Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[Jones]

It's a popular sentiment thrown around that Jews have a high IQ and that's why they're socially dominant. I have come across some critiques which challenge both of those notions. The problems with the sentiment is that it's based on citations of few studies over fifty years old with small sample sizes involving populations and study designs not meant to discover group-wide IQ performance.

The Myth of Jewish High IQ

Before all other things, I study power and politics.

forbiddentexts.substack.com

One of the studies is further dissected here:

The myth of Jewish intelligence - Vox Popoli

Allow me to demonstrate why it is a bad idea to try to bullshit those who are considerably smarter than you are. We are often told that Jews are the smartest ethnic group in the world and that this explains their current position of cultural and socio-economic dominance in the United States...

voxday.net

This article remarks that even giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming the 115 IQ is true there's still numerically far too few Ashkenazi Jews compared to Europeans, such that the quantity of High-IQ non-Ashkenazi European is still much higher than the number of High-IQ Ashkenazis, and therefore has no ability to explain their dominance.

The Myth of High Ashkenazi IQ is Pure Cope – Investment Watch

www.investmentwatchblog.com

Then there's predatory behaviour - I'm not saying that all jews are predators, but a predator type who can identify other predator types in a population of people that have no idea about an intraspecies predator or how to identify them and their modes of operation, that predator doesn't necessarily have to be that smart. Was thinking about this earlier. Even a predator that has poor hunting skills and limited impulse control is more likely to be able to catch and kill where there is a large number of prey species that are unaware.

 

[Ina]

It's a popular sentiment thrown around that Jews have a high IQ and that's why they're socially dominant. I have come across some critiques which challenge both of those notions. The problems with the sentiment is that it's based on citations of few studies over fifty years old with small sample sizes involving populations and study designs not meant to discover group-wide IQ performance.

If we look at group IQ performance, then we have to acknowledge a strong group characteristic which is the tribal type behavior at the level of increasing resources, or simply put, 'nepotism' at the group level. Not only that, there is, within the groups a flat hierarchy or social structure, with one head, the rabbi, and one law, taught by the rabbi, which eliminates the fight for power, thus making more efficient the group itself.

 

[taratai]

This article remarks that even giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming the 115 IQ is true there's still numerically far too few Ashkenazi Jews compared to Europeans, such that the quantity of High-IQ non-Ashkenazi European is still much higher than the number of High-IQ Ashkenazis, and therefore has no ability to explain their dominance.

People seem to conflate high status with high intelligence, so justifying Ashkenazi overrepresentation in high positions with higher intelligence might be just a post-hoc rationalisation.
Plus, those in power obviously want to feel better about themselves and to justify for why they are better than "the rabble" and "all these useless eaters". They want to create the impression (and to believe) that they are in charge because they are the best and smartest.

But if high intellinence really made someone more likely to dominate, then every great scientist or philosopher would be a politician, or in charge of some big corporation, no? Yet, that is not the case.
(some could even say, the smarter you are, the less likely you are going to be in any position of power)

I've also heard somewhere (don't remember where), that they are overrepresented in areas related to words (like writers, lawyers and journalists), but vastly underrepresented when it comes to visual art. It's as if, as a group, they didn't care about science itself, philosophy or artistic expression, but were focused on anything that allows them to push their agenda, and go up on the social ladder.

So it seems to me (without having any scientific data to back it up ) that Ashkenazi are "socially dominant" not because they are smarter in general sense, but because (whether it's because of their upbringing, or genetic traits) they are better at being... socially dominant!
Lawyers, bankers, judges, rabbis, jourtanists, etc. It's all about playing the political game, often by just talking and/or manipulating words, projecting their high status, getting into right circles. They seem to be made for it. And that might be the explanation for their overrepresentation.

As if someone wanted them to be the managers of the human population.