Discover more from Joseph Bronski
Jewish IQ, Ethnocentrism, Dissident-Right Discourse Quality, and Ubersoy vs. Leather Apron Club
Clarifying why Ashkenazi IQ and ethnocentrism are trivial issues, and critiquing what the DR pays attention to (not enough exousiology)
Recently there was a discursive exchange involving two “dissident-right” (DR) Youtubers, Ubersoy and Leather Apron Club. It centered around Ashkenazi IQ and ethnocentrism. Leather Apron Club claimed that Ashkenazi Jews only have an average IQ of 103.
He misreads a Richard Lynn study, performs shoddy math on Israeli IQ, and states that claims of a genetic intelligence advantage for Ashkenazi Jews must be bunk. He then speculates that the numerous studies showing a high Ashkenazi Jew IQ are probably fraudulent, in that their data must have been whole-sale fabricated.
Ubersoy and a friend responded with a 50-minute Youtube video wherein the direct genetic evidence for superior Ashkenazi IQ is only discussed for 2 minutes about 40% into the video.
I think this is a massive flaw with the video, and I suspect that they brushed over the genetic evidence because it involves statistics somewhat more complicated that a scatterplot. In fact, they only interact with the evidence by showing a scatterplot! I say this not out of malice but because I remember when I was in high school and interested in IQ discourse — I did not understand GWAS and PGS on a level deeper than scatterplot. Other types of evidence were easier to follow.
Leather Apron Club can be trivially debunked with the genetic evidence. I will therefore explain where we get polygenic scores (PGS) from and why it shows that Ashkenazis have a significant genetic intelligence advantage.
Explaining GWAS and PGS
To quote Dunkel et al., “Polygenic scores are constructed using results from a GWAS of the trait of interest. Essentially, they are the sum of the alleles multiplied by their beta on the trait from the regressions.”
Let’s break this down. GWAS stands for “genome wide association study.” These studies involve gene-sequencing large numbers of people, and finding what single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are significantly associated with variation in a trait of interest.
For GWAS on continuous traits like intelligence, first a set of SNPs is sequenced for each person in the study. Each allele is then encoded as a number. For any SNP, there are generally 3 variants. On either chromosome, a SNP is usually one of two nucleotide bases. One of the homozygous alleles is chosen as the reference allele and is given a value of 0. The encoded value becomes the number of alternative alleles the person possesses. The heterozygous genotype receives a value of 1, and the alternative homozygous genotype gets a value of 2.
Above shows an imaginary case where there is only one SNP. Clearly, the SNP is associated with BMI. Linear regression will give the best linear equation for predicting BMI with that SNP. In this case it would be BMI = 0.80(SNP). If the SNP encoding is 0, then the expected value of BMI is 0; if the SNP encoding is 1, E[BMI] is 0.80, and if SNP=2, E[BMI] = 1.6.
Above, 0.80 is the effect size, or “beta.”
Linear regression can be extended to any number of dimensions. This is called multiple linear regression. Imagine you want to predict BMI with N SNPs. Your multiple regression model would be BMI = B_1(SNP_1) + … + B_N(SNP_N) subject to the constraint that the mean squared error of the model is minimized. This is an easy problem to solve analytically with linear algebra; it is not necessary to understand how this optimization problem is solved, however, just to get the bigger picture, so I won’t go into it here.
Guess what the equation we just wrote is? “The sum of the alleles multiplied by their beta on the trait from the regressions” sounds like a good descriptor. The predicted BMI value from the model is just the BMI polygenic score.
Ashkenazi Jews are trivially higher IQ
Now replace BMI with educational attainment, which is highly correlated with intelligence. Sequence the DNA of 1.1 million Europeans and construct a multiple regression model that predicts educational attainment based on SNP values such that the model has the lowest mean squared error possible of all potential linear models. What you have is a set of betas that, roughly speaking, tell you how important certain SNPs are for achieving high educational attainment.
Imagine you compute the model from 1.1 million white goyim and then find out that the average Ashkenazi Jew has a predicted educational attainment of over 1 SD. Would claims that Ashkenazi Jews are “not genetically higher IQ” hold up?
No, and this is exactly what Dunkel et al. did.
Look at the fat right tail on the PGS as well! Many Jews at 4 SD. This is no cohencidence. Leather Apron Club predicted a Jewish mean PGS of about 0. Instead it’s about 1.4. He’s wrong, case closed.
What is the average Ashkenazi IQ?
The average Ashkenazi IQ has not been precisely nailed down, but it’s probably 107-112. Dunkel et al. found 110. Richard Lynn claims that it’s 110.
Several studies from the 1950s and 1960s suggest a roughly 110 verbal IQ and a roughly 100 spatial IQ. The NLSY data analyzed in The Bell Curve suggested an average IQ of about 112 for Ashkenazi Jews.
110 seems like a good estimate, but this doesn’t come close to explaining Jewish overrepresentation in some areas.
Trying to explain overrepresentation with IQ
IQ has a profound impact on the “genius” end of the bell curve usually defined as 140 (or top 1%). If we assume that IQ is normally distributed with a standard deviation of 15 and that the only difference between the White and Jewish distribution is the mean of 100 or 110, then we can use a bell curve calculator to figure out exactly how much of a difference this makes.
Using the White distribution, the percent of gentiles with an IQ > 140 is 0.38%., Using the average Jewish IQ of 110, the chance of being >140 is increased to 2.28%. Put another way, any Jew is about 6 times more likely to be a genius than white gentile is.
If we pretended IQ is a perfect predictor of income/status/importance in society, it would then follow we should expect a representation of "elite" Jews to be six times more likely within the Jewish population compared to elite representation within the gentile populations. For simplicity’s sake, we will pretend that all elites are either White or Jewish and all Jews are Ashkenazi, which are both very charitable assumptions to people who would try to explain all of Jewish overrepresentation with IQ.
Since Jews in the US make up about 2% of the US population and white Americans make about around 60% this would mean that, once we correct for proportions, Jews are (6 * (0.02/0.60)) = 0.2x times more likely to be represented in American "elite" samples than gentiles based in their population and IQ. Put another way, for every 5 elites, 4 would be gentiles and 1 would be a Jew, or Jews should make up about 20% of the American elite. Per Bayes’ Theorem, P(Jew | Genius) = P(Genius | Jew) P(Jew)/(P(Genius | Goy)P(Goy) + P(Genius | Jew)P(Jew)) → 0.0228 * 0.02 / (0.0038*0.60 + 0.0228*0.02) = 16.67%.
A 2009 analysis of Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans found that 35% were Jewish while 40% of the top 50 were Jewish.
In the 1988 book The Media Elite: America’s New Powerbrokers, Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter report on a representative survey of 238 journalists from America’s top new organizations which found that 59% of respondents were Jewish.
In 2012, Jews accounted for 20% of the top 5 GOP donors and 40% of the top democrat donors. In 2016, Jews accounted for all 5 of the top Democrat donors. One analysis finds that, of the top 50 donors in 2016, Jews accounted for 40% of mega-donors in total, 25% of Republican donors, and 79% of Democrat donors.
Clearly, IQ only explains some of their overrepresentation.
Anyone who reads the Torah, the Talmud, and the Gospel will find that Jews are very ethnocentric. The very existence of Jews is strong evidence for their ethnocentrism. Jews exist because for millennia they refused to convert to Christianity and breed with the gentiles. If they did not place a high value on Jewishness, they would have converted and mixed with gentiles. Jews look white and are increasingly secular, like higher IQ White gentiles, but half of secular Jews still refuse to mix with gentiles.
Secular Jews thinking of themselves as Jews and not “White” is another sign of ethnocentrism. They do this en masse and also state that being Jewish is very important to their identity. In contrast, White gentiles do no rate being White as central to their identities.
If White gentiles were 2% of India, half refused to marry White Brahmins, and most of them rated being Aryan as key to their identity, and furthermore White gentiles were a supermajority of the media, half of the elite, etc, they would be accused of some ethnocentrism, even some racism. This would be accurate.
Ron Unz also found that Jews are overrepresented at elite universities relative to their representation among National Merit Scholars. White gentiles are underrepresented. Is that a coincidence when 6/7 Ivy League universities have Jewish presidents?
No, and when asked to rate how much they like various ethnic groups, White Protestants rated Jews among the highest, while Jews rated White Protestants among the lowest.
Like anything else, ethnocentrism varies within the Jewish population. 10-40% seem to rate being Jewish as not very important and are willing to breed with gentiles. But 50% or more are likely to engage in significant ethnic nepotism. It is worth stating that basically all races are like this, and White gentiles are the least ethnocentric in the world, and this is causing White gentiles major issues. Jews not being as non-ethnocentric as White gentiles is reasonable and expected, especially considering the history of the Jews.
The Quality of “Dissident-Right” Discourse
All of this is very simple and a rehash of blog posts from years ago. Leather Apron Club got Jewish IQ disastrously wrong and somehow gained 10,000 subscribers from it. Meanwhile, exousiology has only 200 subscribers. This is inverted. This is the quality of the average DR subscriber?
What’s more is that the only response to Leather Apron Club doesn’t do a good job on explaining the genetic data, and tries to downplay the basic reality of Jewish ethnocentrism. Ubersoy knows about exousiology and has not given it any exposure as of yet, and instead made this 50 minute video rehashing Jewish IQ stuff. Why is this? For one the monetary incentives seem to be to rehash. Why am I making this post? Because people seem to pay attention to this, and I need to get exousiology the attention it deserves.
The most charitable explanation for audience behavior is that they are very young and have not seen the old stuff on Jewish IQ. It’s not a dumb topic in itself, it’s just stale and simple compared to exousiology.
I’m calling on content creators to start thinking about power scientifically, and to start engaging with all of the serious work I have done so far. Exousiology is highly relevant to the Jewish IQ discourse as well — that discourse is of course motivated by a desire to understand the Jewish role in the ascension of the status quo. But this will never be understood without exousiology, because without exousiology, there is no way to tell who’s in charge. How many Jewish US presidents have their been? How many Jewish Congressmen? That’s what you’re counting without exousiology.
If Jewish IQ discourse gets 10,000 clicks, then exousiology deserves 20,000, because exousiology is more important, fundamental, and less rehashed. A world where rehashed IQ discourse gets 50 times the engagement as exousiology is simply uglier and less just than a world where exousiology gets more engagement than rehashed IQ stuff.
Already, with exousiology, we know that society is always ruled by a small sovereign class I call the Patriciate. It is strongly suspected that they rule by material incentive, because the population is materialistic. Democracy is impossible, because more than 95% of people lack political agency. All of this is scientifically proven, or in the process of being scientifically proven. Nobody has done anything like this before. We are approaching a truly scientific, biological understanding of society and power. This is absolutely huge and it hurts to see stale discourse get more attention.
Exousiology is, at least to me, absolutely eye-opening and foundation shaking. You are told you live in what I now term a “high political agency democracy.” Centralization, a statistic I created, is supposed to be near 1, meaning that the ruling class is supposed to be practically everyone. We actually live in a low political agency oligarchy. I am showing why this is true for any society, based on the genetic distribution of traits. I am finding out who is in the Patriciate and how large it is. I have algorithms to explain network and hierarchy formation. There is an entire jargon of exousiology emerging that equips its practitioners with the vocabulary needed to accurately describe and think about social structures.
The allegedly elite, high political agency audience of the “dissident right” ought to be interested in a fresh, scientific discourse that seeks to get to the bottom of where the current order comes from, who the elite are, and what they want. It is expected that Kim Kardashian fans will not care, much like they don’t care about physics. But the DR is certainly better.
Joseph Bronski is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.