If there is one thing I do, it’s write about fringe topics that no one is asking me to write about. I tend to think about and draw conclusions about things that no one else is pondering. This post is no different. Sorry if you were hoping for different!

From time-to-time I’ve been visiting the discussion on abstractions. I last wrote about it in “Hebrew Abstractions” last year. I also like to write about intelligence from time-to-time. Today these topics intersect.

It is well known that Ashkenazi Jews have one of the highest population intelligences. What is less well-known is that this high intelligence is distributed unevenly. The average Ashkenazi Jew has above average verbal intelligence and below average on the various non-verbal intelligences, although they tend to be good with mathematics. The consequence is that Jews are overrepresented in pure Wordcel professions involving leadership and management, but are also found in pure math-heavy professions (like finance). It’s also why you find a lot of Jewish lawyers. By contrast, they are underrepresented in pure Shape Rotator professions like engineering. You can read more about that here.

In my post, “Hebrew Abstraction,” I discussed Thorleif Boman’s (and Ed Hurst’s) portrayal of the ancient Hebrews as concrete thinkers who didn’t think in abstractions. At the time I said:

Originally I meant this to highlight the absurdity of Boman’s thesis. I, of course, didn’t think ancient Hebrews were intellectual idiots. But, it wasn’t until I was reading about the intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews recently that I realized that there is more to the story that I had originally assumed. The ancient Hebrews most certainly engaged in abstract thinking, as I argued, but they did so relatively, according to their intelligence. In particular, they strongly preferred verbal abstractions and strongly shunned certain non-verbal abstractions.

See, with respect to intelligence, most people do what they are best at and avoid areas where they are weak. For example, I have strong spike skills in visual-spatial and reasoning, decent verbal skills, and I’m relatively quite poor at processing speed and don’t have the greatest working memory. I’m a slow thinker and I need notes. It’s why I generally stick to well-composed, long-form writing and not live debates. It’s also why I’m into photography. I’m playing to my strengths and avoiding my weaknesses. Consequently, most people only see one side of me, likely leading people to have a false impression of my skills and abilities.

The Hebrews likely did the same thing. We don’t even have to guess: we can tell from their writings.

For many centuries, there was a strong aversion among the Hebrews to making visual abstractions. Hebrews largely did not make visual art. They did not make paintings and they did not make statues. They understood the Second Commandment quite literally to refer to created things: things made by human hands. Wikipedia confirms:

In particular, Jews largely did not embrace such abstractions until much later when Roman and Christian influence started to change them.

It’s not that the Jews were incapable of making physical art, but that they chose not to for religious reasons.

Now, let’s consider the key to unlocking our understanding: the Jews did not, for example, consider fame or glory to be idolatry. This is common in Western Christian writings, but it’s absent from ancient Hebrew writings. In the Old Testament, all idols were physical abstractions of the God they represented. All were absolutely forbidden. Every instance of idolatry in the Old Testament refers to worship of physical things! Jesus changed all of that with his abstract emphasis on the heart. After all, fame and glory can be idols just as much as wood carvings. Both are abstractions, but the latter is a visual-spatial abstraction.

Jesus didn’t have a preference for one abstraction over another. He didn’t pit them against each other. Jesus didn’t overturn the Hebrew way of thought. Physical idols are still illicit manifestations. But, so is worshiping money, a concept that isn’t incompatible with Greek ways of thinking. Jesus also routinely used figures-of-speech that his Greek-influenced listeners understood too literally (just like with the 3rd and 4th generation vs. thousandth generation). Paul, a Roman citizen, used a number of non-Hebrew abstractions imported from the Greeks and Romans (e.g. the Armor of Faith; describing the body of Christ through the lens of Roman adoption).

Most people viscerally understand visual-spatial abstractions: that visible figures and signs in space can abstractly represent something else. This may be something as complicated as artistic expression or it might be something as simple as the shape of a stop sign. We have whole museums dedicated to this kind of abstraction. It is easier to appreciate an abstraction when you can see with your eyes. But, men like Boman have noticed that the ancient Hebrews tended to avoid these kinds of abstractions. It is even codified it in their law. So Boman concluded, quite incorrectly, that Hebrews didn’t think abstractly. But, as shown above, even in the law that banned idolatrous abstractions contains an important verbal abstraction.

Boman, a prolific writer, was almost certainly a Wordcel, someone gifted with high verbal ability. If he was like your typical Ashkenazi Jew, he would have had a natural preference for verbal abstractions and a natural avoidance of visual-spatial abstraction. This would lead him to write about the linguistics of an ancient people, and enjoy doing it. Furthermore, he was also an editor (like our friend Bruce Charlton, who is well-known to have a very strong verbal ability and preference). His own preferences—his bias—caused him to completely miss the types of abstractions that the Hebrews preferred. If you are one of those people that shun Greek philosophy, it’s easy to fall into this trap.

The fact is, it is laughable for anyone who has studied Hebrew or read the Old Testament to claim that the ancient Hebrews did not think using abstractions. Except Wordcels like Boman (and many others) make this claim, and often at that! What gives? Well, it’s a simple fact that they don’t recognize the greatest form of abstraction that exists: figures of speech. The Bible is riddled with figurative language. It’s in everything from the individual words to complex linguistic structures (like the chiastic structure). It is true that, unlike the Greeks, the Ancient Hebrews did not get on much with logical and philosophical abstractions. Rather, they much preferred verbal abstractions.

Speaking of verbal abstractions…

…this is the perfect example. You might be tempted to try to figure out what happens if the 137th generation out of the thousand turns against God. Are they and their third and fourth generations cursed by God or are they still blessed as part of the thousand? The error, of course, is quantifying the abstraction strictly literally.

It is obviously not the case that Greeks were abstract thinkers and Hebrews were concrete literalists. The Second Commandment proves this. They just preferred different kinds of abstractions. Hellenistic thought is, in general, a bit more focused on visual-spatial (and logical) type abstractions. This is one reason why Western man has so much difficult with taking the copious figurative language of scripture too literally. Thus, we can contrast Hebrew and Hellenistic thought as largely being a general population preference for one type of abstraction over another.

Over many centuries, the Jews cultivated a breeding environment that strongly favored and selected for verbal expression (and associated skills) over other abilities, by as much as a full standard deviation on average. Due, in part, to strong in-group preferences among ethnic Jews, this has continued for thousands of years into the present. Most of the memes about Jews running all the corporations, owning all the banks, or dominating the practice of law can be traced to their population preferences for a certain kind of intelligence going back thousands of years. People naturally prefer to do what they are best at doing, while avoiding whatever they are not as good at.

Jews have also cultivated a strong skill for mathematical abstraction. The funny thing is, like abstract verbal reasoning and figures of speech, people don’t readily think of math as an abstraction. A statue of a person is obviously an abstraction of a real person, but people don’t think of numbers, mathematical operations, and logical thinking as abstractions, even though that is exactly what they are.  This has only further fed into the idea that Hebrews didn’t think abstractly. History records Jews being disproportionately impactful in the realm of abstract finances: interest, fractional reserve, contracts, credit, exchange, land ownership, banking mechanisms, stocks, etc. But who even thinks of a bank or a dollar bill as an abstraction?

Now, let’s turn back the clock and read this comment again:

Do you see that part about Hebrews avoiding abstractions “regarding its form.” It’s not that the Hebrews didn’t use abstract ideas, it is merely the fact that they had a preference for one type of abstraction over another. And it was just a preference, not a strict rule. Hebrews were absolutely capable of all types of abstraction. As I noted in my previous article, scripture itself contains a fantastic example of the abstract concept of a cooking pot in Hebrew. Hurst and Boman are simply wrong on this point. The Hebrews—in keeping with their strong verbal abilities—had many different words for pots carrying a wide array of forms and meanings, both concrete and abstract.

The Hebrews were strong abstract thinkers, but they drew cultural and religious lines regarding which types of abstractions were acceptable and which were not. This preference is absolutely in line with everything we know about their population intelligence. As a group, they selected for this! I find that very interesting.