Транскрипт некоторых кусков того что ты отказался смотреть:
Levinson (1957):
>Study by Levinson from 1957 titled "The intelligence of applicants for admission to Jewish Day schools". The study involved 5494 Jewish kindergarten applicants aged four to seven years old, administered the Stanford Benet intelligence test. The study argues for an average IQ of 118. In my opinion there is a major problem with the methodology first off the selected students were chosen from only private paid day schools in New York. The students from 16 schools were used in the test, five schools had been dropped for using a different type of test altogether and then five more area schools were added by the author. Why he chose to add theese schools and presumably exclude many others is not stated.
>Now this alone doesn't do anything to say that the study is bad. The problem I have with it is that everywhere I saw this paper cited it was being used to support the idea of a higher than average IQ for all Ashkenazi Jews when in reality the study only dealt with an extremely limited set of gifted kindergarteners most of whom probably had very involved parents. Also the study gives no comparison of these Jewish students to a comparable cohort of white students only to all non-jews, which of course includes children of all races almost all of whom would not have been accepted into private kindergartens. So in short to suggest that this study is in any way representative of all Jews is absolutely absurd.
Conclusion:
>At this point in my research was that Ashkenazi Jews have indeed been shown time and time again to score slightly better than average on the verbal portion of IQ tests while scoring slightly worse than average on the other portions of the test. When all sections of these various tests are averaged out, they tend to score right around 100 the pan-european average.
Ну и на десерт:
>Is it possible that these studies were all just faked? We've already examined how a healthy proportion of the most commonly cited works on the matter use
non-representative groups to make their arguments. What if other commonly abused statistical methods were employed to ski the data? Easier testing, giving answers beforehand or simple fabrication of data?
>Many people today are aware of what is called the reproducibility crisis in science a phenomenon which no doubt has at least in part been caused by
dishonest data manipulation. Why could not the same skepticism which we have towards statistic at large be applied to these scientific studies? Even among the IQ tests of other countries we know that there's Foul Play going on. Most notoriously among the Chinese, who claim an average IQ of 105 to 109 for their country. Despite these being the generally accepted numbers in the mainstream, it's very commonplace to see people call these numbers out as fake and yet they receive no accusations of anti-chinese racism. Yet to imply that similar cheats have been employed in bolstering Ashkenazi IQ figures is deemed anti-semitic. Not because it's actually racist and not because Jews really care about being called Low IQ, but because it is their last standing defense against accusations of over-representation.

Я не настаиваю на том, что эта позиция - истина в последней инстанции, но вообще makes you think.