Ideas about Ashkenazi Jewish cognitive abilities have roots in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During the rise of scientific racism and eugenics in Europe, some scientists fixated on supposed racial differences in intellect. In this period, even antisemitic theorists speculated that Jews might have distinctive mental traits, sometimes casting Jewish intelligence in a dubious light. For example, cultural historian Sander Gilman notes that late-19th-century race scientists, inspired by social Darwinism, developed theories of “superior Jewish intelligence” – albeit with ambivalence. These theorists often believed Jews were biologically hard-wired for certain intellectual strengths: some claimed Jews had special aptitude for legalistic or abstract thinking, while others perversely argued that Jews were “hyper-intellectual” due to having “diseased minds”. In fin de siècle Vienna – a hotbed of antisemitism – popular notions held that Jews were clever but not truly creative. This stereotype even seeped into the self-perceptions of some Jewish intellectuals; philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, for instance, lamented in his diary the trope that “the Jewish mind doesn’t have the power to produce even the tiniest blade of grass,” echoing contemporary anti-Jewish rhetoric. Thus, from the outset the image of Jewish intelligence carried a dual edge: it was praised by some and disparaged by others, often reflecting prevailing prejudices.
By the early 20th century, Jews’ high achievements in academia, science, and the arts were increasingly evident, raising questions about their source. Classical essays and anecdotes celebrated a “Jewish genius” stereotype – for example, author Mark Twain famously marveled at Jewish intellectual contributions far out of proportion to their numbers. At the same time, antisemitic narratives twisted Jewish success into evidence of cunning or conspiracy rather than talent. This dual perception meant that even a “positive” stereotype (smart, bookish Jews) could be entangled with negative overtones (scheming or physically weak). Sociologist Thorstein Veblen in 1919 wrote about Jews’ prominence in European intellectual life, attributing it partly to cultural values and marginal social positions – an early attempt to explain their achievements without resorting to crude racial theory. Nonetheless, as IQ testing emerged in the 1910s–1920s, some researchers tried to measure Jews’ intelligence quantitatively. Initial results were mixed and often confounded by bias or the immigrant experience. (Notably, the oft-repeated story that early-20th-century Jewish immigrants scored low on IQ tests has been called a canard) Over time, however, more data accumulated suggesting that Ashkenazi Jews tended to score high on certain cognitive tests. By mid-century, it had “long been known that Ashkenazi Jews have an unusually high average IQ,” according to psychologist Nicholas Mackintosh. Yet debates raged over why this might be so, setting the stage for modern scientific inquiries.
Scientific studies and empirical research
From the mid-20th century onwards, psychologists undertook more systematic studies of Jewish intelligence. Psychometric tests consistently showed Ashkenazi Jews scoring above average on measures of cognitive ability. However, the pattern was nuanced. Ashkenazi Jews tended to excel especially in verbal and mathematical reasoning, while scoring nearer to average (or slightly lower) on visual-spatial tasks. This profile – sometimes described as “high verbal, lower spatial” – became a well-documented feature of Ashkenazi test performance. For example, a 1970 study of U.S. high school students found Jewish 10th-grade boys averaging about 112 on verbal IQ (where 100 is general population mean). Another study in 1958, focusing on yeshiva (religious school) students, reported a strikingly high median verbal IQ of ~126 among that group. By contrast, tests of spatial or performance IQ often showed Jewish scores closer to ~100, suggesting no special advantage in that domain. These results align with anecdotal observations of Jewish academic strengths in literature, law, and science, versus the old jest that “Jews are bad at geometry.” Such findings have led researchers to estimate Ashkenazi full-scale IQ (combining all subtests) in the range of roughly 107 to 115, well above the U.S./European norm. In other words, various studies — despite differing samples and methods — generally concur that Ashkenazi Jews average around a standard deviation (10–15 points) higher than the general population on standardized IQ tests.
It must be noted that these studies have limitations. Sample sizes were often small or not nationally representative, and measuring “Jewish” populations can be tricky (as definitions vary and many studies focused on college students or specific communities). Moreover, a significant portion of research on this topic has been conducted by a few psychologists who are themselves controversial. One such figure is Richard Lynn, who published a 2004 paper reporting that American Jews score well above other American whites in verbal IQ. Lynn found a gap of roughly 7–15 points in verbal ability in favor of Jews, mirroring earlier findings from the Ann Arbor study (1970) and others. However, Lynn’s work and methodology have been heavily criticized; he has described himself as a “scientific racist,” and multiple scholars have accused him of distorting data to fit racial hierarchies. Indeed, a group of researchers in 2019 called for retraction of some of Lynn’s studies, citing “misrepresentations of the data” that amounted to venomous racism and “scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity”. This casts doubt on the reliability of certain oft-cited IQ estimates. As one psychologist summarized, “most, though not all, studies give Ashkenazi descendants a higher IQ than non-Jewish whites,” but the exact magnitude of any advantage remains contentious. Furthermore, “many studies in the literature are often done by disreputable researchers, which may make assessing the size of [the IQ] difference difficult”. In short, there is empirical evidence of above-average test performance, but its interpretation requires caution.
Beyond IQ tests, scholars have pointed to real-world achievements as indirect evidence of high ability. Ashkenazi Jews, though only about 0.2% of the world population, have been awarded 22% of Nobel Prizes in the sciences and similarly outsized fractions of honors like the Fields Medal in mathematics and the ACM Turing Award in computing (but there may be clintelism). In the United States, people of Ashkenazi descent (around 2% of the U.S. population) made up an estimated 27% of 20th-century U.S. Nobel winners, about 30% of top university faculty, and a large portion of elite professionals in fields like law and medicine. Such statistics are sometimes cited to bolster claims of a cognitive advantage. However, drawing conclusions from achievement data is perilous: these outcomes can be shaped by cultural traditions, values, and historical circumstances (discussed later), not just innate aptitude. Moreover, the range of ability within any ethnic group is enormous – far larger than any group difference. According to the American Psychological Association, the spread of test scores within racial/ethnic groups is much greater than any observed gap between group averages. This means there are high-IQ and low-IQ individuals in every population, and overlap is substantial. Indeed, Jewish communities themselves have long rejected the notion that intelligence (especially as measured by tests) defines individual or group worth, emphasizing that such stereotypes can be misleading or harmful.
Genetic and evolutionary hypotheses
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of this topic is why Ashkenazi Jews might score higher on IQ tests. Over the years, researchers have proposed genetic and evolutionary explanations, often sparking heated debate. A landmark (and polarizing) paper appeared in 2005 titled “Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence.” In this paper, authors Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending argued that the unique demography and occupations of medieval Ashkenazi Jews created an evolutionary pressure favoring higher intelligence. Their hypothesis runs as follows: between roughly 800 AD and 1700 AD, Ashkenazi Jews in Europe were largely confined to cognitive occupations – such as moneylending, trade, and scholarship – because they were often barred from landowning or manual trades. In this period, wealth and reproductive success in Jewish communities may have been linked to success in finance or teaching, which in turn correlated with cognitive skills. Thus, those with higher verbal and mathematical intelligence allegedly had more surviving children, causing genes associated with high intelligence to spread. Cochran et al. further pointed to the cluster of inherited recessive diseases prevalent among Ashkenazi Jews (e.g. Tay–Sachs, Gaucher’s disease, familial dysautonomia). They speculated that some genetic mutations causing these diseases could, in heterozygous carriers (one copy of the gene), enhance brain development or function, conferring a cognitive boost. In their view, Ashkenazi Jews evolved a higher average IQ (they suggested roughly 108–115) as a trade-off – the same mutations that incrementally improved intelligence also increased disease rates as a side effect. This hypothesis garnered widespread media coverage when published and remains one of the most discussed explanations for “Jewish genius.”
However, the selective advantage theory is far from proven and has been widely criticized by experts. Evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker cautiously called the Cochran-Harpending idea “tentative” – an interesting conjecture that “could turn out to be mistaken”. Even proponents admit it is speculative: Charles Murray, summarizing the theory, conceded that when it comes to explaining elevated Jewish IQ, “the discussion must become speculative” and any genetic explanation is not certain. Geneticists including David Reich have challenged the Cochran et al. model on technical grounds. Reich notes that many Ashkenazi diseases are more likely due to genetic drift and founder effects in a historically small population, rather than positive selection for intellect. In other words, random chance and isolation (e.g. population bottlenecks) can fix certain mutations at high frequency, without those mutations ever having been beneficial. Another geneticist, Adam Rutherford, points out that if these disease mutations were truly advantageous in medieval times, similar high frequencies might be seen in other groups under similar pressures, yet we don’t observe that. Rutherford also cites evidence that the major population bottleneck in Ashkenazi ancestry occurred earlier (perhaps around 1100 AD or before), which could account for today’s disease gene frequencies without invoking recent selection.
Anthropologist R. Brian Ferguson published a comprehensive rebuttal titled “How Jews Became Smart” in 2008, dissecting the Cochran-Harpending hypothesis point by point. Ferguson argued that the improbabilities quickly pile up: for example, less than half of the cited Ashkenazi genetic disorders even have a hypothesized pathway to enhanced cognition. The authors speculated wildly – “pure speculation” built on a simplistic understanding of neurobiology – when asserting that certain alleles for neural growth necessarily increase IQ. Ferguson also noted that there is virtually no empirical support for linking any specific “Jewish disease” allele to higher intelligence in carriers (a telling example: mutations in the gene associated with Tay–Sachs have not been shown to raise IQ in carriers, and some diseases like Gaucher’s can actually cause neurological impairment). Crucially, the actual IQ advantage of Ashkenazi populations appears smaller than Cochran et al. assumed, and so their model’s need for large selective boosts per generation is questionable. Modern genetics also tells us that intelligence is influenced by hundreds of genes of tiny effect, not a handful of big-effect mutations – making the Cochran-Harpending idea of a few mutations adding 5–10 IQ points each highly inconsistent with current polygenic research. In sum, Ferguson and others contend that the entire scenario of rapid selection for genius in medieval ghettos is highly unlikely. As an alternate view, they emphasize historical and cultural explanations: the “Talmudic tradition” of rigorous learning and debate in Ashkenazi communities could itself produce better abstract reasoning skills over generations (through cultural practice, not genetic change. Even within mainstream IQ research, which acknowledges some heritable component to intelligence, experts say the modest Ashkenazi IQ edge can be “easily accommodated as due to environment”. In other words, ordinary environmental factors are more than sufficient to explain a 5-15 point IQ difference, obviating any need for exotic genetic stories.
Apart from the Cochran-Harpending thesis, other genetic inquiries have explored this topic. In 2019, a study by Dunkel et al. attempted to use modern genomics – specifically polygenic scores – to compare predicted cognitive ability across groups. They reported that individuals of Jewish ancestry had higher average polygenic scores for educational attainment and IQ-related genes than some other groups. This finding was extremely controversial. Critics like biologist Evan Charney noted that the study’s methodology was flawed in ways reminiscent of earlier discredited “candidate gene” studies. One glaring issue, highlighted by Aaron Panofsky and others, is that the reported genetic scores would absurdly predict a 4 standard deviation IQ gap (i.e. an IQ around 160) between Jews and non-Jews – a difference that patently does not exist in reality. This mismatch suggests the polygenic metric was capturing noise or population structure artifacts rather than any meaningful IQ difference. Another team (Jordan et al.) observed that if polygenic scores were truly destiny, they could not account for the historical changes in Jewish intellectual achievement over time (which have fluctuated with social conditions). Overall, despite the allure of modern genetics, no credible study has yet demonstrated a clear genetic cause for elevated Ashkenazi IQ. As geneticist Francis Collins cautioned, “the downside of using race [or ethnicity]… is that we are reifying it as if it has more biological significance than it deserves”. The consensus among most scientists today is that while genes play a role in individual intelligence, group differences in IQ are far more likely explained by social and environmental factors than by evolutionary divergence.
Cultural and environmental factors
Many scholars argue that Ashkenazi Jewish achievements are best understood through culture, education, and environment, rather than biology. Jewish communities – particularly Ashkenazim in Europe – have for centuries placed extraordinary emphasis on learning and literacy. Since at least the early Middle Ages, Jewish religious life demanded that males learn to read and study religious texts (Torah and Talmud). By around 1000 AD, Jews had achieved something unique in that era: near-universal male literacy and numeracy. This was driven by necessity (to observe religious law one had to study) and by communal values. Some historians believe this head start in literacy had long-term effects, creating a “bookish” culture that prized scholarship. Over subsequent generations, intense Talmudic study – with its focus on debate, memorization, and reasoning – may have effectively trained cognitive skills like memory and critical thinking. Best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell, in Outliers, pointed out that spending one’s youth in a yeshiva poring over dense, complex texts could nurture mental discipline and problem-solving ability in a way few other upbringings do. This cultural milieu might explain why even poor Jewish immigrants often quickly ascended academically: their families and communities imbued them with a reverence for education as the route to success.
In addition to education, historical socio-economic conditions played a role. As mentioned, in many European societies Jews were funneled into middleman occupations (finance, trade, medicine) that demanded cognitive skills and literacy. Those who excelled in these areas often became community leaders and had more surviving children, potentially creating an environmental selection of talent (without invoking genetic heritability). Economist Thomas Sowell and others have noted that minorities with traditions of scholarship and commerce – not just Jews, but also groups like Parsees in India or overseas Chinese – often develop a competitive advantage in modern knowledge-based economies. Over generations, the compounding effects of valuing education (children are pushed to study, encouraged to attend college, etc.) can yield dramatically high achievement rates. Indeed, sociologist Noah Efron suggests the real reason Jews win so many Nobel Prizes is not hidden genes, but a culture that relentlessly fosters intellectual ambition and curiosity. In Israel, observers see this in the heavy representation of Ashkenazi-descended students in advanced scientific and technical fields – an outcome likely tied to family expectations and community support for academics.
Several specific cultural practices have been proposed as contributing factors. For example, traditional Ashkenazi families often encouraged debate and pilpul (sharp analytical argumentation) over religious texts, which might sharpen reasoning ability. There is also the historical reality that Jewish populations in Europe tended to be urbanized earlier and had access to broader trade networks and information exchange. Even dietary or health factors have been whimsically suggested (e.g. could the kosher diet or avoiding alcohol have had cognitive benefits? – most likely such effects are minor compared to education). Modern researchers emphasize that socio-economic advantages are crucial: by the 20th century, Ashkenazi Jews in the U.S. and Europe often belonged to middle or upper-middle classes that could afford better schooling for their children. The dramatic rise of American Jews in professional fields between 1920 and 1960, for instance, correlates with expanded university access and the lifting of some social barriers – not a sudden genetic shift. In summary, nurture-based explanations assert that Jewish intellectual success is a product of traditions of learning, strong community support for education, and historical circumstances that rewarded cognitive skills. These factors created a self-reinforcing cycle of achievement. As columnist Bret Stephens put it, the secret to “Jewish genius” may simply lie in a culture that esteems study and rigorous intellectual effort generation after generation.
It is worth noting that cultural explanations also account for differences within the Jewish world. The elevated IQ stereotype primarily concerns Ashkenazi Jews (of Central/Eastern European descent). Other Jewish groups, such as Sephardic and Mizrahi (Middle Eastern) Jews, do not show unusually high IQ averages in the limited data available; their scores tend to hover around general population means. Cochran et al. themselves acknowledged this and argued that any theory must explain why only Ashkenazim developed higher test scores. Cultural historians point out that Sephardic and Middle Eastern Jewish communities historically had different experiences – often engaging more in artisan or agricultural roles or being part of societies where they weren’t as exclusively channeled into finance. Thus, the environmental pressures and educational traditions differed, potentially leading to different outcomes. This intra-Jewish comparison bolsters the case that environment, not innate ethnicity, underlies the IQ gap. If a “Jewish genome” were truly responsible, one might expect it to elevate all Jewish sub-groups equally (which is not observed). Instead, the Ashkenazi advantage seems to arise from particular historical and cultural trajectories, not an immutable racial essence.
Public discourse and controversy
The notion of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence has periodically surged into public discourse, often stirring controversy. In the United States, the topic gained wide attention with the 1994 publication of The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. Although The Bell Curve primarily focused on Black-White IQ differences, it devoted a brief but notable passage to the high average IQ of Jews. Murray and Herrnstein cited data suggesting Jews score about 0.5 to 1 standard deviation above the norm, and they mused on Jewish overrepresentation in intellectually demanding fields. This aside – “one of the most important pages in the book,” according to Gilman – signaled that even mainstream discourse was not shying away from the stereotype of “Jewish genius.” The Bell Curve’s foray into this territory was met with a mix of agreement and sharp criticism. Some readers saw it as validation of a positive stereotype; others, like Sander Gilman, argued that using Jewish IQ to frame discussions of race was a tactical move by “philo-Semites” to legitimize talking about ethnic intelligence differences at all. In fact, Gilman notes that in The Bell Curve, extolling Jewish brainpower was juxtaposed with implying other groups (e.g. African Americans) had opposite strengths (like athleticism) – a framing he calls out as echoing 19th-century racial tropes. In response to The Bell Curve and similar works, the American Psychological Association in 1995 assembled a task force which concluded that while IQ score gaps between groups exist, there is no consensus that these differences are innate. They emphasized the huge variation within groups and pointed to socio-economic and cultural influences as likely causes. Over the next decades, a broad scientific consensus emerged rejecting genetic determinist explanations for inter-group IQ differences. By 2019, leading geneticists and psychologists publicly stated that supposed tales of recent selection (like those about Ashkenazi Jews facing special evolutionary pressures) “are not scientifically supported.”
Despite scientific cautions, the idea of Jewish intellectual superiority continues to pop up in media and popular culture – sometimes to acclaim and sometimes to outrage. A flashpoint occurred in late 2019 when Bret Stephens, a New York Times columnist, wrote an op-ed titled “The Secrets of Jewish Genius.” Stephens, who is Jewish himself, argued that Jewish success in science and literature owed more to cultural values and mindsets than to biology. However, his column provoked a backlash for seemingly giving credence to racial IQ theories. Stephens had cited the 2005 Cochran-Harpending study’s claim that Ashkenazi Jews score 108–115 on IQ tests. Critics pointed out that this study was published in a journal (Journal of Biosocial Science) often associated with sociobiology and that its authors had ties to “scientific racism” circles. The uproar led The New York Times to append an editor’s note apologizing for the citation and clarifying that the referenced study “draws on eugenics” and its credibility was dubious. In the ensuing discussion, commentator Matthew Yglesias explained that praising Jews as naturally brilliant, even if well-intentioned, can feed insidious narratives. As he and others noted, the idea of innate Jewish genius is often used by proponents of race science to argue that if one group is genetically smarter, another might be genetically dumber. Thus, what appears as a benign or even flattering claim can become a wedge to legitimize scientific racism. In Stephens’s case, some observers even accused him of cloaking white supremacist ideas in the mantle of compliment: by implying group IQ differences are real (albeit putting Jews on top), he was “co-opting white supremacy ideals” whether he intended to or not. The Stephens episode underscored how toxic and sensitive this subject remains in public discourse.
Jewish authors and publications have also weighed in on the controversy. For instance, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz ran a piece titled “Is There Really Such a Thing as Jewish Genius?” which examined the Nobel Prize records and achievements, and concluded that while Jewish accomplishments are real, attributing them to some special innate genius is misguided. The author pointed out that Einstein developed his theories in secular institutions, not in a yeshiva, and Freud invented psychoanalysis through worldly exploration, not synagogue study. In other words, context and environment mattered more than mystical ethnic talent. The article urged caution against facile self-congratulation and noted that plenty of non-Jews achieve greatness while many Jews do not – highlighting the diversity within any population. Similarly, writers in the Jewish-American magazine Tablet have warned that obsession with “Jewish IQ” can play into antisemitic hands by othering Jews, whether as superhuman brains or as sinister cabalists. Both philosemitism (excessive praise of Jews) and antisemitism can spring from the same source of seeing Jews as fundamentally different. As one New York Times piece put it, even “good” stereotypes are ultimately bad, because they pigeonhole individuals and can arouse envy or fear. The stereotype of the “ultra-smart Jew” has indeed been exploited by antisemites who suggest Jews dominate industries or professions unfairly – a modern echo of the old “scheming Jew” libel. For this reason, many Jewish leaders and scholars approach the topic of Jewish intelligence with extreme caution, if not outright discouragement.
Wikipedia article and its removal
A revealing case study in the controversy surrounding Ashkenazi intelligence is the saga of its article on Wikipedia. The online encyclopedia struggled for years over whether an entry on “Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence” was appropriate. The article was first created in 2006, shortly after the Cochran-Harpending paper and Steven Pinker’s public commentary on it. Almost immediately it became contentious. Between 2007 and 2018, Wikipedia editors nominated the article for deletion no fewer than six times. Each time, arguments raged between those who felt the topic was inherently biased or fringe and those who pointed out that it was being discussed in academic and mainstream sources (and thus warranted a Wikipedia page). For over a decade, the latter view prevailed – consensus was that the subject had enough reliable sourcing and public interest to “cover it, rather than pretend it doesn’t exist”. Indeed, by doing searches one could find dozens of scholarly publications and books addressing Jewish intelligence. However, discomfort among some editors persisted, especially as Wikipedia’s community norms evolved to be more sensitive about “race and intelligence” topics.
In October 2020, a seventh deletion proposal was put forth – and this time it succeeded. The rationale given by those seeking deletion was that the article amounted to a “pseudo-academic jaunt through fringe literature…promulgated by IDW-types and evo-psychs,” lacking any hint that the true context of such discussions is often antisemitism. One editor argued that the entry, by neutrally cataloguing claims about Jewish IQ, was in effect “waving a flag” to racists – implying that if Wikipedia accepts an article saying one group is smartest, it legitimizes the whole concept of ranking races by intelligence. Essentially, opponents felt the page lent undue credibility to what they saw as a fringe theory and failed to adequately denounce the historical baggage behind it. Unusually, the deletion was framed as a temporary measure: the nominator suggested the page be removed and then recreated in improved form to address these concerns. On that condition, the Wikipedia community agreed to delete. On October 19, 2020, the “Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence” article was removed from Wikipedia.
In the aftermath, the promised “improved” article failed to materialize – the deletion proved effectively permanent (at least for a few years). What followed was a concerted effort by some editors to scrub the topic from other parts of Wikipedia as well. References to high Jewish IQ or related research were removed from numerous articles, including the entries on “List of Jewish Nobel laureates” and even the general “Ashkenazi Jews” page. The rationale given was that sources discussing these claims were no longer reliable or appropriate under Wikipedia’s standards. In this purge, sources ranging from the Journal of Biosocial Science to the New York Times were deemed unacceptable simply because they mentioned the controversial topic. Even a book by a mainstream author (Jon Entine’s Abraham’s Children, 2007) was disallowed. By March 2021, virtually all content about Ashkenazi intelligence had been excised from Wikipedia, effectively censoring the topic from the platform. This drastic action drew criticism from some quarters. Commentators in forums like Quillette and Why Evolution Is True accused Wikipedia of ideological bias and censorship, arguing that the topic was being erased rather than neutrally covered. They pointed out that Wikipedia’s own policies call for summarizing notable viewpoints, not hiding them, and that one could discuss the subject in context (including the fact it’s controversial) rather than pretending it doesn’t exist. Wikipedia’s editors who supported deletion, on the other hand, felt they were preventing the spread of misinformation and not giving a platform to a narrative used by racists. The episode highlighted the tension between open inquiry and social responsibility in knowledge platforms.
Interestingly, in 2023–2024, there were attempts to resurrect the Wikipedia article. According to reports, someone recreated “Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence” on Wikipedia in April 2024. However, much of its content was quickly stripped down by skeptical editors, and another deletion discussion was launched by mid-2024 (the third nomination for the recreated page). As of 2025, the article does exist again in some form – suggesting that consensus shifted slightly, possibly due to the increasing number of reliable sources (from major newspapers, Vox, Haaretz, academic journals, etc.) that discuss the controversy itself. Still, the article remains a flashpoint. The reasons for its removal back in 2020 are instructive: Wikipedia’s community feared that even a well-intentioned summary could be misused by those with extremist agendas, and they questioned the reliability of much of the source material (given the prominence of partisan figures like Lynn in the literature). In essence, the Wikipedians decided the topic was too hot to handle without causing more harm than good. This self-censorship has been both applauded as responsible and condemned as Orwellian, depending on whom you ask. It demonstrates how fraught the conversation around ethnicity and intelligence is, such that even documenting the debate became taboo for a time on the world’s largest encyclopedia.
They are overrepresented because of clintelism
Jewish clientelism, which holds unbelievable amounts of money in American banks and controls the U.S. financial system, also extends its reach to socioeconomic positions unrelated to finance, which is why they are so overrepresented. However, the Anglo-Saxons do it as well. In this case, intelligence is present, but clientelism amplifies it. We are talking about professors, lawyers, economists, authors, CEOs, journalists, and technological inventors.
Critiques and ethical concerns
Across the spectrum of scholarship and public opinion, numerous ethical and scientific concerns have been raised regarding the discussion of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. One major critique is that emphasizing any group’s cognitive ability – even in a seemingly positive way – feeds into the same logic as racist stereotypes. As journalist Dinitia Smith observed, there is a “common thread” between images we construct to define groups: any generalization, even a laudatory one, can be harmful. The “model minority” myth is a parallel example: praising one minority (e.g. saying Ashkenazi Jews or Asian Americans are naturally smart and successful) not only puts unfair pressure on individuals of that group, but also implicitly demeans other groups as less gifted. In the Jewish case, scholars like Sander Gilman have argued that harping on Jewish intelligence bolsters multiple antisemitic tropes. Historically, antisemites alternately accused Jews of being clever schemers or degenerate intellects. Repeating that Jews are innately brainy can inadvertently play into fears of Jews “over-represented” in influential positions, or controlling academia, finance, law, etc.. Gilman points out that calling Jews “genetic geniuses” reduces a diverse people to a caricature and ignores the socio-historical reasons for Jewish success. It can also foster resentment: those who already harbor envy or distrust towards Jews might say, “See, they dominate because they’re born smarter,” rekindling age-old conspiracy theories.
Another concern is the scientific validity of making such claims at all. Intelligence is a complex, multifaceted trait influenced by countless factors. Many experts assert that the very notion of comparing “group IQs” smacks of outdated science. Stephen Jay Gould famously argued that both “race” and “intelligence” are socially loaded constructs, cautioning that correlating the two often produces “nonsense”. Modern geneticists echo that sentiment: human populations are not monolithic genetic units, and differences within so-called races are usually much larger than differences between them. Thus, saying “Ashkenazi Jews evolved to be smarter” arguably misuses the concept of race and overlooks the tremendous variety among individuals. Furthermore, empirical support for genetic group differences in IQ is virtually absent. As we saw, even high-profile attempts to find genetic markers (like polygenic score studies) have been deeply flawed. The strong consensus in psychology and genetics today is that there is no definitive evidence that group IQ gaps are genetic. The American Psychologist journal stated in 2024 that claims of genetically based intelligence differences among races merely “repeat discredited racist ideas of a century ago” behind a veneer of new science. Pursuing this line of research, some argue, often starts with an agenda (conscious or not) and can lead to pseudoscientific conclusions.
Ethically, many have questioned whether studying “which group is smartest” is a worthwhile scientific endeavor at all. Renowned psychologist Richard Nisbett and colleagues have argued that given the fraught history of such research, scientists should tread extremely carefully – if not abstain altogether – from group IQ comparisons. The potential for misuse is high: even if a study is rigorously done, its results can be cherry-picked by extremists or twisted by media. There is also the moral issue of stigmatization. For historically persecuted groups like Jews, any discussion that sets them apart biologically can be dangerous. During the Nazi era, pseudoscientific notions of Jewish brains (clever yet pathological) were used to justify persecution. While today’s environment is different, Jewish organizations are wary of anything that might revive ideas of Jews as a distinct race. Emphasizing Jewish genetic differences – even allegedly positive ones – could undermine the fight against antisemitism, which rests on the understanding that Jews are not fundamentally other or alien. As historian Jonathan Marks quipped, the search for a “Jewish gene for intelligence” is as ill-conceived as past searches for a “Jewish gene for greed” – both stereotype-driven and scientifically baseless.
Finally, commentators note that focusing on Ashkenazi intelligence distracts from more pertinent discussions. Jewish success, when celebrated, should prompt analysis of values like hard work, education, and perseverance, which are universally attainable, rather than imply an inborn gift. Conversely, when certain other groups fare poorly on tests due to poverty or discrimination, blaming genetics is counterproductive and morally suspect. Intelligence research is also rapidly evolving: concepts like multiple intelligences (which are pseudoscientific) and recognition of cultural bias in testing mean that ranking groups by a single number (IQ) is an oversimplification. In the end, many scholars advocate a shift in perspective – from comparing group averages to understanding how environmental enrichment can help everyone reach their potential. The story of Ashkenazi Jewish achievements, when viewed through an objective lens, appears to be a testament to historical opportunity, culture, and resilience more than DNA. As Albert Einstein – often held up as the paragon of Jewish genius – once suggested, if his theories proved correct the world would call him German, but if they failed he would be dismissed as just another Jew. That wry observation reminds us that narratives about intelligence can be appropriated to serve social prejudices. It is incumbent upon researchers and commentators to handle such topics with humility, rigor, and respect for the individuals behind the statistics.
Leave a Reply