to DC., where I spoke at the American Enterprise Institute. The ideological spectrum was represented on the panel, and it too was civil. Then the Washington Post wrote an article on it: Nature or Nurture? Well, Smart Guy? From a ‘no publicity is bad’ standpoint it was great, but it was snarky, suggesting that the entire book (and the forum) was focused on Jews staring at their navels — e.g. A Jewish obsession with their intelligence. It was just another way to avoid talking about a central theme of the book: human biodiversity, which is the most important focus of human genome research. The Post missed the story, in the same way most journalists missed the Watson store. Distort the story. While we on the panel mostly talked about the effort to find a new language to discuss racial differences in medicine, the Post turned into Borscht Belt schtick. Oy Vey. That’s what happens when you go on the road.
For more information, visit my website: www.abrahamschildren.net
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 16
Thanks.
I discuss this in Abraham's Children. Among Arabs, Jews are genetically closest to the Lebanese, Bedouins and Palestinians--all populations that spent most of their history in and around what is now Israel. Other Arab populations trace to more distant regions, such as the Saudi peninsula. According to one study, 7 out of 10 Jewish men and half of Arab men inherited their male chromosome from the same paternal ancestors who lived in the prehistoric Middle East during the Neolithic Period, about 7800 years ago. But the evidence shows that these Semitic populations diverged with little intermarriage. So Jews and Arabs now have only about 18 percent of their DNA in common. In other words, they are related, but distant cousins.
Hope this is clear.
Jon
How do I differ from Charles Murray? He believes--and that's the correct word, because his thoughts on this are grounded in almost pure speculation--that high IQ is found in most Sephardic Jews as well as in Ashkenazi Jews. He suggests that those who self-designate as "Sephardic Jews" include lots of "Oriental Jews"--Jews of a primarily/consistent Middle Eastern ancestry, who intermarried with Spanish Jews who left the Iberian Peninsula during the expulsions. He has a point--there was some intermarriage between indigenous Middle Eastern Jews and Jews who resettled from Spain. But I could find no research that suggests this was extensive. The very sizable Sephardic communities of Spain, were decimated by conversions, forced and chosen, in the 14th and 15th centuries. What was once a proud and relatively highly educated population was decimated. Many that chose to remain Jewish, but migrated to places like the Netherlands, intermarried and eventually left the faith voluntarily, in later centuries. There are of course many highly educated and high IQ Sephardim (just as there are Ashknezai dunces), but the findings about average IQ of these two groups are accurate, I believe, based on the available data.
Murray also challenges another contention raised by the three Christian scientists who came up with the Jewish IQ hypothesis. Harpending, Cochran, and Hardy believe the cultural factors contributing to Jewish IQ began to coalesce in Europe during the formative stages of Ashkenazi Jewry in eastern Europe. Murray believes it started earlier--that high intelligence has been in the cultural DNA of Jews since its earliest days. I just don't see the evidence for it in history. Jewish achievements in the pre-Christian era paled when compared against that of the Greeks and Romans. The Jews left little of enduring artistic or scientific merit for history. They gave us the Bible--a work of huge import but questionable intelligence. Judaism was a religion on the run for most of its history after the destruction of the Second Temple. Sure you have a few bright lights, such as Maimmonides, and Christian culture until the Enlightenment was not much better, but there is no general evidence of great Jewish accomplishments to support his thesis. I would say both his theory and that of Harpending et al are still very speculative.
I'm particularly interested in your notion of finding a new language to discuss racial differences, as you mention at the end of your post:
"While we on the panel mostly talked about the effort to find a new language to discuss racial differences in medicine..."
Is the search for a new langague for dialogue isolated to the medical realm, or is this an ongoing theme?
Do forgive me if this is an issue you discuss in your book; I confess that I have not yet read it.
When I refer to the Scriptures Abraham's seed is those who believe God. To me, this is the only thing that matters. It was Abraham's faith, that put him in good standing with God. Anything that deviates from this so far as my humble opinion goes, is a ploy to keep strife and hatred alive.
It is my sincere hope that what I have written is taken in the kindest spirit of which it is meant. Peace.
After a while it becomes pointless to argue that Jews achieve (as a group) on a level inconsistent with their populations would reflect if everyone was endowed by their Creator with the same genetics. Love live diversity!
Don't Africans run especially easily because of the construction of their feet and ankles?
Don't artists' have a special mental ability to *see*?
Does having a non-phonetic language give Japanese and Chinese high mental skills in mathematics and science?
And is there a reason the Irish are so delightfully verbal?
What is the danger in all this if it is not used to murder people?