June 8, 2005

Jewish Telegraph Agency on Ashkenazi Intelligence by Cochran and Harpending

Good article from Jewish Telegraph Agency: The JTA is the venerable Jewish news wire service.

What we've seen so far in the first six days since the Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence genes story broke in The Economist and the New York Times is extremely gingerly handling in the mainstream press combined with more positive response in the explicitly Jewish press. Judging from the Google News search engine, even though Nicholas Wade's NYT report was the most emailed article in the nation's leading newspaper all weekend, only a single other newspaper picked it up. The AP hasn't dared touch it yet, nor have the newsweeklies.

In contrast, the Jewish Telegraph Agency's report is quite balanced:

Study on Ashkenazi genes sparks intrigue, debate - and reflection

By Chanan Tigay

NEW YORK, June 7 (JTA) - A reported link between Ashkenazi intelligence genes and susceptibility to genetic disorders is clearly mixed news for the descendants of Eastern European Jews. It may come as little surprise, then, that reactions to a new study linking the two are a mixed bag as well.

After all, if what the University of Utah researchers say is true, some Jewish mothers may just have had their dreams for brilliant children turned to nightmares.

Beyond that, it may also mean that Ashkenazim have, albeit unwillingly, "been part of an accidental experiment in eugenics," as The Economist magazine put it in a recent article.

"It has brought them some advantages. But, like the deliberate eugenics experiments of the 20th century, it also has exacted a terrible price."

The mere mention of eugenics - which refers to a movement to improve humankind by controlling genetic factors through mating - is enough to ring bells that many Jews would rather not hear 60 years after the Allied defeat of the Nazis.

To be precise, the main Cochran-Harpending theory does not propose a eugenic mechanism for raising the IQ of Ashkenazi Jews, if "eugenic" is understood to mean a breeding system. They simply show that in medieval northern Europe, wealthy Jews tended to have more surviving children than poor Jews, probably because the wealthy could afford more food, fuel, and living area. In contrast, among Christians, rural folk tended to have more surviving children than urbanites (due to the epidemics that ravaged medieval towns), even though the urbanites may have been self-selected for higher intelligence and greater wealth. Virtually all Jews lived in towns and cities, so this negative correlation between urbanism and health didn't apply to them as much because they were all urban, more or less. Conceptually, that's not Galtonian eugenics, that's just Darwinian selection.

Cochran and Harpending are skeptical about the alternative eugenic explanation for the evolution of Ashkenazi intelligence that goes back at least a half century to the autobiography of Norbert Wiener, the founder of cybernetics, who attributed his brilliance to being descended from a long line of well-bred rabbis. It's often been claimed since that Jewish communities arranged marriages between the smartest young student and a daughter of the richest merchant and encouraged them to have lots of children. Also, having famous scholars in your family tree has been said to have given people more points in the marriage market. If this were true, that would be more deserving of the term "eugenic.' I don't find this idea implausible, but Cochran has challenged supporters of the idea to document it and quantify the magnitude of eugenic breeding for scholarship among early medieval Jews. I would say that the ball is now in their court to come up with hard evidence supporting the notion that this kind of eugenic breeding for scholarship was important enough to drive selection for intelligence to a significant degree.

I will admit that the distinction between Darwinism and Galtonism is not perfectly sharp: Darwin partly got the idea for natural selection from the artificial selection being practiced for millennia by animal breeders, and his half-cousin Galton (they were grandsons of the near-genius Erasmus Darwin) just turned it around and proposed encouraging marriages among people with traits believed to benefit society. Most societies in human history have engaged in something like that so there was nothing terribly radical about Galton's suggestion. (But G.K. Chesterton's objection to Galton's "positive eugenics" seems irrefutable: if arranged marriages succeeded in breeding better men and women, the first thing these healthier, smarter, more robust individuals would do would be to tell society to butt out of arranging their marriages and they'd go back to choosing their own mates!)

Galton, a kindly man of liberal views, was shocked at a 1904 conference to hear how far the new generation of socialist eugenicists, led by H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw, were prepared to go to take eugenics in a negative direction by advocating sterilization, or worse, of the "unfit." Eugenics was most popular among WASPy progressives, such as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Teddy Roosevelt, Margaret Sanger, and Winston Churchill (during his Liberal phase). It tended to appeal to outdoorsy intellectuals who spent a lot of time around country people who bred horses and dogs.

Quite a few Jews were supporters of eugenics before WWII, as this article from Ha'aretz shows, but with so many not-so-hot Big Ideas to choose from back then, Jewish intellectuals tended to obsess more over their own homegrown Big Ideas like Marxism and Freudianism rather than enthuse over the horsey set's obsession with breeding.

Today, of course, some Jewish organizations strongly back a voluntary eugenics testing program called Dor Yeshorim that has successfully reduced the incidence of the Jewish hereditary disease Tay-Sachs by discouraging marriages between individuals who are heterozygous for the disease.

According to the study, slated to appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Biosocial Science, Ashkenazim do better than average on IQ tests, scoring some 12-15 points above the test's mean value. But they also are more likely than any other ethnic groups to suffer from diseases such as Tay-Sachs, Gaucher's disease and Niemann-Pick - related conditions that can be debilitating and deadly.

The new study hypothesizes that the genetic disorders could be the unfortunate side effects of genes that facilitate intelligence.

But for some people, ascribing collective traits to entire ethnic groups - especially to European Jews - reminds them that the Nazis heaped a pile of supposed genetic characteristics on that continent's Jews and used the characteristics as a basis to exterminate them.

It's worth noting that the Nazis banned IQ tests because Jews averaged higher scores on them than did gentiles.

Indeed, the researchers say they had difficulty finding a journal that would publish their findings.

For other people, criticizing such research on this basis reeks of political correctness. This is real science, they say, with real potential to help save Jewish - and other - lives.

"When you study genetics in order to cure diseases, that's great," said James Young, a Jewish studies professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and the author of "Writing and Rewriting the Holocaust: Narrative and the Consequences of Interpretation."

"But when genetics are studied as a way to characterize or essentialize a whole ethnic group or nation of people, then I think it's very problematic." Still, he said, "I was kind of intrigued by this connection, and the dark irony of what it means to have your intelligence gene linked to a so-called genetic disease gene. It's kind of striking."

For Dr. Guinter Kahn, a Miami physician who lectures internationally on German doctors during the Holocaust, studies like this have real scientific merit. "This stuff is being done with genes, and they're actually finding true results," he said. "The stuff they did in World War II was pure baloney motivated by the greatest geneticists of that time in Germany - but they all fell into the Hitler trap."

Although no one is questioning the researchers' motivations, some observers worry that their findings may be misused. "Will bigots use this? Bigots will use anything," said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation league. However, he said, their abuses should not block research that could benefit the Jewish community.

Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt agrees. When it became clear that fewer Jews were killed at Auschwitz-Birkenau than had originally been thought, some Jews worried that this information would be manipulated by Holocaust deniers to back their claims, said Lipstadt, a professor of modern Jewish and Holocaust studies at Emory University. "I had people say to me, 'We shouldn't talk about these things,' " Lipstadt recalls, "I said, 'No, no, no. It's always good to talk about the truth.' We should never be afraid of the truth."

As to concerns about what it means to say that one group of people is genetically smarter than others, Henry Harpending, a professor of anthropology at the University of Utah and one of the study's three authors, told JTA that such complaints boil down to political correctness.

"It's no secret," he said of the Ashkenazi IQ numbers. "Your grandmother told you this."

Indeed, the study notes that although Ashkenazi Jews made up just 3 percent of the U.S. population during the last century, they won 27 percent of the country's Nobel Prizes in science and account for more than half of the world's chess champions.

However, Harpending added, this is "the kind of thing that you're not supposed to say these days." "We regard this as an interesting hypothesis and are a little surprised at the attention. On the other hand, geneticists kind of know that variation between populations is almost certainly in the DNA and they kind of don't talk about that" for fear of losing federal funding for their research, Harpending said. "What we've done is started out with an idea and followed it, so what we have is a pretty interesting and pretty good-looking hypothesis - and it ought to be tested."

But could this research actually end up helping anybody? Gregory Cochran, one of the study's authors, hopes so. "I don't have the cure to any disease in my pocket. I wish I did," he said. But "if this all pans out, you learn something about how the brain works. Who knows? Maybe you can do something to help some people one day."

Cochran's switch from physics to the evolutionary biology of disease after the Cold War was motivated in sizable measure by a number of close friends who died or barely survived major diseases. He came to realize that the medical profession could benefit from a rigorous application of Darwinian logic, and the medical establishment is starting to agree.

The study says that because European Jews in medieval times were restricted to jobs in finance, money lending and long-distance trade - occupations that required greater mental gymnastics than fields such as farming, dominated by non-Jews - their genetic codes over the course of some generations selected genes for enhanced intellectual ability.

This process allowed these Jews to thrive in the limited scope of professions they were allowed to pursue. Further, in contrast to today, those who attained financial success in that period often tended to have more children than those who were less financially stable, and those children tended to live longer.

It is for this reason, the researchers said, that many Ashkenazi Jews today have high IQs - and it may also be the reason they suffer from the slew of genetic diseases. According to the researchers, many individuals carrying the gene for one of these diseases also receive an "IQ boost."

Rabbi Moses Tendler, who holds a doctorate in biology and teaches biology at Yeshiva University, said there is "no doubt that genetic makeup determines intelligence and, indeed, predisposes as well as offers resistance to genetic diseases."

But he took issue with the study's findings. The fact that Jews did not intermarry until relatively recently, Tendler said, led to a concentration of various genes among their numbers, some good and some bad. "Wherever they were, Jews lived on an island," he said. In scientific terms, arguments similar to Tendler's are known as a founder's effect.

Rabbi Arthur Green, dean of the Rabbinical School at Boston's Hebrew College, wondered whether the findings took into account all relevant factors in the development of Jewish intelligence. He noted that during the period in which the researchers believe the Jewish intelligence gene began to be selected, the majority Christian world was, in a sense, selecting against such a gene. "In that same period of 1,600 to 1,800 years, Christian Europe was systematically destroying its best genetic stock through celibacy" of priests and monks, he said.

"The Christian devotion to celibacy, particularly for the most learned and highest intellectual achievers, diminished the quality of genetic output and created a greater contrast with the Jewish minority," he said.

This argument, of course, is lifted bodily from that arch-demon Sir Francis Galton, founder of eugenics. It's interesting that a Jewish publication has no problem with repeating Galton's contention that Christians were subject to dysgenic selection pressure that would lower their IQs.

Once again, Galton's theory about celibacy is not completely implausible but its supporters should try to assemble quantitative evidence to show it would have had a noticeable effect.

The Jewish devotion to study and learning, meanwhile, also probably worked in tandem with economic factors in the development of intelligence, Green surmised.

This sounds like a vague version of the Norbert Weiner-Kevin MacDonald theory of eugenic Jewish breeding.

In some of the Ashkenazi disorders, individuals experience extra growth and branching of connectors linking their nerve cells. Too much of this growth may lead to disease; increased but limited growth, though, could breed heightened intelligence.

In an effort to determine the effect of Gaucher's on IQ, for example, the researchers contacted the Gaucher's Clinic at Shaare Zedek Hospital in Jerusalem. Although the center did not have specific IQ numbers on patients at the clinic, the jobs they held were high-IQ professions: physicists, engineers, lawyers, physicians and scientists.

"It's obviously a population with enriched IQs - big time," Harpending said.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

It's ridiculous on it's face of course.
The article writers imply that 'smart genes' are, by definition, disease ridden rather than making it clear that it is the density of homozygous analog pairs which cause a higher concentration of -other- genes (Gauchers possibly aside) to be passed along with. Intelligence is useless if it is not a stable mutation that causes the individual to be able to pass on their SELECTIVE advantage. According to Galton or
Further to this, they don't mention the deliberate isolation and _incest_ practiced to increase IQ among their own until about halfway down the page where 'intermarriage from an island population' is given a passing comment.
Which is the point where this entire argument goes from the farcical to the codespeak hidden. Because if the truth of IQ is that it runs from the mean of the parents IQ to -society's- (and they waste a huge amount of blather on the 'middle ages' to account for this) is the point where children are likely to fall between, then it shouldn't matter if it's within a group or between groups, so long as you select only for intelligence in your encouraged breeding
OTOH, if what you are seeing is in fact a condition of genetic selection at a much finer gradient of consanguinity (adult uncle to niece what is in fact slightly closer than cousin to cousin equivalent); what you are doing is fulfilling both the likeliest carrier vector for any sex-linked genes (women get the double X dose from each of their parents) and the vetted IQ of an adult male in the same line, in case it's a generationally epigenetic rotating transcriptor expression (why gap a capability if you can ensure it is always active in the populace?).
Which is where and why the disease tags show up.
And why the 'we don't talk about it' excuse is not what it seems.
These people don't -want- the secret of their ancient eugenics discoveries to be known.
Because at some level within their religious ritual symmetries as a function of what is effectively caste` system of generational tracking and social position, they have applied a statistical engine which predicts, accurately, the genetic spread on intelligence expression in their children.
An expression which has lead, _over nearly two millenia of eugenics_ to one standard deviation in intelligence.
Something so important to real world lifestyles that, on a wages-earned basis; it puts 2% of them into 30% of our country's highest institutions 'by default'.
At the same time, by encouraging miscegenation as a form of class/race 'social guilt' as much as hybrid vigor (which does not last), the Jewish vision effectively shuts down any equivalent discoveries in the rest of the ethnically as much as religiously 'diverse = undifferentiated' cultures.
It is, pure and simple, a con game. And now that it is at least partially out in the open; they will do whatever they can to cover up the hypocrisy of wanting their own Mendellian Genetics experiment to remain their own business. While continuing to criticize 'eugenics' as the RAH aftermath of _just one regime's non-eugenic approach to murder_.
Which is fine, if we are such suckers that we cannot be bothered to assign definitions to our own labels.
Just toss the old 'horsey' one and give it a new name: Reproductive Genomics.
Designer Kids and single generation _clean_ genetic advances, here we come. And about time it is too.