All this Ashkenazi ego polishing will get the author zero cred from them so what's the point? We've heard the discussion of Ashkenazi "genius" a million times, but these claims of the higher functioning Ashkenazi mind always makes me ask the question. Why do these great geniuses need less intelligent gentiles to support their country (Israel) with money, resources and technology? Wouldn't a people with such an advantage in mental capacity be able to create everything they need to support a society that would be a paradise on earth? I've heard that Israel is anything but, being nothing more than a cheap and very poor attempt at copying the warmer parts of the US. Ashkenazi's are experts at networking, self-promotion, cheating and convincing people of things that aren't true. They can't live without us, but we can live very well without them.
I think looking at non-intelligence factors is warranted here. For e.g. Israel has very high rates of innovation despite having a national IQ of 97-98. Often well above countries with a higher national IQ. So intelligence (even if we acknowledge IQ being an imperfect proxy for it) isn't sufficient.
Perhaps people from the MENA region are more likely to be risk-takers? Innovation tend to be associated with willingness to take risk, which in turn is associated with willingness to break social conventions. Innovation is all about smashing the conventional wisdom and question past practices. That can sometimes cause conflict with the old guard, so you need higher tolerance for risk and conflict.
But there is also an inverse relationship between being willing to take risk and intelligence broadly speaking (e.g. East Asians are highly intelligent but generally speaking risk-averse). So perhaps the secret is that Jews tend to combine both traits to a greater extent than White Christians even at the same intelligence level?
Finally, there's a question here about path dependency. Jews were more urban than normal during the early 20th century, which is probably just a function of them being minorities. You see the same pattern today. But being more urban often means being more literate (normalised for intelligence), as well as greater proximity to higher learning institutions. Perhaps this had an effect in Jews being overrepresented in academia even relative to intelligence levels early on, and since Nobel prizes are a lagging indicator, this could have been part of the puzzle. In the same way that East Asians didn't begin to win many Nobel prizes until after 2000, because most of them were too poor in earlier decades.
In determining innovative potential of a demographic, average level is informative only if the population is homogeneous. Israel's population has a lot of structure, is heterogeneous. The Israeli average IQ of 97 is presumably correct. But, what matters here is that ~40% of their population is Ashkenazi. And their IQ average is likely ~110. Their top percentile is still >145 IQ, smart enough to do almost anything. For purposes of science and tech, Israel could be thought of as simply a country of 4 million, since almost all the talent comes from the Ashkenazi component.
I'm hesitant about the argument from high rates of psychotherapy among Jews, because there is a strain of thought that says psychotherapy is an Jewish ethnic practice because Freud is a Jewish ethnic hero. To whatever degree that is true, it will obviously cause Jews to get more psychotherapy than otherwise.
(That is, the argument goes "Jews do psychotherapy so that they can enjoy being proud of Freud", not "Jews invented psychotherapy, so that makes it a Jewish thing".)
I highly doubt that would explain that much of an increase in prevalence or that Jews have a hero worship of Freud to the magnitude that you seem to imply
I don't perceive a causal model here. Which I'll get to, but first my personal experience with Ashkenazi Jews. In my late 20's, I had four such girl friends/hookups of whom three were clearly not mentally healthy enough for me to be interested in them long term; one was depressive (divorced from a clinical psychologist whom she married on a whim), the next was an incredible shrew (especially when she and her target were in the company of others), the third bordered on sociopathy to the extent that she used her charms to advance her career, and the last I really did not get to know well. During this same time span, I had separate minor disputes with two Jewish males, and both men quickly escalated to physical threats, both holding a clenched fist in front of my face. I've dealt with Scots-Irish (my own ethnicity) rednecks who were not afraid of violence, but they were certainly more cautious than an immediate display of a clenched fist. So, my experience says Jews tend to be crazy one way or another.
I believe European Jews, particularly Ashkenazim, were naturally selected for both intelligence and for a degree of sociopathy. The plausibility of the former trait evolving over one thousand years has been advanced in published form, as you know. Evolution of sociopathic tendencies makes sense in an endogamous population that derived much of its income from potentially exploitative activities, e.g., tax farming, tavern ownership, livestock trading. The basic model for such evolution is that more income means larger families, more income can be derived from greater pecuniary extraction from the peasantry, more extraction can be facilitated by reduced sympathy for the suffering of counterparties. The souped-up model adds sexual selection by parental choice to the above dynamic. The more sociopathic parents chose the more sociopathic suitors for their daughters, and this results in Fisherian Runaway Sexual Selection for sociopathy directed at outgroup indviduals, as well as assortative mating for sociopathy.
Thus, my causal hypothesis is that the unique economic niche of many Ashkenazim caused selection for intelligence and a higher frequency of sociopaths, and that the sociopathic selection, in messing with a complex system of emotional control, had the side effect of more frequent mental instability.
You could make the same claims about other groups. The planter class in the American South and the Caribbean had a lifestyle that was entirely exploitative and amoral. Someone like Andrew Jackson absolutely had sociopathic traits. Meghan Trainor, Caribbean planter family, strikes me as a total narcissist.
Most southerners are perfectly fine people, but if you spend time in the south you'll run into unpleasant thuggish whites. No culture is perfect; no people is perfect. We didn't all have the good fortune of being born well mannered Han Chinese kids.
I don't know which claims you are referring to: That I found most Ashkenazim more psychologically problematic than EuroAmericans I have known, or that there is a plausible evolutionary hypothesis to explain Ashkenazi mental instability (documented in E.K.'s post) as a side effect of mechanistic selection for sociopathic behavior vis-a-vis Slavic and Germanic counterparties.
You don't seem to understand that the possibilities for behavioral evolution over 40 generations (in the Ashkenazim) are greater than over a mean of less than 6 generations (American slaveholders). Nor do you seem to understand that the Ashkenazim were highly endogamous, whereas the American slaveholders were not, due especially to new entrants into the group by people of humble origins, e.g., Nathan Bedford Forrest who was born into a poor family but became worth $35,000,000 in today's dollars by 1861. Basically, you don't seem to be able to grasp a mechanistic hypothesis. Let's sing Kumbaya and ignore the fact that some gene pools produce more prosocial behaviors (Han Chinese and European) and others produce more problematic behaviors (African and Ashkenazi). I hope FTX didn't cost you any savings.
Statistically, Ashkenazi Jews appear to have a slightly higher rate of mental illness. They are, if anything, underrepresented among non-Hispanic white prisoners. Incarceration is the best measure we have for sociopathy. IIRC, both Appalachian whites and southerners are overrepresented compared to the white mean. African Americans are 10x more inclined to criminality.
Whether you like it or not, slavery existed in the new world for ~3-4 centuries, sharecropping and convict leasing persisted afterwards. Slavery was an unusually barbaric system. I strongly suspect that the planter class weren't the nicest people you'd ever want to meet.
I'm not saying that some groups are more inclined to problematic behavior than others; I'm saying to take a step back and look at the big picture. I'm an anti-Racist, in the sense that we need to be humble about our origins. If you go a few generations back, most of our ancestors were basically savages.
In America we have a lot of white Hispanics from places like Columbia and Venezuela. In those countries it's socially acceptable to profit from growing cocoa. The most esteemed citizens see no problem with growing illegal drugs, and bribing and threatening the police.
One must retain perspective, tavern keeping and tax farming are not the most honorable occupations, but neither is growing cocoa leaf. It's important to keep things in perspective.
Your second comment is slightly more sophisticated in its obfuscation, but still does not involve a critique of mechanisms. It is solely an argument for self-censoring of forbidden thoughts.
I also believe in free enquiry. My only point is that you might not like where that enquiry goes.
Jewish publications write about the situation of Jews in prison, and they consistently find that Jews are a relatively small portion of the prison population. After decades of intermarriage and conversion, the percentage of Jews in prison seems to have gone up, but they are still underrepresented among prisoners.
As stated before, incarceration is the best statistical proxy for rates of psychopathy/sociopathy. If they were selected for those traits it would appear in the data, but it doesn't. Nobody is afraid to walk around at night in a Hasidic neighborhood.
I pulled this up in 10 seconds on Google. I could spend the rest of the day filling this comment with dozens of examples of sociopathic Jewish theft, fraud, spying and cancelling of critics of Israel and Jews. Jewish sociopathy is directed at Gentile society not individuals.
Very interesting. Some studies show five times more schizophrenia among black than white people. So, this might not be related to race at all, but rather intelligence.
Seeing the Swedish graph it seems Schozophrenia explodes in the lower IQ areas.
Excellent post, with a new & fruitful approach on a topic I've been keenly interested in at least for decades (when I read Jamison, Kay Redfield (1993): Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament). Your theory may help point to why genetic mental illness has been preserved for so long at all.
The natural question, in my mind, is just how much we can optimize for 'genius' -- what's the engineering limit of maximizing g and p to bring about a 'good outcome' & minimize bad? (The matter is of the highest concern: maximizing genius and its free expression.) That norm established, we'll have something to aim for with commercial embryo selection, etc. products.
Related to this are you aware of any studies on what makes "exceptional people" differ? Here I mean not necessarily exceptional by IQ but even just putting in top dancers, musicians, researchers etc and checking cogitive profile. If this theory is true then the measured p factor should be higher than just what you'd expect from the average g of the group.
What about bottleneck/ inbreeding depression? AJ have around 10 times less genetic variance as compared to white gentiles.
Could positive mutational load interconnection effects be possible? Mutational load seems to be a double-edged sword. Maybe there is a reverse sweet spot?
Finns could be a control group as they are also quite inbred/ genetically homogenous.
This is an area I've done a great deal of work in, and while you're on the right track, the answer is rather simple - more so than you'd imagine. Here's a hint: a) Jewish exceptionalism (verbal, pictorial), b) work capacity. c) and jewish mental illness, d) and jewish anti-social behavior share a common origin: the sex differenxes in brain organization, bias, and defect expression. So the question is, e) did generations of selection narrow or reverse sex differences in cognition? And of course, if we f) combine male jewish diaspora with southern european females, g) and then push the population through bottlnecks, and h) use upward reproduction by rabbis, we'd get exactly what we observe. And within a decade or so we'll narrow down the SNPs sufficiently to demonstrate it. Even thought in the data we have to date, including rahter odd tendency for ashkenazim to demonstrate female 'adaptive' sexuality.
Now I'm not going to plow through all the literature in this little comment block, but you can put money on this solution as correct.
The crazy factor (''disagreeable, systematic, factorial-focused, utilitarianistic, clinical, negatively suggestible, asocial") + the creative factor ("relations, intuitions, visions, holistic conceptions"), etc.
Even von neumann said :
A facility with the symbolic manipulation of linear operators;
An intuitive feeling for the logical structure of any new mathematical theory;
An intuitive feeling for the combinatorial superstructure of new theories.
In my view it must be a type-2 or type-3 fuzzy logical reasoning process that geniuses must possess as they invariably have much more working memory and computational structural-integration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type-2_fuzzy_sets_and_systems
And yes, as you noted, the propensity for 'anti-social' factor, 'craziness' or 'maladjustment' increases as a function of increased intelligence or conversely put, "outesiderness" is a correlated vector with intelligence. If the general population held much more intelligence, then this would probably not likely be a fact in the first place as humans are social animals who ostensibly exhibit proxemic dispositions.
About 58 out of 221 total physics Nobel winners were Jewish. That is 26% globally for a population that is 0.2% of the global population and ~1% of the Western world's population. There is reason to believe that physics requires the highest level of pure intelligence of all the Nobel fields (though not higher than that required for the Fields Medal, where Jews are also greatly over-represented at ~20%). Their main advantages: IQ and location. A high proportion of Jews during the Nobel years have been located in places that can offer first rate educations and finance first rate research (eg, Germany, France, the UK, the US). They also picked up 13% of the Nobels for literature, though I count this as a prize that is at least half political and a quarter stupid. The Nobel committee missed every one of the true greats: Tolstoy, James, Joyce, Kafka (Jewish), Proust (mischling). Either way, the Jews are also over-represented in this field of aesthetic genius.
Don't forget Unz's article on Myth of American Meritocracy. Ethnocentrism plays a significant role in winning the Nobel prizes if they are overrepresented by 400-600% in Higher Ed, Law and Politics due to higher verbal-IQ. People like Bernanke can win the Nobel Prize for economics when all they did was depress the purchasing power of the populace and increase the valuation of assets for the wealthy to get interest-free money vs the 180 IQ + terence taos of the world that actually produce valuable mathematical theories of the world that can be utilized in high AI or whatever.
All this Ashkenazi ego polishing will get the author zero cred from them so what's the point? We've heard the discussion of Ashkenazi "genius" a million times, but these claims of the higher functioning Ashkenazi mind always makes me ask the question. Why do these great geniuses need less intelligent gentiles to support their country (Israel) with money, resources and technology? Wouldn't a people with such an advantage in mental capacity be able to create everything they need to support a society that would be a paradise on earth? I've heard that Israel is anything but, being nothing more than a cheap and very poor attempt at copying the warmer parts of the US. Ashkenazi's are experts at networking, self-promotion, cheating and convincing people of things that aren't true. They can't live without us, but we can live very well without them.
I think looking at non-intelligence factors is warranted here. For e.g. Israel has very high rates of innovation despite having a national IQ of 97-98. Often well above countries with a higher national IQ. So intelligence (even if we acknowledge IQ being an imperfect proxy for it) isn't sufficient.
Perhaps people from the MENA region are more likely to be risk-takers? Innovation tend to be associated with willingness to take risk, which in turn is associated with willingness to break social conventions. Innovation is all about smashing the conventional wisdom and question past practices. That can sometimes cause conflict with the old guard, so you need higher tolerance for risk and conflict.
But there is also an inverse relationship between being willing to take risk and intelligence broadly speaking (e.g. East Asians are highly intelligent but generally speaking risk-averse). So perhaps the secret is that Jews tend to combine both traits to a greater extent than White Christians even at the same intelligence level?
Finally, there's a question here about path dependency. Jews were more urban than normal during the early 20th century, which is probably just a function of them being minorities. You see the same pattern today. But being more urban often means being more literate (normalised for intelligence), as well as greater proximity to higher learning institutions. Perhaps this had an effect in Jews being overrepresented in academia even relative to intelligence levels early on, and since Nobel prizes are a lagging indicator, this could have been part of the puzzle. In the same way that East Asians didn't begin to win many Nobel prizes until after 2000, because most of them were too poor in earlier decades.
In determining innovative potential of a demographic, average level is informative only if the population is homogeneous. Israel's population has a lot of structure, is heterogeneous. The Israeli average IQ of 97 is presumably correct. But, what matters here is that ~40% of their population is Ashkenazi. And their IQ average is likely ~110. Their top percentile is still >145 IQ, smart enough to do almost anything. For purposes of science and tech, Israel could be thought of as simply a country of 4 million, since almost all the talent comes from the Ashkenazi component.
I'm hesitant about the argument from high rates of psychotherapy among Jews, because there is a strain of thought that says psychotherapy is an Jewish ethnic practice because Freud is a Jewish ethnic hero. To whatever degree that is true, it will obviously cause Jews to get more psychotherapy than otherwise.
(That is, the argument goes "Jews do psychotherapy so that they can enjoy being proud of Freud", not "Jews invented psychotherapy, so that makes it a Jewish thing".)
I highly doubt that would explain that much of an increase in prevalence or that Jews have a hero worship of Freud to the magnitude that you seem to imply
The cultural practice can stick around after the original motivation has been lost.
I don't perceive a causal model here. Which I'll get to, but first my personal experience with Ashkenazi Jews. In my late 20's, I had four such girl friends/hookups of whom three were clearly not mentally healthy enough for me to be interested in them long term; one was depressive (divorced from a clinical psychologist whom she married on a whim), the next was an incredible shrew (especially when she and her target were in the company of others), the third bordered on sociopathy to the extent that she used her charms to advance her career, and the last I really did not get to know well. During this same time span, I had separate minor disputes with two Jewish males, and both men quickly escalated to physical threats, both holding a clenched fist in front of my face. I've dealt with Scots-Irish (my own ethnicity) rednecks who were not afraid of violence, but they were certainly more cautious than an immediate display of a clenched fist. So, my experience says Jews tend to be crazy one way or another.
I believe European Jews, particularly Ashkenazim, were naturally selected for both intelligence and for a degree of sociopathy. The plausibility of the former trait evolving over one thousand years has been advanced in published form, as you know. Evolution of sociopathic tendencies makes sense in an endogamous population that derived much of its income from potentially exploitative activities, e.g., tax farming, tavern ownership, livestock trading. The basic model for such evolution is that more income means larger families, more income can be derived from greater pecuniary extraction from the peasantry, more extraction can be facilitated by reduced sympathy for the suffering of counterparties. The souped-up model adds sexual selection by parental choice to the above dynamic. The more sociopathic parents chose the more sociopathic suitors for their daughters, and this results in Fisherian Runaway Sexual Selection for sociopathy directed at outgroup indviduals, as well as assortative mating for sociopathy.
Thus, my causal hypothesis is that the unique economic niche of many Ashkenazim caused selection for intelligence and a higher frequency of sociopaths, and that the sociopathic selection, in messing with a complex system of emotional control, had the side effect of more frequent mental instability.
You could make the same claims about other groups. The planter class in the American South and the Caribbean had a lifestyle that was entirely exploitative and amoral. Someone like Andrew Jackson absolutely had sociopathic traits. Meghan Trainor, Caribbean planter family, strikes me as a total narcissist.
Most southerners are perfectly fine people, but if you spend time in the south you'll run into unpleasant thuggish whites. No culture is perfect; no people is perfect. We didn't all have the good fortune of being born well mannered Han Chinese kids.
I don't know which claims you are referring to: That I found most Ashkenazim more psychologically problematic than EuroAmericans I have known, or that there is a plausible evolutionary hypothesis to explain Ashkenazi mental instability (documented in E.K.'s post) as a side effect of mechanistic selection for sociopathic behavior vis-a-vis Slavic and Germanic counterparties.
You don't seem to understand that the possibilities for behavioral evolution over 40 generations (in the Ashkenazim) are greater than over a mean of less than 6 generations (American slaveholders). Nor do you seem to understand that the Ashkenazim were highly endogamous, whereas the American slaveholders were not, due especially to new entrants into the group by people of humble origins, e.g., Nathan Bedford Forrest who was born into a poor family but became worth $35,000,000 in today's dollars by 1861. Basically, you don't seem to be able to grasp a mechanistic hypothesis. Let's sing Kumbaya and ignore the fact that some gene pools produce more prosocial behaviors (Han Chinese and European) and others produce more problematic behaviors (African and Ashkenazi). I hope FTX didn't cost you any savings.
Statistically, Ashkenazi Jews appear to have a slightly higher rate of mental illness. They are, if anything, underrepresented among non-Hispanic white prisoners. Incarceration is the best measure we have for sociopathy. IIRC, both Appalachian whites and southerners are overrepresented compared to the white mean. African Americans are 10x more inclined to criminality.
Whether you like it or not, slavery existed in the new world for ~3-4 centuries, sharecropping and convict leasing persisted afterwards. Slavery was an unusually barbaric system. I strongly suspect that the planter class weren't the nicest people you'd ever want to meet.
I'm not saying that some groups are more inclined to problematic behavior than others; I'm saying to take a step back and look at the big picture. I'm an anti-Racist, in the sense that we need to be humble about our origins. If you go a few generations back, most of our ancestors were basically savages.
In America we have a lot of white Hispanics from places like Columbia and Venezuela. In those countries it's socially acceptable to profit from growing cocoa. The most esteemed citizens see no problem with growing illegal drugs, and bribing and threatening the police.
One must retain perspective, tavern keeping and tax farming are not the most honorable occupations, but neither is growing cocoa leaf. It's important to keep things in perspective.
Your second comment is slightly more sophisticated in its obfuscation, but still does not involve a critique of mechanisms. It is solely an argument for self-censoring of forbidden thoughts.
I also believe in free enquiry. My only point is that you might not like where that enquiry goes.
Jewish publications write about the situation of Jews in prison, and they consistently find that Jews are a relatively small portion of the prison population. After decades of intermarriage and conversion, the percentage of Jews in prison seems to have gone up, but they are still underrepresented among prisoners.
https://www.jta.org/archive/percentage-of-jews-in-prison-is-small-j-f-fishman-finds
As stated before, incarceration is the best statistical proxy for rates of psychopathy/sociopathy. If they were selected for those traits it would appear in the data, but it doesn't. Nobody is afraid to walk around at night in a Hasidic neighborhood.
New York’s biggest Hasidic yeshiva to pay $8m after admitting to systematic fraud
By LUKE TRESS
25 October 2022, 1:38 am
https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-yorks-biggest-hasidic-yeshiva-to-pay-8m-after-admitting-to-systematic-fraud/
I pulled this up in 10 seconds on Google. I could spend the rest of the day filling this comment with dozens of examples of sociopathic Jewish theft, fraud, spying and cancelling of critics of Israel and Jews. Jewish sociopathy is directed at Gentile society not individuals.
Very interesting. Some studies show five times more schizophrenia among black than white people. So, this might not be related to race at all, but rather intelligence.
Seeing the Swedish graph it seems Schozophrenia explodes in the lower IQ areas.
Excellent post, with a new & fruitful approach on a topic I've been keenly interested in at least for decades (when I read Jamison, Kay Redfield (1993): Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament). Your theory may help point to why genetic mental illness has been preserved for so long at all.
The natural question, in my mind, is just how much we can optimize for 'genius' -- what's the engineering limit of maximizing g and p to bring about a 'good outcome' & minimize bad? (The matter is of the highest concern: maximizing genius and its free expression.) That norm established, we'll have something to aim for with commercial embryo selection, etc. products.
Related to this are you aware of any studies on what makes "exceptional people" differ? Here I mean not necessarily exceptional by IQ but even just putting in top dancers, musicians, researchers etc and checking cogitive profile. If this theory is true then the measured p factor should be higher than just what you'd expect from the average g of the group.
Yes, it's right here. https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DnsUdhzlA_A/TftvFN7QWKI/AAAAAAAABUU/8pzDfoovzjM/s1600/Screen%2Bshot%2B2011-06-17%2Bat%2B8.12.26%2BAM.png Although only by V, S and M-IQ and not by psychological traits or other behavioral factors.
What about bottleneck/ inbreeding depression? AJ have around 10 times less genetic variance as compared to white gentiles.
Could positive mutational load interconnection effects be possible? Mutational load seems to be a double-edged sword. Maybe there is a reverse sweet spot?
Finns could be a control group as they are also quite inbred/ genetically homogenous.
Great comedy special. Relevant to the topic of ethnocentrism
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-gO0HSCYk
This is an area I've done a great deal of work in, and while you're on the right track, the answer is rather simple - more so than you'd imagine. Here's a hint: a) Jewish exceptionalism (verbal, pictorial), b) work capacity. c) and jewish mental illness, d) and jewish anti-social behavior share a common origin: the sex differenxes in brain organization, bias, and defect expression. So the question is, e) did generations of selection narrow or reverse sex differences in cognition? And of course, if we f) combine male jewish diaspora with southern european females, g) and then push the population through bottlnecks, and h) use upward reproduction by rabbis, we'd get exactly what we observe. And within a decade or so we'll narrow down the SNPs sufficiently to demonstrate it. Even thought in the data we have to date, including rahter odd tendency for ashkenazim to demonstrate female 'adaptive' sexuality.
Now I'm not going to plow through all the literature in this little comment block, but you can put money on this solution as correct.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
From what I have read you are likely correct. Any further reading recommendations you might have?
I'd add that higher levels of mental illness is what you'd expect from recent selection for intelligence.
i thought the 110 jew IQ thing was debunked?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stLCurXu0fc
No, Emil and others have proven that they have something like that.
If you want to know what high IQ individuals think on the nature of genius, it is pretty much identical.
https://paulcooijmans.com/genius/genius.html
https://paulcooijmans.com/genius/associative_horizon.html
https://prometheussociety.org/wp/articles/the-outsiders/
The crazy factor (''disagreeable, systematic, factorial-focused, utilitarianistic, clinical, negatively suggestible, asocial") + the creative factor ("relations, intuitions, visions, holistic conceptions"), etc.
Even von neumann said :
A facility with the symbolic manipulation of linear operators;
An intuitive feeling for the logical structure of any new mathematical theory;
An intuitive feeling for the combinatorial superstructure of new theories.
In my view it must be a type-2 or type-3 fuzzy logical reasoning process that geniuses must possess as they invariably have much more working memory and computational structural-integration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type-2_fuzzy_sets_and_systems
And yes, as you noted, the propensity for 'anti-social' factor, 'craziness' or 'maladjustment' increases as a function of increased intelligence or conversely put, "outesiderness" is a correlated vector with intelligence. If the general population held much more intelligence, then this would probably not likely be a fact in the first place as humans are social animals who ostensibly exhibit proxemic dispositions.
About 58 out of 221 total physics Nobel winners were Jewish. That is 26% globally for a population that is 0.2% of the global population and ~1% of the Western world's population. There is reason to believe that physics requires the highest level of pure intelligence of all the Nobel fields (though not higher than that required for the Fields Medal, where Jews are also greatly over-represented at ~20%). Their main advantages: IQ and location. A high proportion of Jews during the Nobel years have been located in places that can offer first rate educations and finance first rate research (eg, Germany, France, the UK, the US). They also picked up 13% of the Nobels for literature, though I count this as a prize that is at least half political and a quarter stupid. The Nobel committee missed every one of the true greats: Tolstoy, James, Joyce, Kafka (Jewish), Proust (mischling). Either way, the Jews are also over-represented in this field of aesthetic genius.
Don't forget Unz's article on Myth of American Meritocracy. Ethnocentrism plays a significant role in winning the Nobel prizes if they are overrepresented by 400-600% in Higher Ed, Law and Politics due to higher verbal-IQ. People like Bernanke can win the Nobel Prize for economics when all they did was depress the purchasing power of the populace and increase the valuation of assets for the wealthy to get interest-free money vs the 180 IQ + terence taos of the world that actually produce valuable mathematical theories of the world that can be utilized in high AI or whatever.