The truth is that, in many cases, elite groups are genetically different from the rest of the population.
Thanks very much - a really interesting article.
Other than Lebanese, Mexico seems lacking in elite segmentation. Turkey and Mexico have a number of similarities, but on the PISA test, there's a tiny but distinct group of very high scorers in Turkey but less so in Mexico. One theory is the Counter-Reformation was so effective in Mexico it blocked the kind of elite formation processes that were conducive to Protestantism in Europe (e.g., Huguenots).
"The truth is that, in many cases, elite groups are genetically different from the rest of the population."
This is, without a doubt, true. And one of the more advantageous genetic traits is higher cognition. But at least one situation that some elite groups use is a lack of a positive trait: integrity. An absence of integrity has given some elite groups enormous wealth and power. I believe Netanyahu is an excellent example of gaining power through a lack of integrity. There are numerous examples of this in the power structure of the United States.
just want to make a minor clarification on the bengali data
- the original surname list dates to the period of a united bengal, which was (at the time) about 50% muslim and 50% hindu
- the clark et al graph is from late 20th century west bengal, which is 75% hindu and 25% muslim, and 1/3rd of the modern population of bengalis (2/3rd of which is in bangladesh)
also, fwiw, khan in the indian subcontinent is a acquired title and historically did connote someone who probably owned land or was in an elite service position in relation to the mughals or east indian company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_(title)#:~:text=The%20titles%20Khan%20and%20Khan,in%20army%20particularly%20in%20Gaud
So after all the motto "rich aren't special" is a hoax
A well-written, data-driven support of a hypothesis. I am not sure how broadly applicable this hypothesis is, but it has some compelling points. In support of a genetic component to success, for centuries in Europe, if a poor peasant child was smart, the way to get out of the grinding servitude of serfdom was to become a literate priest or monk which - in theory - removed a smart boy's genetics from the next generation. During that same period in Europe, education and scholarship were prized in the Jewish communities, so families wanted their girls to marry scholars and - next best - successful professionals, which meant the genes of smart males were passed down to the next generation.
Amy Chua wrote about this almost 20 years ago in her book "World on Fire". She talks about "market dominant" minorities like Chinese in Southeast Asia, Jews in Europe/US, Indians in Africa, etc. There was no talk of genes in that book though. The research on genetic transmission of social status like Clark's came later.
Amy "Tiger Mom" Chua herself is from an elite group. Her father is the famous Leon Chua, professor of electrical engineer at Berkeley and made many important discoveries in EE. She married an Ashkenazi Jewish Yale professor to continue their bloodline.
You need religion to keep the elite group together over the long run. That's how Brahmins and Jews can keep their bloodlines. Without religions, you will have somebody like Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk spreading their genes to the wrong places.
The story of Ashkenazim is like the biggest story in the world of biological superiority not equating moral superiority. Tragic for those they intend to harm but I suppose that is the natural consequence of chimp level, might makes right morality. I raise an apple cider to a world where IQ is celebrated, bred and promoted, minus the genocides and land theft.
In the UK, representation of working class people in journalism, media, etc is far lower now than 50 years ago. It’s usually attributed to middle- and upper-class blocking of opportunity, a conspiracy really. Could it be that improvements in educational attainment over the past 100 years or so fractionated off many capable people into higher classes? The working class is now a much lower percentage of the population than in the past, the residue of that distillation. (I know that sounds snobby, but my parents were solid working class, I’m middle class I suppose)
"After the establishment of the Turkish republic, that country carried out a genocide of Armenians, Assyrians and Greek Christians – which was certain to have wiped out some of their wealth"
-Armenian genocide happened before establishment of the Turkish republic
Turkey has not christians but they surpassed many christian european countries in socio-economic and educational factors (pisa, gdp). Additionally we shouldnt forget Turkey has significant mena pop(kurds arabs etc.) Western regions of Turkey are more developed.
A-) Reading scores in PISA 2018
*You can see similar pattern in here
B-) gdp ppp per capita by countries
turkey: 41k~ $
greece : 39k ~ $
bulgaria: 33k~ $
montenegro: 28k $
With regards to population transfer in post-war Poland one has to keep in that there was already pre-selection in place. Eastern Poland's polish population was on average of higher social status than say Central Poland population - polish in east descended mostly from city-dwellers, poor and rich descendants of nobles. Peasantry in East was mostly of various Ruthenian stock.
"The dynamics of conversions between AD 1 and AD 750 are remarkable: the Jewish population shrank from almost five million people in the first century AD to fewer than 1.5 million by the eighth century."
I find both numbers highly questionable; most likely the Jewish population never exceeded a million at any point in the first millennium AD.
readers may find this book of interest: The Global Bell Curve, by Flynn. among other things, he shows that "transplanted" groups of certain origins thrive in a new culture, some groups repeatedly do not.
> When the temple was destroyed after the Bar Kokhba revolt
Very interesting but concerning Jews 2000 years ago a few small corrections:
"It was split between groups like the Samaritans, Essenes, Zealots, and most importantly the written Torah-promoting Sadducees who had adopted Hellenistic culture, and the written and oral Torah-promoting Pharisees who opposed the adoption of any aspects of Greek culture and language."
Samaritans were already not considered part of Judaism at this time.
The idea that the Sadducees adopted Hellenistic culture and were part of the elites is based more or less on nothing. It seems to come from a confusion between the "House of Zadok", a leading priestly family, and their supporters and the Sadducees but there is no indication they had anything to do with each others.
The Pharisees were *not* the same thing as the Rabbis that came after and did not believe in any oral Torah, a concept that belongs only to Rabbinic Judaism. The Pharisees did take part in the war against Rome very actively.
The Rabbis were a marginal group until the 3rd century at least and had no influence. They retro-actively imagined they had the same influence at the beginning than they had later but it is not true.
We do not know how many Jews there were in the 1st century. 5 millions ? Why not, but the number is based on a mistake from a middle ages monk, not real data.
We do not know how many Jews converted to Christianity, we do know that the first non Jewish Christians came from the "Judaizers", pagans interested in Judaism who sometimes did convert to Judaism. They were usually women and urban elites.