[lit-ideas] Re: On misunderstandings and dialogue
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 21:45:25 +0100 (BST)
>As to the idea that the Ashkenazis genetic difference being resistance to a
>disease, the happy side-effect being increased intelligence, Cochran
and Harpending write,“. . .we think that most of the characteristic Ashkenazi
mutations are not
defenses against infectious disease. One reason is that these mutations
do not exist in neighboring populations—often literally people living
across the street—that must have been exposed to very similar diseases.
Instead, we think that the Ashkenazi mutations have something to do with
Ashkenazi intelligence, and that they arose because of the unique
natural-selection pressures the members of this group faced in their
role as financiers in the European Middle Ages.”>
This seems suspect on a number of levels, that no "synecdoche" can answer:
1) Conscious intelligence is a World 2 affair: it is not part of Darwinian
theory that this World 2 can act causally downwards so as to cause "mutations"
- on the contrary, this posits a kind of "Intelligent Design" argument writ
small into human consciousness. To be clear: it is consistent with Darwinism
that mental events may operate on the body via the brain but not that they may
operate to direct physical "mutations".
2) That "mutations" do not occur in "neighbouring populations" is no argument
that therefore the "mutations" are not a response to "very similar diseases"
faced by "neighbouring populations": the question is whether the "neighbouring
populations" interbreed - if they do not, there is no reason a "mutation"
within one population might spread within only that one population, though its
favourability is due to being a response to "very similar diseases" faced by a
second population: it will not spread within that second population because the
second population does not interbreed with the first.
Or have I missed something?
Dnl
Simple-minded Darwinist
Ldn
On Monday, 12 May 2014, 19:53, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
RE: [lit-ideas] Re: On misunderstandings and dialogue
You might not like Cochran and Harpending’s book. They base their arguments
around recent studies in genetics; so their emphasis is not upon“tradition”
other than to point out cases where genetic analyses do not support it. They
probably don’t cover material in a form you would like. In places where you
would like a one to one counter of traditional views, they probably
justsummarizetheirpointsmaking them susceptible to quibbles.
“In the case of the Jews they write,“Admixture has not kept the Ashkenazim from
becoming genetically distinct. Even if a population starts out as a mixture of
two peoples, as in this case, becoming endogamous (ending intermarriage)
andstaying so for a long time ensures that the population will become
homogeneous. If the population’s ancestry is 60 percent Middle Eastern and 40
percent European, for example, a few dozen generations of endogamy will result
in a population in which each individual’s ancestry is quite close to 60
percent Middle Eastern and 40 percent European. In other words, you eventually
get a population that has a flavor all its own—even more so if it experiences
special selective pressures.
“This means that if you look at the most informative parts of the genome, you
can tell whether a certain individual is Ashkenazi (as opposed to, say, a
non-Jewish Italian, Greek, or German) just about every time, particularly if
all his or her recent ancestors are Jewish. In the plot, the circles represent
Ashkenazi Jewish individuals, but the shaded circles represent individuals
whose grandparents were all Ashkenazi Jews as well. That distinction matters,
because Jews haven’t been nearly as endogamous over the past century as they
were during the Middle Ages.
“Could these same methods distinguish the Ashkenazi from other Jewish groups,
such as Moroccan Jews or Yemeni Jews? The answeris almost certainly yes.
Although that particular measurement has not yet been made, it should be easy
to make that distinction because the genetic distance between Ashkenazi Jews
and Yemeni Jews is considerably larger than that between Ashkenazi Jews and
Western Europeans.
“Further down Cochran and Harpending write, “It is noteworthy that
non-Ashkenazi Jews do not have high average IQ scores. Nor are they
overrepresented in cognitively demanding fields like medicine, law, and
academics. In Israel, Ashkenazi Jews, on average, score 14 points higher than
Oriental Jews, almost a full standard deviation, which is 15 or 16 points on
most IQ tests.37 That difference means that the average non-Ashkenazi Jew in
Israel would have an IQ score that would be at the 20th percentile among
theAshkenazim. Academic accomplishment in the two groups seems to vary in the
same way, even among those born and raised in Israel: Third-generation
Ashkenazi Jews in Israel are 2.5 to 3 times more likely to have graduated from
college than third-generation Mizrahi Jews, for example (the ancestors of the
Mizrahim moved to Israel from Asia and North Africa).”
As to the idea that the Ashkenazis genetic difference being resistance to a
disease, the happy side-effect being increased intelligence, Cochran and
Harpending write,“. . .we think that most of the characteristic Ashkenazi
mutations are not defenses against infectious disease. One reason is that these
mutations do not exist in neighboring populations—often literally people living
across the street—that must have been exposed to very similar diseases.
Instead, we think that the Ashkenazi mutations have something to do with
Ashkenazi intelligence, and that they arose because of the unique
natural-selection pressures the members of this group faced in their role as
financiers in the European Middle Ages.”
[Cochran, Gregory; Henry Harpending (2009-01-27). The 10,000 Year Explosion:
How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (p.205-217). Basic Books. Kindle
Edition.]
Lawrence
From:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf OfOmar Kusturica
Sent:Monday, May 12, 2014 9:50 AM
To:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:[lit-ideas] Re: On misunderstandings and dialogue
Well again, the 'traditional view' holds that the Jews in the Ottoman Empire,
far from being permitted to do only manual work, played a key role in its
foreign trade. A few links below.
https://jewishhistory.research.wesleyan.edu/i-jewish-population/5-ottoman-empire/
http://books.google.me/books?
http://sephardichorizons.org/Volume1/Issue3/SecondGoldenAge.html
id=ScsUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=jewish+merchants+in+ottoman+empire&source=bl&ots=yE9HYC1Kxc&sig=1iqZBsT5qF2hdN5TzM2IoVQkmgA&hl=en&sa=
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Yes, but I didn’t quite know how to reply to this since you were presenting the
traditional point of view while Cochran and Harpending are drawing conclusions
based on recent studies based upon the human genome and arguing new points of
view. Perhaps I put it poorly, but at some point Cortez put about 500 troops
on the ground. Not everyone available came ashore. I didn’t mean to imply
that 500 was all he had throughout his entire military career. Cochran and
Harpending clearly don’t imply that. But had it not been that disease
destroyed about 90% of the Amerindians during the period that Cortez was
working, he (in the opinion of Cochran and Harpending) would not have
succeeded. They mention one critical battle where the Amerindians opposing
Cortez were largely sick, but there were probably others.
The traditional view is to credit Cortez cleverness and not to think disease
played a critical role. I believe Cochran and Harpending have argued that the
traditional view does not adequately explain these events. Viruses and
bacteria deserve more credit than they’ve received.
I can see that my brief examples haven’t done justice to Cochran and
Harpending’s arguments but I don’t feel up to going into much more detail than
I already have – especially since their book seems one argument after another.
In another case, I had written that it was easier for colonist to settle North
America because disease had wiped out most of the Amerindians. North American
was empty. I thought I wrote enough to mean “empty” as compared to “India” for
example.
In another case I wrote that the Ashkenazi Jews working as money lenders
developed skills that gave rise to Einstein, but I intended “money lenders” as
a synecdoche. Medieval states didn’t need that many money-lenders. Ashkenazis
did other things as well. Cochran and Harpending refer to the Ashkenazis as
being the “white collar workers of the medieval world.”
Jews were treated better in Muslim dominated areas during the period the
Ashkenazis were coming into their own, but those Jews were only permitted to do
menial work. And today in Israel the difference in potential, between
Ashkenazi Jews and Jews from Muslim countries is marked. The latter apparently
are not competent to take on the more complicated work. They do menial work in
Israel just as they did in Muslim lands. I’m sure there are exceptions.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
