Comment by underwoodley | Hacker News Reader

Comment by underwoodley | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You don't have to be curious for more than five minutes. Several of those mentioned are Jewish, but most of them are not. There are not disproportionately more Jewish Hungarian mathematicians, compared to the proportion of say, Jewish people in Budapest before WWII, or the proportion of Jewish people in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Looking only at the first half of the twentieth century, there at least as many world-ranking mathematicians from Hungary as from Poland, a country with a strong mathematical tradition, a much larger population, and a massively larger Jewish population (around a quarter of the Jewish people in the world in the 1930s).

It's worth adding that comparing the proportion of Jewish Nobel prize winners to Jewish people in the world might not be a fair comparison. Much of this can probably be explained by the strong correlation between being European (including Russian/Soviet) or American, and being a Nobel prize winner.

You don’t have to be very curious to find out that about 22% of Nobel Prize winners have been Jewish [1], which leaves your controversial Western population at under 100 million even stretching the worldwide Jewish population to 20 million.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureat...

Except for Bolyai, all mentioned above are indeed Jewish. Also all mentioned in your other comment (Fejér etc.) except Bollobás. Also Wigner, mentioned in another comment.

I stand corrected. I wrongly believed that many of these including Fejer and von Neumann were not Jewish.

I think the comparison with other populations such as Poland still seems to point out that something about Hungary in the 20th century was special, other than the presence of many Jewish people.

Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ of 108-112 compared to a European average of ~100. This shifted mean means they have a much higher percentage of very smart people (~6 times per capita rate of >140iq which is the norm for Nobel prize winners)

This over representation of high IQ is similar to the historical over representation in Nobel prizes for hard sciences.

You can't make conclusions about the number >140 based on a shift of the mean. IQ is scaled so that the general population has a normal distribution. That doesn't necessarily mean some subpopulation has a normal distribution. Even if that was the case, the subpopulation distribution would still have a different standard deviation. (It would partly depend on the level of assortative mating within that population.)

Thanks for expanding on the assumptions I was lazy and just used a ~ to indicate it was approximate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com