Dumb Ethnography Megathread

[Is Milse Póg]

Returning to dumb psuedo ethnography, you might have heard about the infamous so called "Khazar Hypothesis" which claimes that Ashkenazi Jews actually came from the Khazars (Steppe people in Ukraine), of which their elite is known to have converted to Rabbanical Judaism in the 8th centuary (To choose a "natural" religion and avoid converting to either the ERE's Orthodox Christianity or the Abbasid Caliphate's Sunni Islam).
I actually would not object to us Jews moving Israel to Ukraine and establishing our own nomadic Khaganate.

 

[crodio]

But urkaine is an American puppet, and America is run by jews, ukraine is already transitively israeli
Wake up sheeple

 

[Bluehawk]

But muh haplogroups prove Ashkenazis are not really Jewish! That means I can hate them without being a naughty anti-semite. All here in this xeroxed pamphlet a man on the subway gave me.

 

[Anarion]

Why don't haplogroups feature more commonly in crackpot theories? Seems like something that would be simple to misinterpret.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

I dunno bout you but I see haplogroups pop up all the time in crackpot theories. It's always to prove a link between disparate groups of people and to show how the ancient chinese were really aryan or some crap.

 

[Is Milse Póg]

Why don't haplogroups feature more commonly in crackpot theories? Seems like something that would be simple to misinterpret.

Thing is with haplogroups is that by cherry picking your data you can prove any link you want and as Jacob said, crackpots do use it extensively.
For example I read that a recent Advocate for the Khazar hypothesis did a genetic research, so what he did:
He set up the Druze and the Bedouins as levantian groups, which is problematic because while the Druze are known to be from Syria, the Bedouins are traced (And trace themselves) to the tribes of Arabia. He compared them to Jews to them and like other researches he found that the Jews are related to the Druze but are much less related to the Bedouins, so what he did? He invented a theory that the Druze are also fake levantains and are actually Turkic hence the relation to the "Khazarian" Ashkenazi Jews.

I dunno bout you but I see haplogroups pop up all the time in crackpot theories. It's always to prove a link between disparate groups of people and to show how the ancient chinese were really aryan or some crap.

See, while it is proven that Jews are not Khazarian, Chinese are indeed arian, it says so on the pamphlet the OTHER guy on the subway gave me, bro!

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Youtubers are always SJW's and anti-white. The reason why is because that garners them the largest amount of viewers (even if they aren't really anti-white sjw's in real life). They know that whites typically don't lash out against whites who are anti-white. We tolerate racism against our own kind, but not between our own kind and different kinds.

 

[Areze]

Youtube comments strike again.

 

[Temuzu]

Jon "One Man Klan" Jafari certainly isn't a SJW.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

https://jordanbpeterson.com/psychology/on-the-so-called-jewish-question/

A rambling blog post by Jordan Peterson about the ""jewish question"" which his Nazi fanbase is constantly baiting him with. Picture in your head how bad it'll be, then multiply that by ten. You're a fraction of the way to how insane this article is.

Spoiler: Part 1: Making Arvenski look like Hemingway

So let’s take apart the far-right claims:

First, psychologically speaking: why do the reactionary conspiracy theorists even bother? This is a straightforward matter. If you’re misguided enough to play identity politics, whether on the left or the right, then you require a victim (in the right-wing case, European culture or some variant) and a perpetrator (Jews). Otherwise you can’t play the game (a YouTube video I made explicating the rules can be found here). Once you determine to play, however, you benefit in a number of ways. You can claim responsibility for the accomplishments of your group you feel racially/ethnically akin to without actually having to accomplish anything yourself. That’s convenient. You can identify with the hypothetical victimization of that group and feel sorry for yourself and pleased at your compassion simultaneously. Another unearned victory. You simplify your world radically, as well. All the problems you face now have a cause, and a single one, so you can dispense with the unpleasant difficulty of thinking things through in detail. Bonus. Furthermore, and most reprehensibly: you now have someone to hate (and, what’s worse, with a good conscience) so your unrecognized resentment and cowardly and incompetent failure to deal with the world forthrightly can find a target, and you can feel morally superior in your consequent persecution (see Germany, Nazi for further evidence and information).

What follows is a bizzare argument for how Ashkenazi Jews naturally have a high IQ a whole standard deviation above the average and white people are just too stupid to compete in the perfect meritocracy. But the worst part of this is how a neo-nazi in the comments says "but don't white people have IQs up to 115? Why are the elites literally full of Jews?" and lobster man actually appends his article with a response saying that he thinks the difference is 3 standard deviations and not one. He doesn't explain why.

There is so much else in this link which is mindblowingly stupid and makes enormous jumps in logic. I suggest you all read it yourselves if you want to see how much of a Ben Shapiro anti-intellectual this man is in print.

 

[kurczak]

So you're saying there is a Judeobolshevik conspiracy?

 

[Moose!]

So you're saying there is a Judeobolshevikpost-modern neo-Marxist conspiracy?

lobster man actually appends his article with a response saying that he thinks the difference is 3 standard deviations and not one. He doesn't explain why.

It's also highly unlikely that the standard deviation for IQ is 15 points for both groups.

 

[Temuzu]

https://jordanbpeterson.com/psychology/on-the-so-called-jewish-question/

http://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

Our general hypothesis is that high IQ test scores of Ashkenazim, along with their unusual pattern of abilities, are a product of natural selection, stemming from their occupation of an unusual social niche. All the required preconditions–low inward gene flow and unusually high reproductive reward for certain cognitive skills, over a long-enough period–did exist. These preconditions are both necessary and sufficient, so such a selective process would almost inevitably have this kind of result. The pattern of high achievement among Ashkenazi Jews and the observed psychometric results are certainly consistent with this hypothesis.

Hit or miss, it really makes you think, huh?

That paper is 12 years old, I wonder if they ever proceeded with the follow-ups they talk about.

 

[Calradianın bilgesi]

tbh oddly enough conspiracy theorists have better attitude here. peterson other anti-feminist club has this strategy of:
-Take data some inequality in outcomes that point to some unfairness
-Find some variable
-Pretend that that variable is engraved in the stone
-Explain the inequality in outcomes through that variable
-'See, that's just how the world is, nothing unfair is going on'

I mean you could even take the mean IQs of aristocrats and serfs then claim 'look, aristocrats just have higher iq, that's just the way the world is, some are more fit to govern.'. The nice thing about it is that it's even true that aristocrats have higher IQ.

Boys in Western countries have started to perform worse than girls academically. Arguing like Peterson one could go 'look, if you control for how much students study at home, then the grades are equal' 'if you control for the interest in subjects taught, there is not difference. girls are just more interested in maths' and so on.

 

[pentagathus]

Wut? You think that disparities should only be treated as if they inevitably have just one single cause?

 

[Calradianın bilgesi]

No this is not my point. Is that a Cathy Newman joke? Let's have more than one variable. Anti-feminist folk likes to claim: 'men just have better jobs, more education, more iq, more willingness to be in competitive environments. This is why they have higher wages. When you control for these there is no pay gap'

And the problem is sometimes that variables they control for are already bad controls: 'men have better jobs'. Because if discrimination in hiring and pay happens, it will cause men to have better-paying jobs, so you can't control for occupation to test discrimination.

And the other problem is that feminists argue there is unfairness in the distribution of education, iq or willingness to be in competitive environments anyway. They will say men are offered better opportunities so have more education and iq(because iq is partially nurture). And will say some male environments are women-exclusive in their norms so women lose interest in some fields.

So it's not satisfying at all when you just conclude 'no unfairness' because you found some control.

 

[pentagathus]

Sorry, I both misunderstood you and phrased my case very badly.
What I meant is that you are already operating on the assumption that a disparity is caused by discrimination, and that it is up to other people to prove otherwise. Whereas the "anti -feminist folks" or "anti-jq" folks seem to be pointing out that there are multiple potential causes for the given disparity, and that the disparity itself is not evidence of discrimination. Obviously some of the anti -feminists are actual chauvinists who believe that men are naturally more intelligent etc but that doesn't mean most of them are. Just like most feminists are not female chauvinists who believe women are naturally superior.
The problem with the gender pay gap is that describing it as a gender pay gap is either a misnomer or a disingenuous argument to start with. The evidence is afaik pretty clear that men do work more hours and are more likely to be career focused and more likely to choose well paying positions. Now it may well be that these are the result of social conditioning but that's a different argument. If you want to be taken seriously then you should take a defensible position from the start, otherwise it just looks like you are more interested in proving yourself right than actually trying to solve a problem.
Could write more on this but it would belong in the feminism thread.

As to the jq article, first of i haven't read it and cba to do so since I find Peterson to be pretty samey after a while. But the first point should be that Ashkenazi jews do have a higher iq than other groups, which you would expect to at least partially explain their higher incomes. Whether or not that is due primarily to genetic differences rather than cultural is already besides the point as far as I'm concerned, although it would be good to know if we could use some of that Jewish mAgic to make our own kids smarter. You could make pretty good arguments either way, but I doubt anyone has solid evidence, in which case it's gonna be mostly speculation.
Now I don't know if the iq difference is large enough to explain away the  income differences, but it's not the only potential variable in play, for example Jewish parents may have higher expectations for their kids in terms of material success than others, or they may have be more successful because they are raised with values which make them more successful. I've certainly heard the argument that Jews have had a higher social capital due to being outsiders for centuries and that they have also held positions as bankers and merchants for a long time because they were allowed to do so when (Catholic) Christians were not, both of which would at least give them an edge historically.
But I've not really researched this much myself, so maybe you guys are right and Hitler was really on to something ey. 

 

[kurczak]

Boys in Western countries have started to perform worse than girls academically. Arguing like Peterson one could go 'look, if you control for how much students study at home, then the grades are equal' 'if you control for the interest in subjects taught, there is not difference. girls are just more interested in maths' and so on.

But wouldn't it be a legitimate counter-argument, if someone were claiming that girls are inherently, genetically more intelligent than boys and therefore they have better grades? It doesn't necessarily imply that nothing should be done about boys' motivation and conscientiousness.

Jewish mAgic

I've always thought the "they wuz bankers" argument is at least questionable. 1) The "ban" on usury in Catholicism was never really a hard ban on banking. There were ways for Christians to effectively charge interest and not break any rules and many did it and quite a number of them even openly broke what formal rules there were and continuously got away with. Even financed kings and popes Protestants had even fewer problems with interest and banking 2) Figurative 99% of Ashkenazi were until very recently (if you look at the big picture) not members of the Rothschild family, but at best petite bourgeois or small land owners in the Pale and their economic status was hardly any better than an average Christian farmer or artisan. They just couldn't wait to run to America en masse and live in borderline slums of Lower East Side because they were bored of living in merchant palaces?

What they had going on for them, though, was that they maintained high levels of literacy regardless of their economic status, when many a Christian, especially in the East, thought of reading as a form of sorcery, heresy, a disease, or all of the above.

 

[Temuzu]

many a Christian, especially in the East, thought of reading as a form of sorcery, heresy, a disease, or all of the above.

Nani the ****? Literally never heard anything like that in all my years.

 

[kurczak]

Sorry, just a prank bro kind of a running family joke/reference not to be taken literally. I just meant to say that when Christians nations had tens of % of population illiterate, Jews were not only basically 100% literate, but generally encouraged and valued education.

My grandparents actively discouraged my parents from pursuing anything more than a vocational school, because higher education and big cities "corrupt people". And that was 1960s and it was not at all a rare sentiment in rural (Czecho)slovakia.