ArticlePDF Available

Is Kevin MacDonald’s Theory of Judaism “Plausible”? A Response to Dutton (2018)

Authors:

Abstract

In a trilogy of books, Kevin MacDonald argues that Judaism is a “group 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’s argument is based on “misrepresented sources and cherry-picked facts.” Cofnas proposed the “default 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, “from the perspective of evolutionary psychology,” MacDonald’s theory is more “plausible” than the default hypothesis because “people 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’s theory “plausible.”
BRIEF COMMUNICATION
Is Kevin MacDonalds 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, 134156, 2018], MacDonaldsargu-
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,^MacDonaldstheoryismoreBplausible^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 MacDonaldstheoryBplausible.^
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.
MacDonalds(1998a) most influential book, The Culture
of Critique (CofC), claims that several major twentieth-
century intellectual and political movementsincluding
Boasian anthropology, Freudianism, Frankfurt School critical
theory, and multiculturalismwere 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 MacDonalds 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. 146148,
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 MacDonaldstheorymakediffer-
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 MacDonaldsor so I have argued.
Duttons(2018) Response
What Should Be the BDefault Hypothesis^?
I called my hypothesis the Bdefault^one because it is more
parsimonious than MacDonalds. 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
MacDonalds is a matter of logic. Both MacDonald and
Dutton (2018) agree that Jews are overrepresented in cognitive-
ly demanding activitiesincluding some intellectual and
political movementsthat 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 MacDonaldstheo-
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 MacDonaldsthesis
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 MacDonaldsis
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 selectedthan 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 CofCthat Jewish left-wing
activism during the twentieth century was part of a group
evolutionary strategyis 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
Duttons 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, wouldnt 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 withsports, music,
films, and the likehave 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, MacDonaldsBhistorical and anecdotal
evidence.^Second, Dunkel and Duttons(2016)analysisofdata
from Midlife in the United States 2 (MIDUS 2), a large national
survey conducted in the 2000s.
Regarding MacDonaldsBhistorical and anecdotal
evidence,^if the argument in Cofnas (2018b)iscorrect,then
MacDonalds 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
MacDonalds scholarship.
2
So even on Duttons 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
DuttonsBreligious 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 MacDonalds 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 MacDonalds 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 surveyunfortunately, 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 Jewishgentile 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 Jewsposturing 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). Lets
look at the relevant statements in the Times article, and see
how MacDonald misrepresents them:
The Rabbinical leadership of Judaisms 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-
ences 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 movements receptivity to
converts, not an interest in proselytizing. (Niebuhr
2001italics 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
movements 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 congregationsand the Reform Jewish
community as a wholehave taken a more active approach to
seeking out^converts.
3
The Union for Reform Judaismsoffi-
cial website published an article explaining:
Were a global, multiracial people thats 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 MacDonalds 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 valuei.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 MacDonaldstheory
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?
Duttons(2018) claim that MacDonalds theory is more
Bplausible^than the default hypothesis has two interpretations.
First, it could mean that the former has greater antecedent plau-
sibilityit 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.
Lets 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 Duttons(2018) claim
about plausibility: MacDonalds 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 MacDonalds argu-
ment from Cofnascritique. It is appreciated that Cofnas has
highlighted what he claims are issues with MacDonalds
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 MacDonaldstheoryisnot
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
MacDonalds 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 MacDonalds 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. Lets
consider how he attempts to rescue MacDonalds 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).Herepeatedlyemphasizesagain,
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 powermore
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 Duttons reasoning is that he is stripping
MacDonalds 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 aroundwhat 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
CofCis 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., 15%) and had 46 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 groupwho 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 MacDonaldsthesisinCofC 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 ratethe highest of any reli-
gious group in the United Statesand 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 MacDonalds 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, 38,659693.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932005027069.
Cofnas, N. (2016). A teleofunctional account of evolutionary mismatch.
Biology and Philosophy, 31, 507525. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10539-016-9527-1.
Cofnas, N. (2018a). Analyzing Kevin MacDonaldsCulture of Critique
and the alt-rights 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 MacDonaldstheory.Human Nature, 29,134
156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-018-9310-x.
Cofnas, N. (2018c). Kevin MacDonalds 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, 98,311314. 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 Cofnascritical analysis of
Kevin MacDonalds 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. 131156). 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 peoples 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 surveythey 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, 11,489507.
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
... He does not seem to dispute my so-called "claim" that The Culture of Critique maintains what I say it does. More important, he ignores the voluminous evidence I provided that prominent Jewish liberals who advocate liberalism and multiculturalism for gentiles and gentile countries usually advocate more or less the same policies for Jews and Israel (Cofnas, , 2019(Cofnas, , 2021. MacDonald (2022, p. 10) says that "Cofnas restricts himself to pronouncements by contemporary American Reform leaders-opinions that may not reflect the views of the wider Reform community, much less represent a consensus among American Jews." ...
Article
Full-text available
I recently criticized some key tenets of what I called the “anti-Jewish narrative,” particularly as defended by Kevin MacDonald. According to MacDonald, Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy” that led Jews to impose liberal multiculturalism on the West in order to advance their evolutionary interests at the expense of gentiles. In light of MacDonald’s reply, in this paper, I refine my previous arguments, address some popular misunderstandings, and discuss the root causes and consequences of anti-Semitism. I conclude that, contra the anti-Jewish narrative, Jews are not particularly ethnocentric, Jewish intellectuals do not typically advocate liberal multiculturalism for gentiles but not for Jews, Jews did not orchestrate the rise of liberalism or blank-slatism in the West, and anti-Semitism is not primarily a response to actual Jewish wrongdoing.
... Although he described intermarriage as "defection" in the 2002 preface to The Culture of Critique (MacDonald 2002: xxii), he now says that high intermarriage rates support his theory, and may even be part of the group evolutionary strategy: "intermarriage and conversion have benefits for the Jewish community..., including the advantages of marrying into prominent non-Jewish families, such as the families of presidents Trump and Clinton" (MacDonald 2018b). But even if it's theoretically possible that Jews could benefit as a group from some strategic marriage alliances with powerful gentiles, like Esther marrying King Ahasuerus in ancient Persia, this could not explain intermarriage rates of well over 50% (possibly upwards of 70% among liberal Jews) (see Cofnas 2019). And it's silly to think that most of these marriages are strategic. ...
Article
Full-text available
According to the mainstream narrative about race, all groups have the same innate dispositions and potential, and all disparities—at least those favoring whites—are due to past or present racism. Some people who reject this narrative gravitate toward an alternative, anti-Jewish narrative, which sees recent history in terms of a Jewish/gentile conflict. The most sophisticated promoter of the anti-Jewish narrative is the evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald argues that Jews have a suite of genetic adaptations—including high intelligence and ethnocentrism—and cultural practices that lead them to undermine gentile society to advance their own evolutionary interests. He says that Jewish-designed intellectual movements have weakened gentile identity and culture while preserving Jewish identity and separatism. Cofnas recently argued that MacDonald’s theory is based on “systematically misrepresented sources and cherry-picked facts.” However, Cofnas gave short shrift to at least three key claims: (a) Jews are highly ethnocentric, (b) liberal Jews hypocritically advocate liberal multiculturalism for gentiles/gentile countries but racial purity and separatism for Jews/Israel, and (c) Jews are responsible for liberalism and mass immigration to the United States. The present paper examines these claims and concludes that MacDonald’s views are not supported.
... * * * Nathan Cofnas is making something of a cottage industry for himself in criticizing The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (CofC) (MacDonald, /1998. In a reply to Edward Dutton, he continues his technique of ignoring my previous replies and making unfounded assertions about the scholarship and mistaken assumptions regarding the theoretical basis of CofC (Cofnas, 2018). Cofnas begins with a general condemnation of my work. ...
Preprint
I respond to some comments by Nathan Cofnas in which he criticizes Edward Dutton's defense of my book, The Culture of Critique. In arguing against Dutton, Cofnas makes unfounded claims about The Culture of Critique.
Article
Full-text available
Kevin MacDonald (1998) has argued that a series of twentieth century ideologies which have challenged European traditions should be understood as part of a Jewish evolutionary strategy to promote Jewish interests in the West, as evidenced by Jewish leadership of and disproportionate involvement in these movements. Cofnas Human Nature 29, 134–156 (Cofnas 2018a) has critiqued this model and countered that the evidence can be more parsimoniously explained by the high average intelligence and urban location of Jews in Western countries. This, he avers, should be the ‘default hypothesis.’ In this response, I argue that it is MacDonald’s model that is the more plausible hypothesis due to evidence that people tend to act in their ethnic group interest and that group selectedness among Jews is particularly strong, meaning that they are particularly likely to do so.
Preprint
Full-text available
YOU MUST DOWNLOAD THE FILE TO VIEW THE COMMENTS - A rejoinder to Kevin MacDonald's comments on Nathan Cofnas (2018) "Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy: A Critical Analysis of Kevin MacDonald's Theory," Human Nature. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-018-9310-x
Article
Full-text available
MacDonald argues that a suite of genetic and cultural adaptations among Jews constitutes a “group evolutionary strategy.” Their supposed genetic adaptations include, most notably, high intelligence, conscientiousness, and ethnocentrism. According to this thesis, several major intellectual and political movements, such as Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, and multiculturalism, were consciously or unconsciously designed by Jews to (a) promote collectivism and group continuity among themselves in Israel and the diaspora and (b) undermine the cohesion of gentile populations, thus increasing the competitive advantage of Jews and weakening organized gentile resistance (i.e., anti-Semitism). By developing and promoting these movements, Jews supposedly played a necessary role in the ascendancy of liberalism and multiculturalism in the West. While not achieving widespread acceptance among evolutionary scientists, this theory has been enormously influential in the burgeoning political movement known as the “alt-right.” Examination of MacDonald’s argument suggests that he relies on systematically misrepresented sources and cherry-picked facts. It is argued here that the evidence favors what is termed the “default hypothesis”: Because of their above-average intelligence and concentration in influential urban areas, Jews in recent history have been overrepresented in all major intellectual and political movements, including conservative movements, that were not overtly anti-Semitic.
Article
Full-text available
When the environment in which an organism lives deviates in some essential way from that to which it is adapted, this is described as “evolutionary mismatch,” or “evolutionary novelty.” The notion of mismatch plays an important role, explicitly or implicitly, in evolution-informed cognitive psychology, clinical psychology, and medicine. The evolutionary novelty of our contemporary environment is thought to have significant implications for our health and well-being. However, scientists have generally been working without a clear definition of mismatch. This paper defines mismatch as deviations in the environment that render biological traits unable, or impaired in their ability, to produce their selected effects (i.e., to perform their proper functions in Neander’s sense). The machinery developed by Millikan in connection with her account of proper function, and with her related teleosemantic account of representation, is used to identify four major types, and several subtypes, of evolutionary mismatch. While the taxonomy offered here does not in itself resolve any scientific debates, the hope is that it can be used to better formulate empirical hypotheses concerning the effects of mismatch. To illustrate, it is used to show that the controversial hypothesis that general intelligence evolved as an adaptation to handle evolutionary novelty can, contra some critics, be formulated in a conceptually coherent way.
Chapter
This is the preface to the First Paperback Edition of my book, The Culture of Critique. It updates some topics of the original book (decline of ethnic consciousness among Europeans, Jews and the left) and adds new material related to the concerns of The Culture of Critique (Jews and the media, the culture of the Holocaust).
Chapter
Does the human mind include psychological adaptations that were selected because they fostered the competitive advantage of ancestral groups, even if they harmed the individuals that bore those adaptations? This notion of group selection is the default folk theory of evolution among most nonbiologists, and even among many biologists until the 1960s, when the theory was shown to be at best improbable and at worst incoherent. Nonetheless group selection refuses to die, and has recently been endorsed by a few prominent biologists and anthropologists. I show that the intuitive appeal of group selection is based on multiple confusions. First, group psychology—the phenomenon in which people identify and make sacrifices for their group—should not be equated with group selection. Second, the size, power, influence, or geographic spread of a group over the course of history (the loose analogue of fitness in cultural evolution) is not analogous to an increase in the number of copies of a replicator in biological evolution. Finally, the appeal of group selection rests on an unexamined and highly implausible assumption: that the groups most victorious in violent combat were those that practiced the greatest degree of kindness and generosity within their own societies. I conclude that the theory of natural selection should be invoked in its rigorous sense of the differential representation of replicators across generations, and that “group selection” is a pernicious concept in evolutionary psychology, guaranteed to confuse.
Article
It was hypothesized that religiosity is positively associated with religious in-group favoritism. This hypothesis was tested using the second wave of data from the Midlife in the United States representative survey of middle adulthood. The sample included White participants from four religious groups (Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, and Jews). Consistent with the hypothesis, when analyzing the full sample and within each of the four religious groups, religiosity was predictive of in-group favoritism. However, while differences between religious groups in in-group favoritism emerged, and remained when controlling for the previously found group differences in intelligence and personality, the group differences in in-group favoritism were not mediated by religiosity. For example, while Baptists scored high in both religiosity and in-group favoritism, Jews scored low in religiosity yet high in in-group favoritism. Possible explanations for these findings are discussed, such as genetic similarity among group members.