Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
BRIEF COMMUNICATION
Is Kevin MacDonald’s Theory of Judaism BPlausible^? A Response
to Dutton (2018)
Nathan Cofnas
1
#The Author(s) 2018
Abstract
In a trilogy of books, Kevin MacDonald argues that Judaism is a Bgroup evolutionary strategy.^According to his theory, Jews are
genetically and culturally adapted to advance their own group interests at the expense of gentiles. Several influential twentieth-
century liberal intellectual and political movements were designed by Jews to promote separatism and group continuity among
themselves while undermining gentile society. According to Cofnas [Human Nature, 29, 134–156, 2018], MacDonald’sargu-
ment is based on Bmisrepresented sources and cherry-picked facts.^Cofnas proposed the Bdefault hypothesis^to explain Jewish
overrepresentation among the leaders of liberal intellectual and political movements: Because of their relatively high IQ and
concentration in influential urban areas, Jews are overrepresented in all (non-overtly anti-Semitic) cognitively demanding
activities. Dutton [Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2018] objects to Cofnas, claiming that, Bfrom the perspective of evolu-
tionary psychology,^MacDonald’stheoryismoreBplausible^than the default hypothesis because Bpeople tend to act in their
ethnic interests^and Jews are particularly high in ethnocentrism. Contra Dutton, it is argued here that there is no evidence to
support the general notion that people tend to act in their ethnic interests. The evidence suggests, if anything, that Jews are not
particularly ethnocentric. There are no theoretical principles or established empirical findings of evolutionary psychology that
make MacDonald’stheoryBplausible.^
Introduction
Kevin MacDonald (1994,1998a,b)arguesthatJudaismisa
Bgroup evolutionary strategy.^According to his theory, Jews
are genetically and culturally adapted to promote their own
group interests at the expense of gentiles. Jewish genetic ad-
aptations include high intelligence, conscientiousness, and
ethnocentrism.
MacDonald’s(1998a) most influential book, The Culture
of Critique (CofC), claims that several major twentieth-
century intellectual and political movements—including
Boasian anthropology, Freudianism, Frankfurt School critical
theory, and multiculturalism—were designed to destabilize
gentile civilization for the benefit of Jews. The movements,
led by Bstrongly identified Jews,^attacked group identity
among white gentiles while promoting separatism and ethno-
centrism for Jews. They Bpathologized^anti-Semitism in or-
der to squelch resistance to Jewish control.
In Cofnas (2018b), I concluded that MacDonald’s argument
in CofC is based on Bsystematically misrepresented sources and
cherry-picked facts.^I found that he did not provide any real
evidence that the leaders of the movements discussed in CofC
were particularly concerned about Jews, let alone that they
designed their movements to promote Jewish interests at the
expense of gentiles. Rather, Jewish leaders of liberal, multicul-
tural movements tended to advocate the same policies for both
Jews/Israel and gentiles/white-gentile countries. For example,
MacDonald (1998a) devotes a chapter to the Frankfurt School.
He repeatedly claims that the leaders of the school Bstrongly
identified^as Jews. He says that Bthe agenda of the Frankfurt
School^was to facilitate Bradical individualism...among gen-
tiles while retaining a powerful sense of group cohesion among
Jews^(p. 215). What evidence does he have for this claim? He
does not quote a single sentence from any Frankfurt School
leader that endorses group cohesion among Jews. When
Adorno, Marcuse, and other Frankfurt theorists condemned
ethnocentrism, MacDonald assumes without evidence that they
approved of ethnocentrism in Jews. I found that when
Frankfurt School leaders did comment on Jews or Israel, contra
MacDonald, they advocated the same multiculturalist policies
that they promoted for gentiles (e.g., open borders and
*Nathan Cofnas
nathan.cofnas@balliol.ox.ac.uk
1
Balliol College, Oxford OX1 3BJ, UK
Evolutionary Psychological Science
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-0162-8
multiculturalism in Israel). (See Cofnas 2018b, pp. 146–148,
for specific examples of how Frankfurt School theorists are
misrepresented in CofC.)
In Cofnas (2018b), I proposed what I called the Bdefault
hypothesis^to explain Jewish overrepresentation in liberal
political movements: BBecause of their above-average intelli-
gence and concentration in influential urban areas, Jews in
recent history have been overrepresented in all major intellec-
tual and political movements, including conservative move-
ments, that were not overtly anti-Semitic^(p. 134). Because a
higher proportion of right-wing than left-wing movements in
the twentieth century were overtly anti-Semitic, BJewish in-
volvement in politics has been somewhat skewed to the left in
recent history, but Jews are also overrepresented in right-wing
movements that are not anti-Semitic^(p. 138).
The default hypothesis and MacDonald’stheorymakediffer-
ent predictions. As I previously noted: BIf the former is correct,
Jews should also be overrepresented in the leadership of
opposing movements. If the latter is correct, Jews should tend
to cluster around those movements that actually support Jewish
ethnic interests^(Cofnas 2018a). Furthermore, if the default
hypothesis is correct, Jews should be no more likely than gen-
tiles to hypocritically advocate policies that benefit their co-
ethnics at the expense of others. Since there is no evidence that
the leaders of the movements discussed in CofC (with the ex-
ception of some neoconservatives in the USA) were motivated
by Jewish ethnocentrism, and since Jews tend to be overrepre-
sented among all sorts of (non-overtly anti-Semitic) movements
with violently opposing aims, the evidence supports the default
hypothesis over MacDonald’s—or so I have argued.
Dutton’s(2018) Response
What Should Be the BDefault Hypothesis^?
I called my hypothesis the Bdefault^one because it is more
parsimonious than MacDonald’s. It posits only two factors—
intelligence and geography (with intelligence being the far
more important factor)—to explain Jewish overrepresentation
across a wide range of (non-overtly anti-Semitic) cognitively
demanding activities. Two factors explain why Jews comprise
more than half of world chess champions (Cochran et al.
2005), why they comprised almost half of elite American in-
tellectuals in the 1970s according to peer ratings (Kadushin
1974), why they win so many Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals
(jinfo.org), and why they often assume leadership positions in
intellectual and political movements with opposing aims (e.g.,
libertarianism and socialism).
The fact that my hypothesis is more parsimonious than
MacDonald’s is a matter of logic. Both MacDonald and
Dutton (2018) agree that Jews are overrepresented in cognitive-
ly demanding activities—including some intellectual and
political movements—that have no relevance for Jewish group
interests. They explain Jewish overrepresentation in these ac-
tivities as being primarily a consequence of high intelligence.
So MacDonald and Dutton already accept a version of (what I
call) the default hypothesis. They say that the default hypothe-
sis should be supplemented with a much more complicated
theory about how Jews are genetically and culturally adapted
to benefit themselves by undermining gentile society.
Dutton (2018), however, contends that MacDonald’stheo-
ry should be the Bdefault.^He expounds:
Cofnas argues, in effect, that the default position should
be Jewish high intelligence, and this explanation for
Jewish involvement in intellectual movements should
be the null hypothesis. I believe the opposite may be
true. The default position should be MacDonald’sthesis
and it should be treated as the null hypothesis. (p. 6)
To be clear, the fact that one hypothesis is more parsimonious
than another does not mean that it is necessarily correct.
Sometimes complicated, fanciful theories are true. The ques-
tion is which theory is best supported by the evidence while
reaching a requisite level of antecedent plausibility (Sober
2000,p.32).Other things being equal, a theory is more plau-
sible if it explains our observations while postulating fewer
entities or causal forces. The burden of proof is on the theore-
tician who postulates more entities/causal forces to explain
how the loss of parsimony is compensated by a commensurate
gain in explanatory power. If my argument is correct, howev-
er, the difference between my hypothesis and MacDonald’sis
not simply parsimony. Rather, the evidence supports the for-
mer and disconfirms the latter.
A Theoretical/Empirical Argument for MacDonald
Dutton (2018, p. 2) says that his argument reduces to six basic
claims: (1) B[G]roup selection is a robust model.^(2)
B[P]eople tend to act in their ethnic interests.^(3) BJews are
more ‘group selected’than gentiles,^which means they are
genetically disposed to possess traits that give them an advan-
tage in group competition, including Bpositive and negative
ethnocentrism.^(4) The thesis of CofC—that Jewish left-wing
activism during the twentieth century was part of a group
evolutionary strategy—is more Bplausible^than the Bdefault
hypothesis.^(5) Jewish left-wing activism Bhas indeed been
in Jewish group interests.^(6) BJewish representation in intel-
lectual movements that are not necessarily ‘good for the Jews’
simply reflects Jewish high intelligence.^
Regarding (1), Dutton (2018, p. 2) states that it does not
matter whether Jews were subjecttomoregroupselectionthan
(white) gentiles: B[I]t may be possible for Jews to have devel-
oped the qualities highlighted by MacDonald through individ-
ual selection alone so group selection does not actually have to
Evolutionary Psychological Science
be accepted for it to be argued that Jews have been selected for
high positive and negative ethnocentrism.^Since, at least on
Dutton’s interpretation, the theory of CofC does not stand or fall
with group selection, but requires only that Jews are high on
ethnocentrism, I will not address the question of whether Jews
were subject to more group selection, or whether evolutionary
explanations based on group selection are in general plausible.
1
I will address claims (2)–(5) in turn. I will not address (6),
because this is essentially a partial endorsement of the default
hypothesis.
Do BPeople Tend to Act in Their Ethnic
Interests^?
Dutton (2018, p. 3) cites only two studies in support of the claim
that Bpeople tend to act in their ethnic interests.^First, Rushton
(2005) reported that the most successful beggars in Moscow
were ethnic Russians followed by Moldovans followed by
dark-skinned Roma. That is, the (primarily ethnic Russian) pe-
destrians were generous to the beggars in proportion to their
genetic relatedness to them. Second, Irwin (1987) reported that
intertribal relations between Inuit in Canada reflect genetic re-
latedness: More closely related tribes are more likely to engage
in cooperative behaviors, and are less likely to be excessively
destructive toward each other during war.
Even taking the claims of Rushton and Irwin at face value,
it seems like a big leap to conclude that Bpeople tend to act in
their ethnic interests.^Was it in the ethnic interests of white
Americans to fight a war over the slavery of Africans, which
killed 600,000 white people? Rich philanthropists of all races
donate money to hospitals, theaters, and parks. If people
tended to act in their ethnic interests, wouldn’t rich people
use their money to support the reproduction of members of
their ethnic group? Yet this is hardly the norm except in some
small religious communities.
Suppose it is true that, as Dutton (2018,p.3)says,B[o]n
average [people] are more attracted to [those] who are more
genetically similar to themselves, they are more likely to in-
vest more in such people even within families and they are
more likely to be friends with such people (see Rushton
2005).^Still, most people seem to be primarily focused on
themselves, their family, and their friends. The activities that
most people are emotionally involved with—sports, music,
films, and the like—have nothing to do with advancing their
ethnic interests. It seems a much stronger argument than
Dutton provides is needed to establish the principle that
Bpeople tend to act in their ethnic interests.^
Are Jews High in Ethnocentrism?
Dutton (2018) cites two sources of evidence that Jews are highly
ethnocentric. First, MacDonald’sBhistorical and anecdotal
evidence.^Second, Dunkel and Dutton’s(2016)analysisofdata
from Midlife in the United States 2 (MIDUS 2), a large national
survey conducted in the 2000s.
Regarding MacDonald’sBhistorical and anecdotal
evidence,^if the argument in Cofnas (2018b)iscorrect,then
MacDonald’s evidence is based on misrepresentations, distor-
tions of history, and cherry-picking. Dutton (2018,p.2)ap-
pears to accept that I have identified problems with
MacDonald’s scholarship.
2
So even on Dutton’s view, we
should not take what MacDonald says at face value.
Regarding the second source of evidence, Dunkel and
Dutton (2016) constructed a Breligious in-group favoritism
scale...by adding the response to four items^:(1)BHow im-
portant is it for you to celebrate or practice on religious holi-
days with your family, friends, or members of your religious
community?^(2) BHow closely do you identify with being a
member of your religious group?^(3) BHow much do you
prefer to be with other people who are the same religion as
you?^(4) BHow important do you think it is for people of your
religion to marry other people who are the same religion?^
They found that Jews and Baptists obtained (similarly) high
scores compared to Methodists and Catholics. To explain why
Jews supposedly evolved to be higher in ethnocentrism,
Dunkel and Dutton suggest that, during long periods of per-
secutioninEurope,Bless ethnocentric Jewish individuals
would likely have married out into the general population^
(p. 314). This comment is noteworthy, since it explicitly ac-
knowledges the obvious fact that marrying out into the general
population is a sign of being less ethnocentric. (Opposing
intermarriage also contributes to a high score on Dunkel and
Dutton’sBreligious in-group favoritism scale.^)
Rather than indirectly gauging the commitment of Jews to
marrying within their group, it seems better to directly measure
their propensity to marry each other by simply looking at inter-
marriage rates. Intermarriage rates among Jews do not support
the theory that Jews are highly ethnocentric. Reform Jews con-
stitute 35%, and unaffiliated Jews 30% of the American Jewish
population. Another 6% are affiliated with denominations sim-
ilar to Reform (Pew Research Center 2013,p.10).Accordingto
a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center (2013, p. 37), 50
and 69% of married Reform and unaffiliated Jews, respectively,
report that their spouse is not Jewish. This is probably a
1
Regarding the status of group selection in evolutionary theory, compare
Pinker (2012) and Sober and Wilson (1998).
2
Dutton (2018)writes:BIt is appreciated that Cofnas has highlighted what he
claims are issues with MacDonald’s scholarship. It seems to me, therefore, that
we need to divorce the theory from how MacDonald has presented it and
defended it...^(p. 2). The first sentence could be interpreted to mean only that
Iclaimed that there are issues. But in the second, he seems to imply that we
should look for alternative ways of defending the theory of CofC in light of the
problems I found with MacDonald’s own defense.
Evolutionary Psychological Science
significant underestimate of intermarriage among Reform Jews,
because the spouses of many Reform Jews are gentiles who
have undergone nominal Reform conversions, and they would
be counted as Jewish in the survey—unfortunately, there are no
reliable data on how common this is. An unknown percentage
of unaffiliated Jews do not identify as Jewish at all, and these
people, who are presumably unlikely to marry Jews, would be
missed by the survey. These findings suggest that the intermar-
riage rate among the at least 71% of American Jews who are
Reform (or associated with similar denominations) or unaffili-
ated is well over 60%, and may be greater than 70%. These are
the secular, liberal Jews who participated in the movements
discussed in CofC. Their marriage patterns suggest that they
are, as a group, not particularly committed to associating close-
ly with their co-ethnics or contributing to Jewish continuity.
(The offspring of Jewish–gentile couples do not themselves
become strongly committed Jews: 83% report being married
to a gentile; Pew Research Center 2013,p.37.)Infact,Jews
have the highest intermarriage rates of any religious group in
the USA (Riley 2013).
Does Reform Judaism Oppose Intermarriage?
In the Preface to the First Paperback Edition of CofC,
MacDonald (2002)writes:
The Jews’posturing as a religion left them open to large-
scale defection via intermarriage to the extent that they
took seriously the idea that Judaism was akin to
Protestantism, and to some extent this did occur. But
recently, Jews have been mending the fences. There is
an upsurge in more traditional forms of Judaism and an
open rejection of intermarriage even among the most
liberal wings of Judaism. Recent guidelines for
Reform Judaism emphasize traditional practices of con-
version, such as circumcision, that are likely to mini-
mize converts, and proselytism is explicitly rejected.
(p. xxii)
To support these claims, MacDonald (endnote 7) cites a single
source: an article in the New York Times (Niebuhr 2001). Let’s
look at the relevant statements in the Times article, and see
how MacDonald misrepresents them:
The Rabbinical leadership of Judaism’s liberal Reform
movement is poised to adopt a broad set of guidelines on
conversion to Judaism that will embrace traditional
practices once rejected by Reform leaders, urge that
converts make certain commitments to Jewish life and
also formally extend a strong welcome to men and
women considering converting....[T]he guidelines indi-
cate that practices including the examination of a pro-
spective convert by a panel of three learned
Jews...and the circumcision of male converts...would
be fully recognized within Reform Judaism.But
whether such practices are actually used is a deci-
sion for the rabbi and the prospective
convert....Rabbi Shapiro [chairman of the confer-
ence’s committee on conversion] said the guidelines
were important for ending the traditional require-
ment that a rabbi discourage a potential convert.
Still, conference officials said the guidelines were
meant to emphasize the movement’s receptivity to
converts, not an interest in proselytizing. (Niebuhr
2001—italics added)
Although MacDonald says that the guidelines are Blikely to
minimize converts,^his own source says that one of the pur-
poses of the guidelines is to Bformally extend a strong
welcome^to converts. The traditional practices that are Bfully
recognized^by the guidelines, such as circumcision, which
MacDonald views as creating a barrier to conversion, turn out
to be optional (whether these practices are Bactually used is a
decision for the rabbi and the prospective convert^).
MacDonald misrepresents the guidelines as a measure to
counteract intermarriage, but, again, his own source for that
claim makes it clear that their purpose is to Bemphasize the
movement’s receptivity to converts.^
It is easy to find statements by Reform Jewish leaders cele-
brating conversion and racial diversity within the Jewish com-
munity. According to the Union for Reform Judaism (2018), in
Brecent years, Reform congregations—and the Reform Jewish
community as a whole—have taken a more active approach to
seeking out^converts.
3
The Union for Reform Judaism’soffi-
cial website published an article explaining:
We’re a global, multiracial people that’s growing more
racially and ethnically diverse through interfaith and in-
terracial marriage, conversion, and adoption. In the
United States, February is Black History Month. It is
one among many opportunities for us to acknowledge
and reflect upon our collective racial and ethnic diversi-
ty, and learn more about the experiences of Jews of
African-American descent in particular. (Baskin 2016)
Contrary to MacDonald’s misrepresentations, there is no
evidence that the leaders of Reform Judaism were concerned
about intermarriage in 2002, and recent proclamations cele-
brating intermarriage and the racial diversification of the
Jewish community could not make the position of Reform
Judaism clearer. The facts do not support the notion that
Reform Jews have manifested a notably high degree of
Bethnocentrism^—if anything, they suggest the opposite.
3
The Union for Reform Judaism created and maintains the website where this
statement appears.
Evolutionary Psychological Science
Is Intermarriage Good for Jews?
MacDonald makes numerous statements throughout CofC ac-
knowledging the fact that intermarriage poses a threat to Jewish
interests (as he conceives them). However, when I pointed out
that the high intermarriage rate of liberal Jews poses a problem
for his theory, he replied with the surprising claim that inter-
marriage is part of the group evolutionary strategy.Hewrote:
[I]ntermarriage and conversion have benefits for the
Jewish community..., including the advantages of mar-
rying into prominent non-Jewish families, such as the
families of presidents Trump and Clinton....Some au-
thors have suggested that relatively high rates of inter-
marriage, low fertility, and the various levels of Jewish
identification in the [sic] modern Western societies are
highly functional for Judaism because they serve as a
bridge to the surrounding culture because of family ties
with non-Jews. (MacDonald 2018,p.35)
This is a good example of how MacDonald protects his theory
from disconfirmation by modifying it in ad hoc ways. The cost is
high, however, in that the theory thereby loses any predictive or
explanatory value—i.e., the qualities that are the essential fea-
tures of a legitimate scientific theory. Suppose the facts were
different from what they are. If Jews rejected converts and had
averylow intermarriage rate, obviously, MacDonald would say
that that confirmed his theory. But the reality is the opposite:
Jewish reproductive patterns are leading to the dissolution of
the secular Jewish population. MacDonald says that this is evi-
dence in favor of his theory. Of course, if intermarriage was
confined to a few Jews who married powerful gentiles, this might
not contradict the group evolutionary strategy theory.
But upwards of a million Jews intermarrying makes no sense
on any reasonable interpretation of MacDonald’stheory
as it was expressed in CofC. Jews having the highest intermar-
riage rate of any religious group in the USA (Riley 2013)isnot
consistent with the thesis that they are particularly high in
ethnocentrism.
Is the Thesis of CofC More BPlausible^Than
the Default Hypothesis?
Dutton’s(2018) claim that MacDonald’s theory is more
Bplausible^than the default hypothesis has two interpretations.
First, it could mean that the former has greater antecedent plau-
sibility—it is more consistent with well-established
empirical findings or theoretical principles. Second, it could
mean that it is more plausible in light of the empirical evidence.
Dutton appears to have both of these interpretations in mind.
Let’s consider them in turn.
Dutton (2018,p.4)writes:BFrom the perspective of evolu-
tionary psychology, the most plausible hypothesis is that people
will act, on average, in the interests of their ethnic group.^But
this is hardly an established principle of evolutionary psycholo-
gy. As discussed, Dutton provided very little evidence to support
it, and the claim seems to be contradicted by common experi-
ence. Even if it were a principle of evolutionary psychology that
people evolved to promote the interests of their extended kin
groups, this adaptation would be tailored to the environment of
evolutionary adaptedness (EEA). That is to say, natural selection
would have endowed us with dispositions to promote our
Bethnic interests^under EEA conditions. (See Cofnas 2016 on
how environmental changes disrupt the proper functioning of
adaptations.) In the EEA, there was no opportunity to infiltrate
other ethnic groups and promote culturally destructive ideolo-
gies such as multiculturalism, so there would be no reason to
think, from the Bperspective of evolutionary psychology,^that
anygroupwouldhaveevolvedimpulsestodosuchathing.
Consider the second interpretation of Dutton’s(2018) claim
about plausibility: MacDonald’s theory is more Bplausible^in
light of the empirical evidence. The problem with this claim is
that Dutton does not engage with the evidence I provided in
Cofnas (2018b). Dutton (2018,p.2)writes:
I think that it may be possible to salvage MacDonald’s argu-
ment from Cofnas’critique. It is appreciated that Cofnas has
highlighted what he claims are issues with MacDonald’s
scholarship. It seems to me, therefore, that we need to divorce
the theory from how MacDonald has presented it and
defended it, and simply look at the theory itself.
But if the problems I highlighted are genuine, that means there
is no evidence that the leaders of liberal movements discussed
in CofC were concerned with Jewish interests, which means
that there is nothing to explain, and MacDonald’stheoryisnot
correct.
In a footnote, Dutton (p. 6, n. 2) writes:
It should also be noted there is on-going, non-peer-
reviewed correspondence between MacDonald and
Cofnas. Engaging with this in detail would be a substan-
tial aside to the thrust of this article and the authors seem
to go back and forth regarding specific narrow points
rather than address what I would submit is the funda-
mental issue of what should be the default hypothesis
and why.
However, the Bspecific narrow points^that MacDonald and I
have been going back and forth about mostly concern evi-
dence about the motivations of the leaders of the intellectual
and political movements discussed in CofC. I argued that
MacDonald’s claim that these people were motivated by
Jewish interests was based almost entirely on misrepresented
Evolutionary Psychological Science
sources and cherry-picked facts. MacDonald has attempted to
neutralize my critique by writing long, tedious rejoinders that
have succeeded in creating confusion, and led some onlookers
to assume that he must have successfully defended his work
because he wrote so many words. (For those looking for an
illustrative example of MacDonald’s strategy of tedious ob-
fuscation, see how he responded to my observation that he
misrepresented a passage in The Authoritarian Personality;
Cofnas 2018c, Appendix.) We cannot make a judgment about
the plausibility of the central claimsin CofC without assessing
whether the evidence in CofC is valid.
Has Jewish Left-Wing Activism BBeen
in Jewish Group Interests^?
Dutton (2018) claims that Jewish left-wing activism Bhas in-
deed been in Jewish group interests,^where Bgroup interests^
are conceived as ethnic preservation and proliferation. This
claim seems to be dramatically contradicted by the facts.
To begin, I question the readiness with which Dutton
(2018) interprets Jewish behavior as benefiting Jews. Let’s
consider how he attempts to rescue MacDonald’s claim that
the Polish security service under communism was devoted to
promoting Jewish interests at the expense of gentiles.
In CofC, MacDonald claims, based on work by Schatz
(1991), that the communist power structure in Poland was dom-
inated by Jews seeking to preserve BJewish group continuity in
Poland while...destroy[ing] institutions...and...manifestations of
Polish nationalism that promoted social cohesion among Poles^
(MacDonald 1998a,p.68).Herepeatedlyemphasizes—again,
basedonSchatz(1991)—that the security service was devoted
to this goal:
The core members of the security service came from the
Jewish communists who had been communists before
the establishment of the Polish communist government,
but these were joined by other Jews sympathetic to the
government and alienated from the wider
society....Jewish members of the internal security force
often appear to have been motivated by personal rage
and a desire for revenge related to their Jewish identity.
(MacDonald 1998a,p.66)
As I (Cofnas 2018b) pointed out: BMacDonald leaves out a
key fact noted by Schatz (1991, p. 225), which is that 40%
of the victims ofthesecretpolicewereJewish^despite
Jews being less than half of 1% of the population of
Poland at the time in question (p. 150). I suggested:
BThese data are more consistent with the thesis that Jews
were simply more likely to be in positions of power—more
likely to be in the position to persecute others, and more
likely to be perceived as rivals by those in power, so more
likely to be persecuted^(p. 150).
Dutton (2018) objects to my argument, saying:
It is quite possible for a way of thinking to involve
killing a large number of your group members yet that
wayofthinkingultimatelybeingpositive,insome
sense, for group interests....It has been demonstrated that
religiousness is robustly associated with both positive
and negative ethnocentrism....Marxism helps to under-
mine this in Western populations, and it follows that this
is in the group interests of ethnic minorities within this
population. So, even if members of this minority are
disproportionately killed, it is still, in the long run, in
their group interest. (p. 5)
The problem with Dutton’s reasoning is that he is stripping
MacDonald’s theory of all its empirical content. Yes, you can
probably come up with a creative story to explain why, in
(almost) any case, Bkilling a large number of your group
members^is Bin some sense^good for the group. But what
if the facts had been the other way around—what if Jews had
been less likely to be victimized by the secret police? (This is
exactly what MacDonald falsely implied in CofC.) Then, ob-
viously, Dutton would point to that as evidence in favor of the
theory that Jews act in their ethnic interests. But if some ob-
servation, O, counts as evidence for a theory, then the obser-
vation of not-Ocannot also count as evidence for the theory. If
you want to argue that Jews establishing a system that dispro-
portionately targets Jews is evidence of a group evolutionary
strategy, you need more than just a creative hypothetical ex-
planation for why this might be good for Jews.
Turning to liberal activism in the USA, there is no indica-
tion that the ascendancy of liberalism has advanced the
Binterests^of Jews. The population of secular, liberal Jews—
the ones who participated in the movements discussed in
CofC—is literally falling by over one-half with each passing
generation, and soon, secular Jews in the USA will effectively
disappear as a distinct population.
If liberal Jews really were engaged in a group evolutionary
strategy, it would have been quite easy for them to succeed. In
1942, there were about 4.2 million Jews (almost all non-
Orthodox) in the USA. If they had simply maintained a low
intermarriage rate (e.g., 1–5%) and had 4–6 children per couple,
Jewswouldbewellontheirwaytobeingthemajorityofthe
American population. Such moderate (but exponential) growth
would have created challenges, but, given the prosperity in
America, it would have been eminently sustainable. Why would
Jews like Franz Boas and Stephen Jay Gould have focused their
efforts on undermining gentile culture in devious, indirect ways
by promoting scientific theories that bolster liberalism? It would
have been much easier and more efficient for them to convince
members of a highly ethnocentric group—who are supposedly
Evolutionary Psychological Science
genetically adapted to engage in a Bgroup evolutionary
strategy^—to marry each other and have many children.
Conclusion
Dutton (2018) claims that MacDonald’sthesisinCofC is more
Bplausible^than the default hypothesis because B[f]rom the
perspective of evolutionary psychology,^we should assume
that Bpeople tend to act in their ethnic interests,^and Bthere is
evidence that Jews are higher in positive ethnocentrism.^
However, evidence supporting the notion that Bpeople tend
to act in their ethnic interests^is scant and unconvincing,
and there are both theoretical and empirical reasons to reject
it. The evidence that Jews are higher in ethnocentrism is based
on a measure of their self-reported commitment to their reli-
gious group and their self-reported commitment to marrying
within their group.
4
But we saw that liberal Jews (the ones
who participated in the movements discussed in CofC)have
an extremely high intermarriage rate—the highest of any reli-
gious group in the United States—and the leaders of liberal
branches of Judaism (e.g., Reform) celebrate and promote
intermarriage and multiracial conversion.
Dutton (2018) does not challenge my argument in Cofnas
(2018b), which suggests that the general pattern of Jewish
behavior is inconsistent with MacDonald’s theory but consis-
tent with the default hypothesis. If that argument is correct,
then there are both theoretical and empirical reasons to reject
the thesis of CofC.
Acknowledgments Thanks to Jonathan Anomaly and Neven Sesardićfor
helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appro-
priate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
References
Baskin, A. (2016). How to help combat the Bperpetual stranger status^of
Jews of color. Union for Reform Judaism.https://urj.org/blog/2016/
02/01/how-help-combat-Bperpetual-stranger-status^-jews-color.
Cochran, G., Hardy, J., & Harpending, H. C. (2005). Natural history of
Ashkenazi intelligence. Journal of Biosocial Science, 38,659–693.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932005027069.
Cofnas, N. (2016). A teleofunctional account of evolutionary mismatch.
Biology and Philosophy, 31, 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10539-016-9527-1.
Cofnas, N. (2018a). Analyzing Kevin MacDonald’s‘Culture of Critique’
and the alt-right’s embrace of anti-Jewish ideology. Genetic Literacy
Project.https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/04/16/analyzing-
kevin-macdonalds-culture-of-critique-and-the-alt-rights-embrace-
of-anti-jewish-ideology/.
Cofnas, N. (2018b). Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy: a critical
analysis of Kevin MacDonald’stheory.Human Nature, 29,134–
156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-018-9310-x.
Cofnas, N. (2018c). Kevin MacDonald’s response with comments by
Nathan Cofnas. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.
15752.72962.
Dunkel, C. S., & Dutton, E. (2016). Religiosity as a predictor of in-group
favoritism within and between religious groups. Personality and
Individual Differences, 98,311–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
2016.04.063.
Dutton, E. (2018). Jewish group evolutionary strategy is the most plau-
sible hypothesis: a response to Nathan Cofnas’critical analysis of
Kevin MacDonald’s theory of Jewish involvement in twentieth cen-
tury ideological movements. Evolutionary Psychological Science.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-
0158-4.
Irwin, C. (1987). A study in the evolution of ethnocentrism. In V.
Reynolds, V. Fagler, & I. Vine (Eds.), The sociobiology of ethno-
centrism: evolutionary dimensions of xenophobia, discrimination,
racism and nationalism (pp. 131–156). London: Croom Helm.
Kadushin, C. (1974). The American intellectual elite. Boston: Little,
Brown and Company.
MacDonald, K. (1994). A people that shall dwell alone: Judaism as a
group evolutionary strategy. Westport: Praeger.
MacDonald,K. (1998a). The culture of critique: An evolutionary analysis
of Jewish involvement in twentieth-century intellectual and political
movements. Westport: Praeger.
MacDonald, K. (1998b). Separation and its discontents: Toward an evo-
lutionary theory of anti-Semitism. Westport: Praeger.
MacDonald, K. (2002). Preface to the first paperback edition. In The
culture of critique: an evolutionary analysis of Jewish involvement
in twentieth-century intellectual and political movements (pp. v–
lxx). Bloomington: 1st Books Library.
MacDonald, K. (2018). Reply to Nathan Cofnas. ResearchGate. https://
doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35754.31684.
Niebuhr, G. (2001). Reform Judaism nears a guide to conversion. The
New York Times.https://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/27/us/reform-
judaism-nears-a-guide-to-conversion.html.
Pew Research Center. (2013). A portrait of Jewish Americans: findings
from a Pew Research Center survey of U.S. Jews. http://www.
pewforum.org/files/2013/10/jewish-american-survey-full-report.
pdf.
Pinker, S. (2012). The false allure of group selection. Edge.https://www.
edge.org/conversation/steven_pinker-the-false-allure-of-group-
selection.
Riley, N. S. (2013). ’Til faith do us part: how interfaith marriage is
transforming America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4
Attempting to measure people’s innate ethnocentrism by asking them ques-
tions like BHow closely do you identify with being a member of your religious
group?^is problematic for a number of reasons. For one thing, it is not clear
how to interpret responses. In the current political environment, people might
say that they are Bproud to be Jewish^because minorities, in general, are
encouraged to be proud of their heritage. Proclamations of pride may not
always reflect a psychological or behavioral reality. Furthermore, how ethno-
centric people are seems to be highly contingent on environmental factors.
Germans in 1933 presumably would have reported very high levels of ethno-
centrism in a survey—they would have said that they closely identified with
the German people, that it was important for Germans to marry each other, and
so on. Now it is taboo to express such opinions. In 1933, Germans elected
Hitler. In 2005, Germans with basically the same genes as their grandparents
elected Angela Merkel, and largely supported her project of bringing in (what
will end up being) millions of nonwhite immigrants. If there are innate group
differences in ethnocentrism, this will have to be established by serious studies
in behavioral genetics, not surveys of self-reported ethnocentrism.
Evolutionary Psychological Science
Rushton, J. P. (2005). Ethnic nationalism, evolutionary psychology and
genetic similarity theory. Nations and Nationalism, 11,489–507.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8129.2005.00216.x.
Schatz, J. (1991). The generation: the rise and fall of the Jewish commu-
nists of Poland. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sober, E. (2000). Philosophy of biology (2nd ed.). Boulder: Westview
Press.
Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: the evolution and psy-
chology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Union for Reform Judaism. (2018). ReformJudaism.org.http://www.
reformjudaism.org/choosing-judaism-0.
Evolutionary Psychological Science
