The post analyzes Nobel Prize winners per capita, refining the data to show that Israeli Ashkenazi Jews have the highest rate, supporting the theory of their intellectual prowess while raising questions about educational systems and concentration effects. Longer summary

This post analyzes Nobel Prize winners per capita, focusing on Israel and Ashkenazi Jews. It starts by addressing a critique that Israel's Nobel count doesn't support the theory of Ashkenazi Jewish intellectual prowess. The author then refines the analysis by looking at more recent data and specifically at Ashkenazi Jews within Israel. The post shows that when considering only Nobel Prizes since 2000 and focusing on Ashkenazi Israelis, the numbers strongly support the original theory. However, it also notes that many Israeli Nobel winners did their best work abroad, suggesting the Israeli educational system may still be developing. The post concludes by questioning whether concentration of Ashkenazi Jews necessarily leads to more Nobel Prizes, as US Ashkenazi Jews outperform their Israeli counterparts despite lower concentration. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends the validity of intelligence and IQ tests by comparing them to comas and the Glasgow Coma Scale in medicine. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues that intelligence and IQ tests are valid concepts, analogous to comas and the Glasgow Coma Scale in medicine. He contends that whether there's a single general factor of intelligence is less important than the usefulness of IQ as a predictive measure. Scott draws parallels between how comas and intelligence are measured, showing that both involve multiple factors combined into a single scale used for predictions. He criticizes arguments against the existence of intelligence as often being a motte-and-bailey fallacy, where the easily defensible position (uncertainty about a single general factor) is used to imply that all claims about intelligence are meaningless. Shorter summary