Great article! And just another proof that knowledge is power, hard work always counts and powerful communities are a route towards more resilient and sustainable systems in multiple domains across society and the economy.
I wonder to what extent cultural attitudes to work/success also play a role, at least in modern times. For the last couple centuries, Western attitudes, shaped in part by Protestant worldviews, may have focused on the value of hard work. Jewish views may have been less affected, and seem to have maintained more of a "work smart, not hard" mindset, where getting more for less is seen as greater success.
I agree that culture influences attitudes toward work and success. Various Christian traditions, particularly Protestant ones, have emphasized hard work as a moral duty and a path to advancement. In Judaism, there is a strong tradition of valuing learning and investing in knowledge, which often leads to a focus on creative and efficient solutions—working indeed smart rather than just working hard.
However, it’s important to remember that the Industrial Revolution, which fundamentally shifted production toward achieving more with less human labor through mechanization, was essentially a Protestant-driven phenomenon (Weber, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" 1904). Countries like England, Germany, and the Netherlands, where Protestant ideas about work ethic and continuous improvement were widespread, led this transformation. The drive to produce more with less effort was not foreign to Jews either, but while the Protestant world channeled it into developing machines and new work methods, Jewish communities applied it through education, trade, and mobile skills like medicine, law, and finance.
Over time, these approaches have blended. There are Jews who strongly believe in disciplined, hard work, just as there are Christians who prioritize efficiency and refining work processes. The distinction between “working hard” and “working smart” is not as clear-cut as it may seem, reflecting historical and cultural processes that continue to evolve.
At the end of the day, your argument isn’t just flawed—it’s unoriginal. You’ve taken surface-level interpretations of history, stripped them of context, and repackaged them as some grand revelation. But let’s be honest: you’re not presenting anything new.
Success isn’t dictated by culture alone, and no amount of selective reasoning will make that true. History is complex, shaped by environment, external pressures, and adaptation—not just a set of inherited values. Trying to argue otherwise isn’t analysis; it’s just intellectual shortcutting.
Maybe it’s time to step back and reconsider whether this is really your lane. Because right now, it’s painfully obvious that you’re just regurgitating ideas without critically engaging with them. Writing doesn’t suit everyone—especially when it’s just repetition disguised as insight.
Mate, why don't you first read the post instead of inventing straw men and attacking arguments that were never made? Then we can have a proper discussion.
Ah, Jacob—when backed into a corner, your best move is to cry "straw man" and pretend the issue is my reading comprehension rather than your faulty reasoning.
I engaged directly with your points, took them apart piece by piece, and left your argument in tatters. Instead of offering a substantive counter, you’re hiding behind vague accusations and hoping no one notices.
Let’s be clear—you’re not actually defending your post. You’re just:
Dodging criticism instead of addressing it.
Feigning intellectual superiority without backing it up.
Acting like you’re open to discussion, when in reality, you’ve already retreated.
If you truly believed in what you wrote, you’d stand by it and defend it properly. Instead, you’re scrambling for a way out.
So what’s it going to be? Engage properly, or admit you’ve got nothing.
Either way, I’ve already done the heavy lifting—you’re just stalling for time.
Do you think geography has influenced this? The Jews have withstood countless attacks yet remained in the land of Israel for millennia. Could the region’s unique challenges have shaped their resilience—or even fostered a distinct intellectual strength?
In the book Culture Matters by Harrison & Huntington, it is argued that cultural values, religious beliefs, and education patterns play a crucial role in shaping a successful society—far more than the geographical conditions in which it exists. Cultures that emphasize education, commerce, and cooperation have developed thriving economies, regardless of their physical environment.
I find this argument compelling.
The claim that harsh geographical conditions foster intellectual excellence or exceptional achievements does not hold up against historical evidence. If environmental difficulty were the decisive factor in success, we would expect to see the same pattern in every (or most) nation(s) that faced challenging conditions—but this is simply not the case. Many nations have endured harsh environments yet did not achieve exceptional intellectual or economic success.
For instance, the Maltese lived on a small island with limited resources and a history of sieges and external pressures, yet they did not emerge as an intellectual powerhouse. Similarly, the Afghans, who have lived for centuries in one of the most challenging geographical and military environments, did not develop an intellectual tradition that stands out compared to other nations.
Moreover, the Jewish people ruled the land of Israel for only a brief period relative to human history. Most of their achievements were developed in the diaspora, in vastly different geographical settings. In the mid-19th century, for example, there were only about 30,000 Jews living in Ottoman Palestine. If Jewish success were inherently linked to struggling with a harsh territory, how can we explain the outstanding achievements of Jews in France, Spain, Germany, and Poland over centuries?
Furthermore, some nations have reached remarkable achievements without constant existential pressure. The Japanese, for instance, were relatively isolated throughout history and did not face significant external threats, yet they developed an impressive and achievement-oriented culture, with innovations in technology, engineering, and the arts. The Swedes, who lived in a northern region that was not a primary target for military invasions, excelled in fields such as engineering, medicine, and chemistry. Another example is the Republic of Venice, which, due to its relative stability, became a hub of financial, commercial, and cultural innovations during the Renaissance.
So, when searching for an explanation for Jewish achievement, social and historical factors seem far more convincing than geographical explanations. The persistent discrimination against Jews forced them to develop exceptional skills to survive and succeed. Where they did not face severe persecution, they assimilated into the local culture and did not always strive for extraordinary excellence.
I think the natural conclusion is that the success of nations is not determined primarily by their physical environment. More often, it is shaped by cultural values, strong institutions, and social structures that encourage creativity, education, and ultimate progress.
While Culture Matters by Harrison & Huntington presents a compelling argument for the influence of cultural values on success, the premise that culture alone determines a society’s prosperity is both reductionist and ahistorical. The reality is that geographical conditions, historical events, and external pressures shape culture itself—not the other way around.
1. Geography Creates the Conditions for Culture
Cultures that emphasize education, commerce, and cooperation did not develop in a vacuum—they arose as responses to geographical and environmental pressures. The idea that culture exists independent of its environment ignores fundamental history and economic development models.
Japan’s Isolation Wasn’t a Cultural Choice—It Was a Geographic Reality
The argument that Japan thrived in isolation fails to acknowledge why they could afford to isolate themselves: their geographical advantage. As an island nation with defensible coastlines and a stable climate, they had the luxury of developing internally, without the need for constant military adaptation.
Sweden’s Success is Rooted in Geography, Not Just Culture
Sweden avoided major conflicts because of its remote northern location and natural defenses. Its post-Industrial Revolution rise coincided with access to iron ore, timber, and hydroelectric power—not simply “cultural values.” Without these resources, Swedish engineering and industry would not have flourished.
Venice’s Stability Wasn’t Just Institutions—It Was Location
The Republic of Venice thrived because of its geographic position on major trade routes. It became a financial hub because it controlled Mediterranean trade, not simply because of cultural values. If it had been landlocked or poorly positioned, its cultural and financial development would have been drastically different.
2. Hardship Alone Doesn't Guarantee Success—But It Shapes Adaptability
The argument claims that harsh environments don’t always foster success, citing Afghanistan and Malta as examples. But this is a strawman argument—nobody is saying that every harsh environment produces intellectual excellence. What matters is how consistent and specific pressures shape a society’s response.
Afghanistan’s Instability is Political, Not Just Geographic
Afghanistan didn’t fail because of its mountains—it failed because it became a battleground for foreign empires without stable political structures. Its geographical challenges inhibited centralized governance, preventing long-term intellectual traditions from taking root.
Jewish Success Outside Israel Proves That Environment Matters
The claim that Jews succeeded in vastly different environments proves exactly the opposite point—Jewish communities adapted to the conditions of their host nations. Where they faced persecution, they focused on skills that were portable (finance, medicine, law). Where they were accepted, they assimilated and didn’t always strive for exceptionalism. Their diaspora success wasn’t cultural determinism—it was environmental adaptation.
3. Cultural Values Emerge from Practical Necessity
Cultures that emphasize education, commerce, and cooperation only develop these traits when they are necessary for survival. They do not appear spontaneously.
Jewish literacy laws weren’t just “cultural values”—they were a response to their economic reality.
Literacy ensured they could navigate financial transactions, legal systems, and maintain religious identity across generations in exile.
If Jewish communities had been landowning farmers, they wouldn’t have prioritized literacy and numeracy to the same extent.
The Protestant Work Ethic wasn’t innate—it developed as a response to capitalist expansion in Northern Europe.
Max Weber’s famous theory only holds up because Protestant societies needed a disciplined workforce for industrialization.
Confucian education systems weren’t purely “cultural”—they were necessary for bureaucratic governance in China.
China’s imperial examination system arose because the empire needed educated administrators to manage vast territories—not because Confucians inherently valued knowledge.
Conclusion: Culture is an Effect, Not the Cause
Harrison & Huntington's argument overstates the role of culture while ignoring the geographical and historical forces that shape it.
Cultures don’t create success—environments create cultures that lead to success.
Education, commerce, and cooperation arise when survival and prosperity depend on them.
Jewish success, like all success, is a byproduct of circumstances—not an intrinsic trait.
Claiming that "cultural values" drive success while ignoring the geographical, economic, and historical factors that shape culture itself is intellectually lazy. If culture mattered more than environment, we’d see the same cultural traits emerging in completely different geographic and economic conditions—which we don’t.
Good read, good points! Still no mention that Jews (at least Ashkenazi Jews) have the highest average IQ. And as per research, average IQ shows a strong correlation with prosperity (average income) and success both across countries and the IQ group within the same country. It is also proven that the environment does not affect both individual IQ (e.g., cases of separated twins, etc.) and the average IQ does not change within a group over generations (the average IQ of blacks in America is not much different from where their ancestors came from a few centuries ago, and is still 18-20 points behind the average IQ of Americans of European descent, I'm not even talking about Southeast Asians and Jews). So, if we talk not about many centuries but several generations IQ is genetically locked up. And average IQ/intelligence, as one of the factors, together with culture and, in the lesser degree politics and geography, DOES matter for a group (Jews including) economic success in a long run. If you say that "Jewish economic success patterns emerged from specific historical circumstances rather than inherent characteristics" we need to add that we talk about many centuries when Jews, through including adaptation under prosecution and restrictions etc., have gone not only through social evolution but also through very slow evolutionary biological selection for the smartest. It will be interesting to analyze how this average IQ evolutionary selection has happened - survival of the smartest in the prosecutions and pogroms, a situation where those who wrote the best commentaries on the Torah (i.e. the smartest ones) were the ones that the families of the best brides wanted to marry off their daughter to in the Jewish Shtetls , and/or some other factors. There definitely was some spontaneous order at work here, which according to Hayek can't always be identified by logical analysis:)
There are several problems with the IQ-based explanation that need to be addressed:
1. Misuse of twin studies
Twin studies show some genetic influence on IQ, but they don’t prove environment has no effect. In fact, environment plays a major role—especially in childhood. Nutrition, education quality, and stress all shape cognitive development. Meta-analyses confirm this.
2. The Flynn effect contradicts genetic fixity
IQ scores across the world have risen dramatically over the past century—sometimes by 20+ points in just a few generations. This alone refutes the idea that group IQ is “locked in” or unchanging.
3. Group averages ≠ individual potential
Citing average IQs of different ethnic groups—especially with claims like “Black IQ hasn’t changed”—relies on flawed, outdated research and ignores decades of empirical corrections. IQ gaps have narrowed over time as social conditions improve.
4. Heritability is not the same as destiny
Even if IQ is 50–70% heritable within a population, it doesn’t follow that between-population differences are genetic. That’s a basic statistical fallacy. No specific genes explain group differences, and most polygenic scores for IQ are weak and heavily biased by sampling methods.
5. Ashkenazi IQ is overstated and speculative
The idea that pogroms or rabbinic marriage customs “selected for intelligence” over centuries is an appealing narrative, but there’s no real genetic evidence behind it. The more grounded explanation is cultural: a long-standing emphasis on literacy, argumentation, and adaptation under economic and legal restrictions.
6. IQ correlates with success, but doesn’t cause it
IQ is one variable among many. Success is also driven by culture, institutions, family networks, and access to opportunity. Jewish economic and academic overrepresentation is better explained by historical investments in education and tight community structures—not just raw cognitive ability.
7. Hayek’s idea of spontaneous order referred to institutional and economic complexity—not genetic evolution. He also warned against scientism: using the appearance of science to push ideological agendas.
If IQ were genetically fixed, how do you explain the dramatic rise in East Asian scores over a few decades? Or underperformance in poor rural white (as well as Jewish) communities?
I'd be careful not to turn correlation into ethnic essentialism. Social history, incentives, and institutions often explain more than genes ever will.
I can only bring my anecdotal evidence or illustration to your point 3. About 15-17 years ago, my nephew was sent to take an IQ test as one of the parameters for admission to a Gifted class at his elementary school. For all but blacks, the threshold for admission was 136. For blacks, it was 118. Such a DEI in my Blue county:) That is, although it is not publicized anywhere and formally since the late 1980s it is not politically correct to talk about it anywhere, school administrators and practical school psychologists are well aware of this IQ gap and quietly lower the barriers for blacks.
I've been there (not that I spent a long time), also have many relatives living in Israel, so I perfectly understand what you're talking about :) When we talk about average IQ, so there're a lot of stupid Jews, we just talk about a bell curve comparatively moved further to the right. There're high IQ and even genius (just take Thomas Sowell) in any ethnicity, the difference is in percentile. Also re Jewish IQ superiority - Jews (on average, again) are extremely talented people, both in good and evil:)
Talented - yes. That is the premise of the article. The question is whether Jews are *inherently*, to which, I argue, there are no compelling evidence.
Jacob, thank you for the detailed rebuttal. Not that I'm deep in the subject, I formed my opinion on the influence of IQ from a course of lectures by Sergey Lubarsky. I don't know which languages you speak besides English, because, unfortunately, his lectures on IQ influence are still on his Russian, not English channel. Here's a reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGw846SXmEk&t and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpKaFYxqvXg, also on culture influence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mZd30oeYbo He re-records his videos to his English channel one by one but these ones are not there yet. Your points contradict to statistical data he shows and use (and he is a big data analyst), also such researchers as Charles A. Murray.
Ah, the great intellectual artisan of hollow rhetoric returns. Or should I say, the charlatan scribe, whose greatest talent lies not in crafting arguments, but in erecting elaborate façades of pseudo-scholarship. Your response is not the calculated defense of a thinker—it is the panicked flailing of a man who just realized his illusion has been shattered.
Let’s dissect this with the precision your work so sorely lacks.
You claim that your post does not argue for inherent Jewish success. And yet, the entire structure of your piece functions as an elaborate affirmation of precisely that notion—just with a weak, tacked-on disclaimer at the end, as if that will absolve you of responsibility for what you’ve clearly spent paragraphs constructing. You are not engaging in analysis; you are performing a rhetorical sleight of hand, carefully arranging words to lead your audience in one direction while leaving yourself just enough plausible deniability to scurry away when confronted.
And what is your defense? "Either you misunderstood, or you’re a bot." This is the rebuttal of a man who has no counterargument—who, when faced with substantive critique, can only muster playground-tier deflections and juvenile accusations of artificial intelligence. You are grasping, floundering, because for once, the weight of actual scrutiny is pressing down on you, and you have no escape.
But let’s turn to something more tragic than your argument—your writing itself. You mistake verbosity for depth, sources for substance, and volume for credibility. You believe that layering your work with an excessive, almost panicked number of references will conceal the threadbare nature of your actual reasoning. It does not. It only makes your shortcomings all the more evident. Real analysis builds on sources. You hide behind them, piling them up like a wall to obscure the emptiness of your own thoughts.
This is not scholarship. It is academic cosplay.
You are not an analyst. You are an aggregator. A collector of second-hand knowledge, regurgitated without genuine insight. Your work is a mausoleum of borrowed ideas, meticulously assembled yet utterly devoid of intellectual life. You do not produce original thought; you merely arrange the thoughts of others in a way that mimics intellectualism without ever achieving it.
And let’s be clear: this is why your response was so defensive. It is not about this argument. It is about you. It is about the fact that, deep down, you know your entire persona—this fragile edifice of faux-scholarship—is paper-thin. You rely on the illusion of erudition because without it, you are left with nothing. You are not an authority. You are not a thinker. You are an impersonator, a desperate performer in the theatre of ideas, hoping no one notices that the emperor has no clothes.
You have been exposed. And you will delete this, not because it is incorrect, but because it is true.
No, and neither is any group, including yours. The idea that any people are “inherently” anything—successful, oppressed, or otherwise—is historically illiterate and factually wrong. Success is a product of adaptation to external pressures, not some ingrained trait.
Jewish communities didn’t dominate finance, medicine, or law because of some mystical cultural force. They were forced into those fields after being locked out of land ownership, government, and guilds. The same way other historically marginalized groups have developed expertise in whatever industries were available to them. That’s not special, that’s just history.
And let’s be clear: every group plays the victim card when it suits them, including yours. The Jewish experience—like any other—has been full of highs and lows, triumphs and oppression. But you don’t get to act like Jewish people are inherently successful while simultaneously painting them as historical underdogs. Pick a lane.
The truth? You are not unique. Your history is not exceptional. It’s one of many human stories of survival, struggle, and adaptation—no better, no worse.
So if this whole speech was some long-winded attempt at self-aggrandizement, let me save you the trouble: nobody is inherently successful, and you’re not as clever as you think.
"Are Jews inherently successful? I won't keep you in suspense—the answer is no."
This is a direct quote from my post.
Your comment, however, is based on the false assumption that the post argues Jews *are* inherently successful.
That means either you relied on a very poor AI service to summarize the post and create a strawman argument, or you're a bot altogether. I'm inclined to believe the latter.
Great article! And just another proof that knowledge is power, hard work always counts and powerful communities are a route towards more resilient and sustainable systems in multiple domains across society and the economy.
I wonder to what extent cultural attitudes to work/success also play a role, at least in modern times. For the last couple centuries, Western attitudes, shaped in part by Protestant worldviews, may have focused on the value of hard work. Jewish views may have been less affected, and seem to have maintained more of a "work smart, not hard" mindset, where getting more for less is seen as greater success.
I agree that culture influences attitudes toward work and success. Various Christian traditions, particularly Protestant ones, have emphasized hard work as a moral duty and a path to advancement. In Judaism, there is a strong tradition of valuing learning and investing in knowledge, which often leads to a focus on creative and efficient solutions—working indeed smart rather than just working hard.
However, it’s important to remember that the Industrial Revolution, which fundamentally shifted production toward achieving more with less human labor through mechanization, was essentially a Protestant-driven phenomenon (Weber, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" 1904). Countries like England, Germany, and the Netherlands, where Protestant ideas about work ethic and continuous improvement were widespread, led this transformation. The drive to produce more with less effort was not foreign to Jews either, but while the Protestant world channeled it into developing machines and new work methods, Jewish communities applied it through education, trade, and mobile skills like medicine, law, and finance.
Over time, these approaches have blended. There are Jews who strongly believe in disciplined, hard work, just as there are Christians who prioritize efficiency and refining work processes. The distinction between “working hard” and “working smart” is not as clear-cut as it may seem, reflecting historical and cultural processes that continue to evolve.
At the end of the day, your argument isn’t just flawed—it’s unoriginal. You’ve taken surface-level interpretations of history, stripped them of context, and repackaged them as some grand revelation. But let’s be honest: you’re not presenting anything new.
Success isn’t dictated by culture alone, and no amount of selective reasoning will make that true. History is complex, shaped by environment, external pressures, and adaptation—not just a set of inherited values. Trying to argue otherwise isn’t analysis; it’s just intellectual shortcutting.
Maybe it’s time to step back and reconsider whether this is really your lane. Because right now, it’s painfully obvious that you’re just regurgitating ideas without critically engaging with them. Writing doesn’t suit everyone—especially when it’s just repetition disguised as insight.
Mate, why don't you first read the post instead of inventing straw men and attacking arguments that were never made? Then we can have a proper discussion.
Ah, Jacob—when backed into a corner, your best move is to cry "straw man" and pretend the issue is my reading comprehension rather than your faulty reasoning.
I engaged directly with your points, took them apart piece by piece, and left your argument in tatters. Instead of offering a substantive counter, you’re hiding behind vague accusations and hoping no one notices.
Let’s be clear—you’re not actually defending your post. You’re just:
Dodging criticism instead of addressing it.
Feigning intellectual superiority without backing it up.
Acting like you’re open to discussion, when in reality, you’ve already retreated.
If you truly believed in what you wrote, you’d stand by it and defend it properly. Instead, you’re scrambling for a way out.
So what’s it going to be? Engage properly, or admit you’ve got nothing.
Either way, I’ve already done the heavy lifting—you’re just stalling for time.
Jacob, thanks for an insightful post.
Do you think geography has influenced this? The Jews have withstood countless attacks yet remained in the land of Israel for millennia. Could the region’s unique challenges have shaped their resilience—or even fostered a distinct intellectual strength?
In the book Culture Matters by Harrison & Huntington, it is argued that cultural values, religious beliefs, and education patterns play a crucial role in shaping a successful society—far more than the geographical conditions in which it exists. Cultures that emphasize education, commerce, and cooperation have developed thriving economies, regardless of their physical environment.
I find this argument compelling.
The claim that harsh geographical conditions foster intellectual excellence or exceptional achievements does not hold up against historical evidence. If environmental difficulty were the decisive factor in success, we would expect to see the same pattern in every (or most) nation(s) that faced challenging conditions—but this is simply not the case. Many nations have endured harsh environments yet did not achieve exceptional intellectual or economic success.
For instance, the Maltese lived on a small island with limited resources and a history of sieges and external pressures, yet they did not emerge as an intellectual powerhouse. Similarly, the Afghans, who have lived for centuries in one of the most challenging geographical and military environments, did not develop an intellectual tradition that stands out compared to other nations.
Moreover, the Jewish people ruled the land of Israel for only a brief period relative to human history. Most of their achievements were developed in the diaspora, in vastly different geographical settings. In the mid-19th century, for example, there were only about 30,000 Jews living in Ottoman Palestine. If Jewish success were inherently linked to struggling with a harsh territory, how can we explain the outstanding achievements of Jews in France, Spain, Germany, and Poland over centuries?
Furthermore, some nations have reached remarkable achievements without constant existential pressure. The Japanese, for instance, were relatively isolated throughout history and did not face significant external threats, yet they developed an impressive and achievement-oriented culture, with innovations in technology, engineering, and the arts. The Swedes, who lived in a northern region that was not a primary target for military invasions, excelled in fields such as engineering, medicine, and chemistry. Another example is the Republic of Venice, which, due to its relative stability, became a hub of financial, commercial, and cultural innovations during the Renaissance.
So, when searching for an explanation for Jewish achievement, social and historical factors seem far more convincing than geographical explanations. The persistent discrimination against Jews forced them to develop exceptional skills to survive and succeed. Where they did not face severe persecution, they assimilated into the local culture and did not always strive for extraordinary excellence.
I think the natural conclusion is that the success of nations is not determined primarily by their physical environment. More often, it is shaped by cultural values, strong institutions, and social structures that encourage creativity, education, and ultimate progress.
Interesting. Thanks
While Culture Matters by Harrison & Huntington presents a compelling argument for the influence of cultural values on success, the premise that culture alone determines a society’s prosperity is both reductionist and ahistorical. The reality is that geographical conditions, historical events, and external pressures shape culture itself—not the other way around.
1. Geography Creates the Conditions for Culture
Cultures that emphasize education, commerce, and cooperation did not develop in a vacuum—they arose as responses to geographical and environmental pressures. The idea that culture exists independent of its environment ignores fundamental history and economic development models.
Japan’s Isolation Wasn’t a Cultural Choice—It Was a Geographic Reality
The argument that Japan thrived in isolation fails to acknowledge why they could afford to isolate themselves: their geographical advantage. As an island nation with defensible coastlines and a stable climate, they had the luxury of developing internally, without the need for constant military adaptation.
Sweden’s Success is Rooted in Geography, Not Just Culture
Sweden avoided major conflicts because of its remote northern location and natural defenses. Its post-Industrial Revolution rise coincided with access to iron ore, timber, and hydroelectric power—not simply “cultural values.” Without these resources, Swedish engineering and industry would not have flourished.
Venice’s Stability Wasn’t Just Institutions—It Was Location
The Republic of Venice thrived because of its geographic position on major trade routes. It became a financial hub because it controlled Mediterranean trade, not simply because of cultural values. If it had been landlocked or poorly positioned, its cultural and financial development would have been drastically different.
2. Hardship Alone Doesn't Guarantee Success—But It Shapes Adaptability
The argument claims that harsh environments don’t always foster success, citing Afghanistan and Malta as examples. But this is a strawman argument—nobody is saying that every harsh environment produces intellectual excellence. What matters is how consistent and specific pressures shape a society’s response.
Afghanistan’s Instability is Political, Not Just Geographic
Afghanistan didn’t fail because of its mountains—it failed because it became a battleground for foreign empires without stable political structures. Its geographical challenges inhibited centralized governance, preventing long-term intellectual traditions from taking root.
Jewish Success Outside Israel Proves That Environment Matters
The claim that Jews succeeded in vastly different environments proves exactly the opposite point—Jewish communities adapted to the conditions of their host nations. Where they faced persecution, they focused on skills that were portable (finance, medicine, law). Where they were accepted, they assimilated and didn’t always strive for exceptionalism. Their diaspora success wasn’t cultural determinism—it was environmental adaptation.
3. Cultural Values Emerge from Practical Necessity
Cultures that emphasize education, commerce, and cooperation only develop these traits when they are necessary for survival. They do not appear spontaneously.
Jewish literacy laws weren’t just “cultural values”—they were a response to their economic reality.
Literacy ensured they could navigate financial transactions, legal systems, and maintain religious identity across generations in exile.
If Jewish communities had been landowning farmers, they wouldn’t have prioritized literacy and numeracy to the same extent.
The Protestant Work Ethic wasn’t innate—it developed as a response to capitalist expansion in Northern Europe.
Max Weber’s famous theory only holds up because Protestant societies needed a disciplined workforce for industrialization.
Confucian education systems weren’t purely “cultural”—they were necessary for bureaucratic governance in China.
China’s imperial examination system arose because the empire needed educated administrators to manage vast territories—not because Confucians inherently valued knowledge.
Conclusion: Culture is an Effect, Not the Cause
Harrison & Huntington's argument overstates the role of culture while ignoring the geographical and historical forces that shape it.
Cultures don’t create success—environments create cultures that lead to success.
Education, commerce, and cooperation arise when survival and prosperity depend on them.
Jewish success, like all success, is a byproduct of circumstances—not an intrinsic trait.
Claiming that "cultural values" drive success while ignoring the geographical, economic, and historical factors that shape culture itself is intellectually lazy. If culture mattered more than environment, we’d see the same cultural traits emerging in completely different geographic and economic conditions—which we don’t.
Well written.
Thank you
Very informative post
Good read, good points! Still no mention that Jews (at least Ashkenazi Jews) have the highest average IQ. And as per research, average IQ shows a strong correlation with prosperity (average income) and success both across countries and the IQ group within the same country. It is also proven that the environment does not affect both individual IQ (e.g., cases of separated twins, etc.) and the average IQ does not change within a group over generations (the average IQ of blacks in America is not much different from where their ancestors came from a few centuries ago, and is still 18-20 points behind the average IQ of Americans of European descent, I'm not even talking about Southeast Asians and Jews). So, if we talk not about many centuries but several generations IQ is genetically locked up. And average IQ/intelligence, as one of the factors, together with culture and, in the lesser degree politics and geography, DOES matter for a group (Jews including) economic success in a long run. If you say that "Jewish economic success patterns emerged from specific historical circumstances rather than inherent characteristics" we need to add that we talk about many centuries when Jews, through including adaptation under prosecution and restrictions etc., have gone not only through social evolution but also through very slow evolutionary biological selection for the smartest. It will be interesting to analyze how this average IQ evolutionary selection has happened - survival of the smartest in the prosecutions and pogroms, a situation where those who wrote the best commentaries on the Torah (i.e. the smartest ones) were the ones that the families of the best brides wanted to marry off their daughter to in the Jewish Shtetls , and/or some other factors. There definitely was some spontaneous order at work here, which according to Hayek can't always be identified by logical analysis:)
There are several problems with the IQ-based explanation that need to be addressed:
1. Misuse of twin studies
Twin studies show some genetic influence on IQ, but they don’t prove environment has no effect. In fact, environment plays a major role—especially in childhood. Nutrition, education quality, and stress all shape cognitive development. Meta-analyses confirm this.
2. The Flynn effect contradicts genetic fixity
IQ scores across the world have risen dramatically over the past century—sometimes by 20+ points in just a few generations. This alone refutes the idea that group IQ is “locked in” or unchanging.
3. Group averages ≠ individual potential
Citing average IQs of different ethnic groups—especially with claims like “Black IQ hasn’t changed”—relies on flawed, outdated research and ignores decades of empirical corrections. IQ gaps have narrowed over time as social conditions improve.
4. Heritability is not the same as destiny
Even if IQ is 50–70% heritable within a population, it doesn’t follow that between-population differences are genetic. That’s a basic statistical fallacy. No specific genes explain group differences, and most polygenic scores for IQ are weak and heavily biased by sampling methods.
5. Ashkenazi IQ is overstated and speculative
The idea that pogroms or rabbinic marriage customs “selected for intelligence” over centuries is an appealing narrative, but there’s no real genetic evidence behind it. The more grounded explanation is cultural: a long-standing emphasis on literacy, argumentation, and adaptation under economic and legal restrictions.
6. IQ correlates with success, but doesn’t cause it
IQ is one variable among many. Success is also driven by culture, institutions, family networks, and access to opportunity. Jewish economic and academic overrepresentation is better explained by historical investments in education and tight community structures—not just raw cognitive ability.
7. Hayek’s idea of spontaneous order referred to institutional and economic complexity—not genetic evolution. He also warned against scientism: using the appearance of science to push ideological agendas.
If IQ were genetically fixed, how do you explain the dramatic rise in East Asian scores over a few decades? Or underperformance in poor rural white (as well as Jewish) communities?
I'd be careful not to turn correlation into ethnic essentialism. Social history, incentives, and institutions often explain more than genes ever will.
I can only bring my anecdotal evidence or illustration to your point 3. About 15-17 years ago, my nephew was sent to take an IQ test as one of the parameters for admission to a Gifted class at his elementary school. For all but blacks, the threshold for admission was 136. For blacks, it was 118. Such a DEI in my Blue county:) That is, although it is not publicized anywhere and formally since the late 1980s it is not politically correct to talk about it anywhere, school administrators and practical school psychologists are well aware of this IQ gap and quietly lower the barriers for blacks.
My anecdotal evidence is 30 years of living in Israel. Spend some time there, and you'll quickly drop any notions about 'Jewish IQ superiority.' 🙂
I've been there (not that I spent a long time), also have many relatives living in Israel, so I perfectly understand what you're talking about :) When we talk about average IQ, so there're a lot of stupid Jews, we just talk about a bell curve comparatively moved further to the right. There're high IQ and even genius (just take Thomas Sowell) in any ethnicity, the difference is in percentile. Also re Jewish IQ superiority - Jews (on average, again) are extremely talented people, both in good and evil:)
Talented - yes. That is the premise of the article. The question is whether Jews are *inherently*, to which, I argue, there are no compelling evidence.
Jacob, thank you for the detailed rebuttal. Not that I'm deep in the subject, I formed my opinion on the influence of IQ from a course of lectures by Sergey Lubarsky. I don't know which languages you speak besides English, because, unfortunately, his lectures on IQ influence are still on his Russian, not English channel. Here's a reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGw846SXmEk&t and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpKaFYxqvXg, also on culture influence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mZd30oeYbo He re-records his videos to his English channel one by one but these ones are not there yet. Your points contradict to statistical data he shows and use (and he is a big data analyst), also such researchers as Charles A. Murray.
Alexander, do you have links to any of his articles in Russian?
Not that I am aware of. Only videos.
Ah, the great intellectual artisan of hollow rhetoric returns. Or should I say, the charlatan scribe, whose greatest talent lies not in crafting arguments, but in erecting elaborate façades of pseudo-scholarship. Your response is not the calculated defense of a thinker—it is the panicked flailing of a man who just realized his illusion has been shattered.
Let’s dissect this with the precision your work so sorely lacks.
You claim that your post does not argue for inherent Jewish success. And yet, the entire structure of your piece functions as an elaborate affirmation of precisely that notion—just with a weak, tacked-on disclaimer at the end, as if that will absolve you of responsibility for what you’ve clearly spent paragraphs constructing. You are not engaging in analysis; you are performing a rhetorical sleight of hand, carefully arranging words to lead your audience in one direction while leaving yourself just enough plausible deniability to scurry away when confronted.
And what is your defense? "Either you misunderstood, or you’re a bot." This is the rebuttal of a man who has no counterargument—who, when faced with substantive critique, can only muster playground-tier deflections and juvenile accusations of artificial intelligence. You are grasping, floundering, because for once, the weight of actual scrutiny is pressing down on you, and you have no escape.
But let’s turn to something more tragic than your argument—your writing itself. You mistake verbosity for depth, sources for substance, and volume for credibility. You believe that layering your work with an excessive, almost panicked number of references will conceal the threadbare nature of your actual reasoning. It does not. It only makes your shortcomings all the more evident. Real analysis builds on sources. You hide behind them, piling them up like a wall to obscure the emptiness of your own thoughts.
This is not scholarship. It is academic cosplay.
You are not an analyst. You are an aggregator. A collector of second-hand knowledge, regurgitated without genuine insight. Your work is a mausoleum of borrowed ideas, meticulously assembled yet utterly devoid of intellectual life. You do not produce original thought; you merely arrange the thoughts of others in a way that mimics intellectualism without ever achieving it.
And let’s be clear: this is why your response was so defensive. It is not about this argument. It is about you. It is about the fact that, deep down, you know your entire persona—this fragile edifice of faux-scholarship—is paper-thin. You rely on the illusion of erudition because without it, you are left with nothing. You are not an authority. You are not a thinker. You are an impersonator, a desperate performer in the theatre of ideas, hoping no one notices that the emperor has no clothes.
You have been exposed. And you will delete this, not because it is incorrect, but because it is true.
No, and neither is any group, including yours. The idea that any people are “inherently” anything—successful, oppressed, or otherwise—is historically illiterate and factually wrong. Success is a product of adaptation to external pressures, not some ingrained trait.
Jewish communities didn’t dominate finance, medicine, or law because of some mystical cultural force. They were forced into those fields after being locked out of land ownership, government, and guilds. The same way other historically marginalized groups have developed expertise in whatever industries were available to them. That’s not special, that’s just history.
And let’s be clear: every group plays the victim card when it suits them, including yours. The Jewish experience—like any other—has been full of highs and lows, triumphs and oppression. But you don’t get to act like Jewish people are inherently successful while simultaneously painting them as historical underdogs. Pick a lane.
The truth? You are not unique. Your history is not exceptional. It’s one of many human stories of survival, struggle, and adaptation—no better, no worse.
So if this whole speech was some long-winded attempt at self-aggrandizement, let me save you the trouble: nobody is inherently successful, and you’re not as clever as you think.
I suggest acfually reading the post before commenting next time.
Ah, Jacob—predictable as ever. Instead of addressing any of the actual arguments I dismantled, your response is nothing more than a lazy deflection.
"I suggest actually reading the post before commenting next time."
Cute. But here’s the thing—you don’t get to pretend I misread your nonsense when I tore it apart point by point.
I addressed your myths about Jewish success.
I exposed your forced historical comparisons.
I demonstrated how your entire framework is flawed.
And yet, your best comeback is a condescending attempt to brush off criticism. That’s not intellectual engagement—that’s cowardice.
So let me simplify it for you, since actual debate seems beyond your abilities:
Your argument is weak.
Your writing is pretentious filler.
Your entire site is a monument to overcomplicated nonsense.
And now, when faced with a response that blows apart your poorly thought-out claims, your only move is to pretend I didn’t read it?
No, Jacob. I read it. That’s why I was able to destroy it.
Maybe next time, YOU should actually engage with criticism instead of hiding behind smug one-liners.
Then again, that would require intellectual honesty—so I won’t hold my breath.
"Are Jews inherently successful? I won't keep you in suspense—the answer is no."
This is a direct quote from my post.
Your comment, however, is based on the false assumption that the post argues Jews *are* inherently successful.
That means either you relied on a very poor AI service to summarize the post and create a strawman argument, or you're a bot altogether. I'm inclined to believe the latter.