Misplaced Pages

Race, Evolution, and Behavior: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:27, 6 February 2007 editJereKrischel (talk | contribs)5,273 editsm rv POV push← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:25, 3 January 2025 edit undoGreenLipstickLesbian (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers16,441 edits Moving from Category:English-language books to Category:English-language non-fiction books using Cat-a-lot 
(672 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|1995 book by J. Philippe Rushton}}
<div style="float:right; padding:2px; margin-left: 1em; font-size:90%;">
{{Infobox book
{| class="wikitable"
| name=''Race, Evolution and Behavior''
|-
| image=File:Race, Evolution, and Behavior, first edition.jpg
|colspan=4 | '''Chart 1 - Average Differences Among Blacks, Whites, and Orientals'''<br>
| caption=Cover of the first edition
'''from Race, Evolution, and Behavior'''
| author=]
|-
| country=United States
| || Blacks || Whites || Orientals¹
| language=English
|-
| subjects=]<br />]<br />]
| colspan=4 | '''Brain size'''
| publisher=Transaction Books, later The Charles Darwin Research Institute
|-
| pub_date=1995, 1997, 2000
| ] || 1,267 || 1,347 || 1,364
| media_type=Print (] and ])
|-
| pages=388
| Cortical neurons (millions) || 13,185 || 13,665 || 13,767
| isbn=978-0-9656836-1-6
|-
}}
| colspan=4 | '''Intelligence'''
|-
| ] test scores || 85 || 100 || 106
|-
|-
| Cultural achievements || Low || High || High
|-
| colspan=4 | '''Reproduction'''
|-
| ] (per 1000 births) || 16 || 8 || 4
|-
| Hormone levels || Higher || Intermediate || Lower
|-
| Sex characteristics || Larger || Intermediate || Smaller
|-
| Intercourse frequencies|| Higher || Intermediate || Lower
|-
| Permissive attitudes|| Higher || Intermediate || Lower
|-
| Sexually transmitted diseases|| Higher || Intermediate || Lower
|-
| colspan=4 | '''Personality'''
|-
| ] || Higher || Intermediate || Lower
|-
| ] || Lower || Intermediate || Higher
|-
| Impulsivity || Higher || Intermediate || Lower
|-
| ] || Higher || Intermediate || Lower
|-
| Sociability || Higher || Intermediate || Lower
|-
| colspan=4 | '''Maturation'''
|-
| ] time || Shorter || Longer || Longer
|-
| Skeletal development || Earlier || Intermediate || Later
|-
| Motor development || Earlier || Intermediate || Later
|-
| Dental development || Earlier || Intermediate || Later
|-
| Age of first intercourse || Earlier || Intermediate || Later
|-
| Age of first ] || Earlier || Intermediate || Later
|-
| Lifespan || Shorter || Intermediate || Longer
|-
| colspan=4 | '''Social organization'''
|-
| Marital stability || Lower || Intermediate || Higher
|-
| Law abidingness || Lower || Intermediate || Higher
|-
| ] || Low || Intermediate || Higher
|-
| colspan=4 align=right | Source: Unabridged edition, ''Race, Evolution, and Behavior (p. 5).
|}
</div>


'''''Race, Evolution And Behavior: A Life History Perspective''''' is a controversial book written by ] in which he claims that race is a valid biological concept and that racial differences frequently arrange in a continuum of ] (Orientals, East Asians) at one extreme, ] (blacks, Africans) at the opposite extreme, and ] (whites, Europeans) in the middle.<ref name=reb2ndabridged>{{cite book '''''Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective''''' is a book by Canadian psychologist and author ]. Rushton was a professor of ] at the ] for many years, and the head of the controversial ]. The first unabridged edition of the book came out in 1995, and the third, latest unabridged edition came out in 2000; abridged versions were also distributed.
| author = Rushton, J. P.
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| year = 1995
| month =
| title = Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective
| chapter =
| editor =
| others =
| edition = 2nd special abridged edition
| pages =
| publisher = Charles Darwin Research Institute
| location = Port Huron, MI
| id =
| url = http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf }}</ref> Rushton's book is focused on what he considers the three broadest racial groups, and does not address other populations such as South East Asians or Australian aboriginals. The book grew out of his earlier paper, ''Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits (With Reference to Oriental<ref>Rushton has sometimes been criticized for using the word "Oriental", when most North Americans use the term "Asian" instead. Since the 1990s, Asian American activists have begun campaigns to stop people from using the word ''Oriental'', claiming the term has offensive connotations. However, the term is widely used non-pejoratively in Great Britain to denote people of Chinese, Japanese, or Korean ancestry, since the term "Asian" there has historically referred to people from the ].</ref>-White-Black Difference)''.<ref>Presented at the Symposium on Evolutionary Theory, Economics and Political Science, AAAS Annual Meeting (San Francisco, CA, ], ])</ref>


Rushton argues that ] is a valid ] concept and that ] frequently range in a continuum across 60 different behavioral and anatomical variables, with ] (]) at one end of the continuum, ] (]) at the opposite extreme, and ] (]) in the middle.<ref name=reb2ndabridged>{{cite book
The 1st unabridged edition was published in 1995 and the 2nd unabridged edition was published in 1997.
| author = Rushton, J. P.
| year = 1995
| title = Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective
| edition = 2nd special abridged
| publisher = Charles Darwin Research Institute
| location = Port Huron, MI
| isbn = 1-56000-320-0}}</ref>


The book was generally received negatively, its methodology and conclusions being criticized by many experts. The aggressive marketing strategy also received a lot of criticism. The book received positive reviews by some researchers, many of whom were personally associated with Rushton and with the ] which funded much of Rushton's research.<ref name=val53>{{cite book|first=Richard R.|last=Valencia|title=Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: educational thought and practice|publisher=Taylor & Francis|year=2010|page=53|isbn= 9780415877107}}</ref> The book has been examined as an example of Pioneer's funding of ],<ref name=val53/><ref name=tucker>{{cite book|author=William H. Tucker|title=The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C-jIEhfKPaYC|year=2002|publisher=University of Illinois Press|isbn=978-0-252-02762-8}}</ref> while psychologist ] has identified the book as part of a movement, begun in the 1990s, to promote a racial agenda in social policy.<ref name=Howe>{{cite book|first=Michael J. A|last=Howe|title=IQ in question: the truth about intelligence|url=https://archive.org/details/iqinquestiontrut0000howe|url-access=registration|year=1997|publisher=Sage|isbn=9781446264461}}</ref>
The 1st abridged edition published under the ''Transaction Press'' name in 1999 caused considerable controversy. The 2nd abridged edition was published under the name of ''The Charles Darwin Research Institute'' in 2000, and contained some response to the criticism of the 1st abridged edition. (see ] below)


==Summary== == Summary ==
The book grew out of Rushton's 1989 paper, "Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits (With Reference to Oriental-White-Black Difference)".<ref>Presented at the Symposium on Evolutionary Theory, Economics and Political Science, AAAS Annual Meeting (San Francisco, CA, January 19, 1989)</ref> The 1st unabridged edition was published in 1995, the 2nd unabridged edition in 1997, and the 3rd unabridged edition in 2000.
Rushton argues that Mongoloids, Caucasoids, and Negroids fall consistently into the same one-two-three pattern when compared on a list of 60 different behavioral and anatomical variables. (Rushton's 2000 book, like other population history works (e.g. Cavalli-Sforza 1994) uses the terms ''Mongoloid'', ''Caucasoid'', and ''Negroid'' to describe these groups broadly conceived, but these terms have have since been replaced in the scientific literature - the MeSH terminology as of 2004 is ''Asian Continental Ancestry Group'', ''African Continental Ancestry Group'' and ''European Continental Ancestry Group''.)<ref>
The decline in usage of these terms can be seen year by year in a ] search, and the change of terms can be seen in, for example, the US National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), which in deleted the ''-oids'' (as well as terms such as ''Black'' and ''White'') in favor of terms such as ''African Continental Ancestry Group'':


Rushton argues that Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid populations fall consistently into the same one-two-three way pattern when compared on a list of sixty distinctly different behavioral and anatomical traits and variables.<ref>
<blockquote>''The MeSH descriptor Racial Stocks,and its four children (Australoid Race, Caucasoid Race, Mongoloid Race, and Negroid Race) have been deleted from MeSH in 2004 along with Blacks and Whites. Race and ethnicity have been used as categories in biomedical research and clinical medicine. Recent genetic research indicates that the degree of genetic heterogeneity within groups and homogeneity across groups make race per se a less compelling predictor.'' </blockquote></ref>
The terms ''Mongoloid'', ''Caucasoid'', and ''Negroid'' used by Rushton (2000) was in wide use in mainstream literature until the 1990s at least, e.g. by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Since the 2000s, these terms have been deprecated in by some authorities. For example, the recommended ] as of 2004 was "Oriental Continental Ancestry Group, "African Continental Ancestry Group" and "European Continental Ancestry Group" for "Mongoloid", "Caucasoid" and "Negroid", respectively.<!--The decline in usage of these terms can be seen year by year in a ] search, and the change of terms can be seen in, for example, the US National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), which in deleted the ''-oids'' (as well as terms such as ''Black'' and ''White'') in favor of terms such as ''African Continental Ancestry Group'':--> '' Race and ethnicity have been used as categories in biomedical research and clinical medicine. Recent genetic research indicates that the degree of genetic heterogeneity within groups and homogeneity across groups make race per se a less compelling predictor.''</ref>
Rushton uses averages of hundreds of studies, modern and historical, to assert the existence of this pattern.


The book argues that Mongoloids, on average, are at one end of a continuum, that Negroids, on average, are at the opposite end of that continuum, and that Caucasoids rank in between Mongoloids and Negroids, but closer to Mongoloids. His continuum includes both external physical characteristics and personality traits. Rushton uses averages of hundreds of studies, modern and historical, to assert the existence of this pattern. Rushton's book is focused on what he considers the three broadest racial groups, and does not address other populations such as ]s and ]. The book argues that Mongoloids, on average, are at one end of a continuum, that Negroids, on average, are at the opposite end of that continuum, and that Caucasoids rank in between Mongoloids and Negroids, but closer to Mongoloids. His continuum includes both external physical characteristics and personality traits.<ref name=reb2ndabridged/>


=== Differential ''K'' theory ===
Citing genetic research by ], the ] hypothesis, and the ] theory, Rushton concludes that Negroids branched off first (200,000 years ago, Caucasoids second 110,000 years ago, and Mongoloids last 41,000 years ago), arguing that throughout all of evolution, more ancient forms of life (i.e. plants, bacteria, reptiles) are less evolved than more recent forms of life (i.e. mammals, primates, humans) and that the much smaller variation in the races is consistent with this trend. "One theoretical possibility," said Rushton "is that evolution is progressive and that some populations are more advanced than others" Rushton argues that this first, second, and third chronological sequence perfectly correlates with, and is responsible for, a consistent global multi-dimensional racial pattern on everything from worldwide crime statistics, the global distribution of AIDS, to personality.
{{main|Differential K theory}}
Differential ''K'' theory is a debunked theory proposed by Rushton,<ref>{{cite journal|last=Rushton|first=J. Philippe|author-link=J. Philippe Rushton|title=Differential ''K'' theory: The sociobiology of individual and group differences|journal=Personality and Individual Differences|date=January 1985|volume=6|issue=4|pages=441–452|doi=10.1016/0191-8869(85)90137-0}}</ref> which attempts to apply ] to ]. According to Rushton, this theory explains race differences in fertility, IQ, criminality, and sexual anatomy and behavior.<ref name=weizmann1>{{cite journal|last1=Weizmann|first1=Fredric|last2=Wiener|first2=Neil I.|last3=Wiesenthal|first3=David L.|last4=Ziegler|first4=Michael|title=Differential ''K'' theory and racial hierarchies.|journal=Canadian Psychology|date=1990|volume=31|issue=1|pages=1–13|doi=10.1037/h0078934}}</ref> The theory also hypothesizes that a single factor, the "''K'' factor", affects multiple population statistics Rushton referred to as "life-history traits".<ref name=templer>{{cite journal|last=Templer|first=Donald I.|author-link=Donald Templer|title=Correlational and factor analytic support for Rushton's differential ''K'' life history theory|journal=Personality and Individual Differences|date=October 2008|volume=45|issue=6|pages=440–444|doi=10.1016/j.paid.2008.05.010}}</ref>


This theory has been widely rejected as unscientific or ]. Rushton's work includes logical errors, cites poor-quality sources, ], and cites sources which Rushton had misinterpreted or misunderstood.<ref name=weizmann1/><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Anderson|first1=Judith L.|title=Rushton's racial comparisons: An ecological critique of theory and method.|journal=Canadian Psychology|date=1991|volume=32|issue=1|pages=51–62|doi=10.1037/h0078956}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Statement from the Department of Psychology regarding research conducted by Dr. J. Philippe Rushton |url=https://psychology.uwo.ca/people/faculty/remembrance/rushton.html |website=Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Miller|first=Edward M.|authorlink=Edward M. Miller|title=Environmental variability selects for large families only in special circumstances: Another objection to differential ''K'' theory|journal=Personality and Individual Differences|date=December 1995|volume=19|issue=6|pages=903–918|doi=10.1016/S0191-8869(95)00126-3}}</ref>
]


== Responses ==
Rushton says that his collection of 60 different variables can be unified by a single evolutionary dimension known as the r and K scale. His theory attempts to apply the inter-species ] to the much smaller inter-racial differences within the human species. While all humans display extremely ] behavior, Rushton believes the races vary in the degree to which they exhibit that behavior. He asserts that Negroids use a strategy more toward an ] strategy (produce more offspring, but provide less care for them) while Mongoloids use the K strategy most (produce fewer offspring but provide more care for them), with Caucasoids exhibiting intermediate tendencies in this area. He further asserts that Caucasoids evolved more toward a K-selected breeding strategy than Negroids because of the harsher and colder weather encountered in Europe, while the same held true to a greater extent for Mongoloids. Rushton argues that the survival challenges of making warm clothes, building durable shelter, preserving food, and strategically hunting large animals all selected genes for greater intelligence and social organization among the populations that migrated to cold climates.
According to Richard R. Valencia, the response to the first edition of Rushton's book was "overwhelmingly negative", with only a small number of supporters, many being, like Rushton, Pioneer Fund grantees, such as psychologists ], ], ], and ].<ref name=val>{{cite book|first=Richard R.|last=Valencia|title=Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: educational thought and practice|publisher=Taylor & Francis|year=2010|page=55|isbn= 9780415877107}}</ref>


Valencia identified the main areas of criticism as focusing on Rushton's use of "race" as a biological concept, a failure to appreciate the extent of variation within populations compared with that between populations, a false separation of genetics and environment, poor statistical methodology, a failure to consider alternative hypotheses, and the use of unreliable and inappropriate data to draw conclusions about the relationship between brain size and intelligence. According to Valencia, "experts in life history conclude that Rushton's (1995) work is pseudoscientific and racist."
Rushton invokes genetics to explain his data arguing that purely environmental theories fail to elegantly explain what he sees as such a consistent pattern of both behavioral and physiological differences, but instead just provide a long list of ad hoc explanations. Rushton argues that science strives to organize and simplify data, and seeks the simplest explanation possible, and claims that ] explains all his data quite parsimoniously.


A more favorable review of the book came from Gottfredson, who wrote in '']'' that the book "confronts us as few books have with the dilemmas wrought in a democratic society by individual and group differences in key human traits".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Gottfredson |first=Linda |date=March 1996 |title=Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective |url=https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1996reviewRushton.pdf |journal=Politics and the Life Sciences}}</ref> Another favorable review of the book appeared in the '']''.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1994/10/16/calling-all-crackpots/68f3742a-3b1e-46b5-aedf-b8c0f21a5cf4/|title=Calling All Crackpots|last=Lind|first=Michael|date=1994-10-16|newspaper=Washington Post|accessdate=2017-11-09|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286}}</ref>
==Critiques==
===Validity of the methodology of aggregation===
In ''Race, Evolution and Behavior'', Rushton uses a methodology he calls "aggregation" of evidence, in which he averages hundreds of studies, modern and historical, with equal weight regardless of the quality of the data to demonstrate the racial patterns he asserts. He says that by averaging many studies the results one gets can be very accurate. He argues that measurement errors typically cancel out when multiple studies are averaged, and that his approach is less biased than the work of researchers who selectively pick and choose from the worldwide literature based on critical analysis.


] (1996) argued that in claiming the existence of "major races", and that these categories reflected large biological differences, "Rushton moves in the opposite direction from the entire development of physical anthropology and human genetics for the last thirty years. Anthropologists no longer regard "race" as a useful concept in understanding human evolution and variation."<ref>{{cite journal |title=Review: Of Genes and Genitals |journal=Transition |issue=69 |pages=178–193 |year=1996 |jstor=2935246}}</ref> The anthropologist ] (1996) concurred, stating that the book was an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy of ']'".<ref name=brace>{{cite journal |title=Review: Racialism and Racist Agendas |journal=American Anthropologist |series=New Series |volume=98 |issue=1 |pages=176–7 |date=March 1996 |jstor=682972 |doi=10.1525/aa.1996.98.1.02a00250}}</ref> Similarly, anthropologist ] (1995) criticized Rushton's model as "faulty at many points."<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Relethford|first1=John H.|title=Race, evolution, and behavior: A life history perspective. By J. Philippe Rushton. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. 1995. 334 pp.|isbn=1-56000-146-1|journal=American Journal of Physical Anthropology|date=September 1995|volume=98|issue=1|pages=|doi=10.1002/ajpa.1330980110|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/raceevolutionbeh0000rush/page/91}}</ref>
A number of scientists however find sufficient problems with his methodology to completely dismiss his conclusions. Douglas Wahlsten, a biologist, criticized Rushton's book in a review writing:


== Mailing controversy ==
<blockquote>''averaging does nothing to reduce bias in sampling and measurement, and such flaws are abundant in the cited literature. For example, among the 38 reports on brain weight, all but two gave figures for only one group, with most cases being people living in the nation of their ancestors, such as an article on Japanese living in Japan and another on Kenyans living in Kenya. The obvious differences in environment make all of these data of dubious worth for testing hypotheses about genetic causes of group differences.''<ref name=rebreview></ref></blockquote>
The first special abridged edition published under the Transaction Press name in 1999 caused considerable controversy when 40,000 copies were "mailed, unsolicited, to ], ], and ], many of whom were angered when they discovered that their identities and addresses had been obtained from their respective professional associations' mailing lists."<ref name=weizmann>{{cite journal |author=Weizmann, Fredric |title=Race, Evolution, and Behaviour: A Life History Perspective (Review) |journal=Canadian Psychology |date=November 2001 |doi=10.1037/h0088141 |url=http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3711/is_200111/ai_n9007738}}</ref> The director of Transaction Press ], although he had defended the original edition of the book, "condemned the abridged edition as a 'pamphlet' that he had never seen or approved prior to its publication."<ref name=weizmann/> A subsequent 2nd special abridged edition was published in 2000 with a rejoinder to Horowitz's criticisms under a new entity called ''The Charles Darwin Research Institute''.<ref name=weizmann/>


According to Tucker, many academics who received the book unsolicited were outraged at its content, calling it "racial pornography" and a "vile piece of work"; at least one insisting on returning it to the publisher.<ref name=tucker/> Hermann Helmuth, a professor of anthropology at Trent University, said, "It is in a way personal and political propaganda. There is no basis to his scientific research."<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110515022349/http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/2000/February/1/News3.htm |date=May 15, 2011}} Psych prof accused of racism</ref>
Wahlsten also further criticizes Rushton's particular use of data in the same book review:


== As an example of Pioneer Fund activity ==
<blockquote>''The author is an earnest believer in genetically determined race differences, and he vows to cling tenaciously to his world view unless his opponents can provide conclusive proof to the contrary. In my opinion, this is the kind of approach to be expected from religious zealots and politicians, not professional scientists. A rigorous evaluation of the evidence cited by Rushton reveals the methods in most studies were seriously flawed and render the data inconclusive. If the evidence is so poor, the proper action for a scientist is to suspend judgment. In reality, there is not one properly controlled study of brain size comparing representative samples of races in the entire world literature.''<ref name=rebreview/></blockquote>
''Race, Evolution, and Behavior'' has been cited as an example of the ]'s activities in promoting ]. Valencia notes that many of the supportive comments for the book come from Pioneer grantees like Rushton himself, and that a 100,000 copy print-run of the third edition was financed by Pioneer.<ref name=val/> The book is cited by psychologist ] as an example of the Pioneer Fund's continued role "to subsidize the creation and distribution of literature to support racial superiority and racial purity." The mass distribution of the abridged third edition he described as part of a "public relations effort", and "the latest attempt to convince the nation of 'the completely different nature' of blacks and whites." He notes that bulk rates were offered "for distribution to media figures, especially columnists who write on race issues".<ref name=tucker/>


== Reviews ==
As Wahlsten points out, Rushton's only defense of his methodology is challenging his critics to explain how his averaging all the studies in the world-wide literature has produced a pattern on such a diverse collection of variables with Negroids and Mongoloids falling so persistently at opposite extremes and Caucasoids ''always'' in the middle. Rushton dismisses any critical analysis of the data he has used, and instead suggests that the onus is on his critics to gather new data using modern techniques. Rushton has stated, "Identifying potential problems in particular studies should lead to calls for additional research, not trenchant acceptance of the null hypothesis. Deconstructing data has led to erroneous dismissal of fascinating brain-behavior relationships for six decades."
* , ''The New York Times''' review of ''Race, Evolution, and Behavior'', ''The Decline of Intelligence in America'', and ''The Bell Curve''.
* , by Glayde Whitney, published in ''Contemporary Psychology'', December 1996, pp.&nbsp;1189–1191.
* , by Henry Harpending, published in ''Evolutionary Anthropology'', 1995.
* {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303170912/http://www.ferris.edu/isar/Institut/pioneer/rushton.htm |date=2016-03-03 }}, discussing the links of the ] to the distribution and positive reviews for ''Race, Evolution and Behavior''.
* , by Irving Louis Horowitz in Society, Jan-Feb 1995 v32 n2.


== See also ==
David P. Barash also harshly criticises the 'principle of aggregation' in his review:
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== References ==
<blockquote>''...Rushton argues at length for what he calls the 'principle of aggregation', which in his hands, means the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit''</blockquote>
{{reflist|2}}


== External links ==
In a 1996 review of the book, anthropologist ] wrote that "''Race, Evolution, and Behavior'' is an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy of ']'" (Brace 1996). Brace argues that Rushton assumes the existence of three biological races with no evidence except Rushton's speculation as to what an extraterrestrial visitor to Earth would think. Brace also disagrees with Rushton applying the concept of heritability (normally applied in the context of individuals) to groups. Finally, Brace claims Rushton makes unsupported claims about sub-Saharan African societies.
* - Copy of the 2nd Special Abridged Edition that the author put on his personal website
{{Authority control}}


]
Other critics have also charged that his interpretations, conclusions and methods are "sloppy" and "unscientific"<ref></ref>.
]

]
===Validity of the concept of race===
]
{{main|Race}}
]
Ongoing debate exists over the merit of the concept of 'race', especially from the perspective of genetics. Many scientists argue that common racial classifications are insufficient, inaccurate, or biologically meaningless.<ref>Smedley and Smedley 2005; Helms et al. 2005; </ref> For example, Lewontin (1972) argues that there is no biological basis for race on the basis of research indicating that more genetic variation exists within such races than between them. Others assert that while this is correct for single variables, when taking multiple variables data often cluster together according to traditional racial classifications (see ]). Whether or not such clusters are valid indicators of real difference, or simply artificially introduced statistical artifacts is a matter of significant debate.
]

]
Defenders of Rushton's book, such as ], argue that race is a valid biological categorization. ], whose genetic research is cited in ''Race, Evolution and Behavior''<ref name=reb2ndabridged/>, considers all racial classifications to be arbitrary. Rushton, however, argues that the genetic linkage trees that ] provides clearly show distinct branches for all the three main races he describes. Gil-White, responding to these claims wrote:
]

]
<blockquote>''Cavalli-Sforza’s trees show, for any geographically defined human population (say, North Asians) whether it is genetically closer to a second population (e.g. South Asians) than it is to a third (e.g. Europeans). But what these trees lack entirely is any information concerning the magnitude and sharpness of the differences between any two populations, and it is precisely this information that is needed to decide if a population is a biological race.''</blockquote>
]

]
<blockquote>''To see this a little better, consider the following. It stands to reason that my brother and I are more genetically similar than either of us is to our third cousin, but that hardly means my brother and I are in one race, and our third cousin in another. The same is true with populations. Cavalli-Sforza’s trees are a bit like the genealogical tree that would show my brother and I as more closely related to each other than to our third cousin: they show that two local populations are more genetically similar than either is to a third population which is farther away. However, these trees include no information about the magnitude of genetic differences between populations, which is why they can neither support nor undermine the claim that biological human races exist.''<ref> by Francisco Gil-White</ref></blockquote>

Despite the numerous scientific studies<ref>Various studies contradicting Rushton's work:
*http://ant.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/2/2/131
*http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14992214&dopt=Citation
*http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1488860&dopt=Citation
*http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/miller-r-personality
*http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Library/Miller/env-vary.html
*http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://els/10905138/2003/00000024/00000005/art00040&unc=
*http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/RUSHRV.htm
*http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15638207&dopt=Citation
*http://www.getcited.org/pub/103361483
*http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9626146&dopt=Citation
*http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr52_10t50.pdf</ref> whose results contradict Rushton's basic claims in ''Race, Evolution and Behavior'',<ref name=reb2ndabridged/> supporters of Rushton assert that his focus on race is consistent with the work of forensic experts, research in bio-medicine, and biologists studying geographic variation in other species.

===Native American exception===
Rushton's hypothesis described in ''Race, Evolution and Behavior''<ref name=reb2ndabridged/> has difficulty explaining why ], who are arguably Mongoloids and emigrated from the northernmost parts of Asia, do not currently have high scores on IQ tests or low crime rates, though their large crania are consistent with Rushton's model.<ref>, Dr. C. Loring Brace</ref> Defenders of Rushton argue that genetic evidence suggests that Native Americans are an archaic form of Asian, and thus may not be quite as advanced as the rest of the Asian race.

===The Flynn effect===
{{verify}}
The most serious challenge to Rushton's aggregated data on IQ scores in ''Race, Evolution and Behavior''<ref name=reb2ndabridged/> concerns the ] and the now well-documented fact that industrialization and urbanization causes the average IQ of entire countries to rise very significantly over decades. In the Rising Curve, James Flynn argues that whites born in the 19th century were scoring lower not only than contemporary African Americans but obtaining scores perhaps even lower than some contemporary black populations in the third world. This directly contradicts Rushton's claim that Negroids are lower on the IQ scale than Caucasoids.<ref name=weizmann/>

Rushton has responded to the Flynn Effect by arguing that the low IQ's of pre-WWII whites have little to do with general intelligence (the ]), whereas the low IQ's obtained by contemporary blacks (even in the third world) are valid reflections of cognitive functioning. Defending his position, Rushton wrote:

<blockquote>''principal components analysis shows that whereas the IQ gains over time on the WISC-R and the WISC-III do cluster, suggesting they are a reliable phenomenon, they are independent of the cluster of Black-White differences, inbreeding depression scores, and g factor loadings''</blockquote>

Skeptics find that defense particularly weak, finding no reason to believe that a set of results that contradicts his hypothesis should be dismissed.

===Inappropriate application of r/K===
Psychologist Zack Cernovsky offers criticism of Rushton's application of r/K dimensions:

<blockquote>''The r/K dimension is derived from an extremely wide range of species. Its dogmatic application to the drastically reduced variance within contemporary Homo sapiens is statistically naive (for more detailed explanations, see Cernovsky, at 1992). It is not even necessary to be a competent statistician to avoid similar errors. If Rushton (1988, 1990a) could heed Jerison's (1973) warning that racial differences in brain size are at most minor and "probably of no significance for intellectual differences," he would not attempt to extend Jerison' s findings across species to subgroups within modern mankind. Instead, Rushton (1991) misleadingly refers to Jerison in a manner that implies an expert support from this famous comparative neuropsychologist, without mentioning their disagreement on the most central issue.''<ref> Vol. 25, Journal of Black Studies, 07-01-1995, pp 672.</ref></blockquote>

==Controversy and criticism==
Popular science commentator ] protested Rushton's racial theories and spoke out against Rushton in a live televised debate at the ]. "There will always be Rushtons in science," Suzuki said "and we must always be prepared to root them out!". Rushton is accused by critics of advocating a new ] movement,<ref></ref> and is openly praised by proponents of eugenics.<ref>http://www.eugenics.net/ Website including prominent reference to Rushton's works</ref>

After mass mailing his book to psychology, sociology and anthropology professors across North America based on his racial papers, Hermann Helmuth, a professor of anthropology at Trent University, said, "It is in a way personal and political propaganda. There is no basis to his scientific research."<ref> Psych prof accused of racism</ref>

] wrote disparagingly of ''Race, Evolution and Behavior'', stating, "Race, Evolution, and Behavior is a tiny, self-published book (a pamphlet, really), that Rushton takes the trouble to mail to people who never requested a copy, such as myself."<ref>, Francisco Gil-White.</ref>

Rushton's sources, such as semi-pornographic books and the ] magazine, have been dismissed by other researchers, or have been criticized as extremely biased and inadequate reviews of the literature, or simply false . There have also been many other criticisms of the theory . Some recent data show that blacks are not more psychopathic , nor do they differ from whites when testing for the ] , differences in sex hormones between whites and East Asians are best explained by environmental differences , and the fundamental prediction of the theory that blacks have a higher frequency of twins is disputed by some sources . However, the rate of twin births in the US has doubled since 1971, the time of the study Rushton cited, due to older mothers (for which twin births are naturally more common) and fertility treatments, both demographic characteristics that are more common among Whites.

===Professional opinions===
====Favorable====
Psychologist and ] scholar ] said:

<blockquote>''This brilliant book is the most impressive theory-based study...of the psychological and behavioral differences between the major racial groups that I have encountered in the world literature on this subject.''{{fact}}</blockquote>

====Unfavorable====
Psychologist and ] Researcher David P. Barash wrote in a scholarly review of ''Race, Evolution and Behavior''<ref name=reb2ndabridged/>:

<blockquote>''I don't know which is worse, Rushton's scientific failings or his blatant racism. At least Rushton has a theory, namely, r- and K-selection. In brief, he argues that `Negroids' are relatively r-selected, `Mongoloids' K-selected, and `Caucasoids' in between. All racial distinctions are then seen to derive from this grand pattern, from differences in genital anatomy, to reproductive regimes, to IQ, etc. He even points to the higher frequency of low birth weight babies among black Americans, data that are undeniably consistent with an r-selection regime, but which might also be attributed to poor nutrition and insufficient prenatal care, and which, not coincidentally, have other implications for behaviour, IQ not the least. I suspect that r- and K-selection does in fact have some relevance to variations in human behaviour, notably the so-called demographic transition, whereby economic development characteristically leads to reduced family size, and, moreover, a greater reliance on a variety of `K-type' traits. But this is a pan-human phenomenon, a flexible, adaptive response to changed environmental conditions of lowered mortality and greater pay-off attendant upon concentrating parental investment in a smaller number of offspring Rushton wields r- and K-selection as a Procrustean bed, doing what he can to make the available data fit. Bad science and virulent racial prejudice drip like pus from nearly every page of this despicable book"''<ref>Barash D.P (1995) Book review: Race, Evolution, and Behavior. ''Animal Behaviour'' '''49''':1131-1133.</ref></blockquote>

Humanities educator Dr. Barry Mehler <ref>Resume of Dr. Barry Mehler at Ferris State University http://www.ferris.edu/isar/resume.htm</ref>, wrote critically of Rushton's book, stating:

<blockquote>''"Rushton's theories are a bizarre mélange of nineteenth century anthro-pometrism and twentieth century eugenics. Although there is no evidence showing different cranial sizes between races, Rushton has cited the genetic distance studies of Allen Wilson of the University of California to claim that Africans have smaller brains and are more primitive than whites and orientals, who evolved to cope with the more demanding northern climes. Wilson commented: 'He is misrepresenting our findings'. These 'show that Asians are as closely related to modern Africans as Europeans are'. When asked if he was aware of any anthropological evidence at all that might support Rushton's claim, he replied, 'I'm not aware of any such evidence. The claim shocks and dismays me'.''<ref> by Dr. Barry Mehler</ref></blockquote>

Dr. Marcus W. Feldman <ref>http://www-evo.stanford.edu/marc.html</ref>, Stanford University Population Biologist and recognized authority on r/K selection theory, claims that r/K is "absolutely inapplicable" to differences between humans.

Leonard Lieberman, professor of Anthropology at Central Michigan University wrote regarding Rushton's book:

<blockquote>''"Rushton seldom carries out direct measurements and does not adequately explain his selective use of the research and writing of others."''<ref></ref></blockquote>

===Mailing Controversy===
The 1st special abridged edition published under the Transaction Press name in 1999 caused considerable controversy when 40,000 copies were "mailed, unsolicited, to psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists, many of whom were angered when they discovered that their identities and addresses had been obtained from their respective professional associations' mailing lists."<ref name=weizmann> Canadian Psychology, Nov 2001, by Fredric Weizmann</ref> The director of Transaction Press, Irving Louis Horowitz "condemned the abridged edition as a 'pamphlet' that he had never seen or approved prior to its publication."<ref name=weizmann/> A subsequent 2nd special abridged edition was published in 2000 with a rejoinder to Horowitz's criticisms under a new entity called ''The Charles Darwin Research Institute''.<ref name=weizmann/>

===Criticism===
* , discussing the paper presented in 1989 on which ''Race, Evolution and Behavior'' was based.
* , discussing the links of the ] to the distribution and positive reviews for ''Race, Evolution and Behavior''.
* , making note of links from pro-fascist Paul Fromm to the distribution of ''Race, Evolution and Behavior''.

* , by Irving Louis Horowitz in Society, Jan-Feb 1995 v32 n2

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
*]
* Gil-White, Francisco.

]

Latest revision as of 10:25, 3 January 2025

1995 book by J. Philippe Rushton
Race, Evolution and Behavior
Cover of the first edition
AuthorJ. Philippe Rushton
LanguageEnglish
SubjectsRace
Human evolution
Human intelligence
PublisherTransaction Books, later The Charles Darwin Research Institute
Publication date1995, 1997, 2000
Publication placeUnited States
Media typePrint (Hardcover and Paperback)
Pages388
ISBN978-0-9656836-1-6

Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective is a book by Canadian psychologist and author J. Philippe Rushton. Rushton was a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario for many years, and the head of the controversial Pioneer Fund. The first unabridged edition of the book came out in 1995, and the third, latest unabridged edition came out in 2000; abridged versions were also distributed.

Rushton argues that race is a valid biological concept and that racial differences frequently range in a continuum across 60 different behavioral and anatomical variables, with Mongoloids (East Asians) at one end of the continuum, Negroids (Sub-Saharan Black Africans) at the opposite extreme, and Caucasoids (Europeans) in the middle.

The book was generally received negatively, its methodology and conclusions being criticized by many experts. The aggressive marketing strategy also received a lot of criticism. The book received positive reviews by some researchers, many of whom were personally associated with Rushton and with the Pioneer Fund which funded much of Rushton's research. The book has been examined as an example of Pioneer's funding of scientific racism, while psychologist Michael Howe has identified the book as part of a movement, begun in the 1990s, to promote a racial agenda in social policy.

Summary

The book grew out of Rushton's 1989 paper, "Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits (With Reference to Oriental-White-Black Difference)". The 1st unabridged edition was published in 1995, the 2nd unabridged edition in 1997, and the 3rd unabridged edition in 2000.

Rushton argues that Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid populations fall consistently into the same one-two-three way pattern when compared on a list of sixty distinctly different behavioral and anatomical traits and variables.

Rushton uses averages of hundreds of studies, modern and historical, to assert the existence of this pattern. Rushton's book is focused on what he considers the three broadest racial groups, and does not address other populations such as Southeast Asians and Australian Aborigines. The book argues that Mongoloids, on average, are at one end of a continuum, that Negroids, on average, are at the opposite end of that continuum, and that Caucasoids rank in between Mongoloids and Negroids, but closer to Mongoloids. His continuum includes both external physical characteristics and personality traits.

Differential K theory

Main article: Differential K theory

Differential K theory is a debunked theory proposed by Rushton, which attempts to apply r/K selection theory to human races. According to Rushton, this theory explains race differences in fertility, IQ, criminality, and sexual anatomy and behavior. The theory also hypothesizes that a single factor, the "K factor", affects multiple population statistics Rushton referred to as "life-history traits".

This theory has been widely rejected as unscientific or pseudoscientific. Rushton's work includes logical errors, cites poor-quality sources, ignored contrary sources, and cites sources which Rushton had misinterpreted or misunderstood.

Responses

According to Richard R. Valencia, the response to the first edition of Rushton's book was "overwhelmingly negative", with only a small number of supporters, many being, like Rushton, Pioneer Fund grantees, such as psychologists Arthur Jensen, Michael Levin, Richard Lynn, and Linda Gottfredson.

Valencia identified the main areas of criticism as focusing on Rushton's use of "race" as a biological concept, a failure to appreciate the extent of variation within populations compared with that between populations, a false separation of genetics and environment, poor statistical methodology, a failure to consider alternative hypotheses, and the use of unreliable and inappropriate data to draw conclusions about the relationship between brain size and intelligence. According to Valencia, "experts in life history conclude that Rushton's (1995) work is pseudoscientific and racist."

A more favorable review of the book came from Gottfredson, who wrote in Politics and the Life Sciences that the book "confronts us as few books have with the dilemmas wrought in a democratic society by individual and group differences in key human traits". Another favorable review of the book appeared in the National Review.

Richard Lewontin (1996) argued that in claiming the existence of "major races", and that these categories reflected large biological differences, "Rushton moves in the opposite direction from the entire development of physical anthropology and human genetics for the last thirty years. Anthropologists no longer regard "race" as a useful concept in understanding human evolution and variation." The anthropologist C. Loring Brace (1996) concurred, stating that the book was an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy of 'racialism'". Similarly, anthropologist John Relethford (1995) criticized Rushton's model as "faulty at many points."

Mailing controversy

The first special abridged edition published under the Transaction Press name in 1999 caused considerable controversy when 40,000 copies were "mailed, unsolicited, to psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists, many of whom were angered when they discovered that their identities and addresses had been obtained from their respective professional associations' mailing lists." The director of Transaction Press Irving Louis Horowitz, although he had defended the original edition of the book, "condemned the abridged edition as a 'pamphlet' that he had never seen or approved prior to its publication." A subsequent 2nd special abridged edition was published in 2000 with a rejoinder to Horowitz's criticisms under a new entity called The Charles Darwin Research Institute.

According to Tucker, many academics who received the book unsolicited were outraged at its content, calling it "racial pornography" and a "vile piece of work"; at least one insisting on returning it to the publisher. Hermann Helmuth, a professor of anthropology at Trent University, said, "It is in a way personal and political propaganda. There is no basis to his scientific research."

As an example of Pioneer Fund activity

Race, Evolution, and Behavior has been cited as an example of the Pioneer Fund's activities in promoting scientific racism. Valencia notes that many of the supportive comments for the book come from Pioneer grantees like Rushton himself, and that a 100,000 copy print-run of the third edition was financed by Pioneer. The book is cited by psychologist William H. Tucker as an example of the Pioneer Fund's continued role "to subsidize the creation and distribution of literature to support racial superiority and racial purity." The mass distribution of the abridged third edition he described as part of a "public relations effort", and "the latest attempt to convince the nation of 'the completely different nature' of blacks and whites." He notes that bulk rates were offered "for distribution to media figures, especially columnists who write on race issues".

Reviews

See also

References

  1. ^ Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (2nd special abridged ed.). Port Huron, MI: Charles Darwin Research Institute. ISBN 1-56000-320-0.
  2. ^ Valencia, Richard R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: educational thought and practice. Taylor & Francis. p. 53. ISBN 9780415877107.
  3. ^ William H. Tucker (2002). The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-02762-8.
  4. Howe, Michael J. A (1997). IQ in question: the truth about intelligence. Sage. ISBN 9781446264461.
  5. Presented at the Symposium on Evolutionary Theory, Economics and Political Science, AAAS Annual Meeting (San Francisco, CA, January 19, 1989)
  6. The terms Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid used by Rushton (2000) was in wide use in mainstream literature until the 1990s at least, e.g. by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Since the 2000s, these terms have been deprecated in by some authorities. For example, the recommended Medical Subject Headings as of 2004 was "Oriental Continental Ancestry Group, "African Continental Ancestry Group" and "European Continental Ancestry Group" for "Mongoloid", "Caucasoid" and "Negroid", respectively. The MeSH descriptor Racial Stocks, and its four children (Australoid Race, Caucasoid Race, Mongoloid Race, and Negroid Race) have been deleted from MeSH in 2004 along with Blacks and Whites. Race and ethnicity have been used as categories in biomedical research and clinical medicine. Recent genetic research indicates that the degree of genetic heterogeneity within groups and homogeneity across groups make race per se a less compelling predictor.
  7. Rushton, J. Philippe (January 1985). "Differential K theory: The sociobiology of individual and group differences". Personality and Individual Differences. 6 (4): 441–452. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(85)90137-0.
  8. ^ Weizmann, Fredric; Wiener, Neil I.; Wiesenthal, David L.; Ziegler, Michael (1990). "Differential K theory and racial hierarchies". Canadian Psychology. 31 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1037/h0078934.
  9. Templer, Donald I. (October 2008). "Correlational and factor analytic support for Rushton's differential K life history theory". Personality and Individual Differences. 45 (6): 440–444. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.05.010.
  10. Anderson, Judith L. (1991). "Rushton's racial comparisons: An ecological critique of theory and method". Canadian Psychology. 32 (1): 51–62. doi:10.1037/h0078956.
  11. "Statement from the Department of Psychology regarding research conducted by Dr. J. Philippe Rushton". Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario.
  12. Miller, Edward M. (December 1995). "Environmental variability selects for large families only in special circumstances: Another objection to differential K theory". Personality and Individual Differences. 19 (6): 903–918. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(95)00126-3.
  13. ^ Valencia, Richard R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: educational thought and practice. Taylor & Francis. p. 55. ISBN 9780415877107.
  14. Gottfredson, Linda (March 1996). "Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective" (PDF). Politics and the Life Sciences.
  15. Lind, Michael (1994-10-16). "Calling All Crackpots". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2017-11-09.
  16. "Review: Of Genes and Genitals". Transition (69): 178–193. 1996. JSTOR 2935246.
  17. "Review: Racialism and Racist Agendas". American Anthropologist. New Series. 98 (1): 176–7. March 1996. doi:10.1525/aa.1996.98.1.02a00250. JSTOR 682972.
  18. Relethford, John H. (September 1995). "Race, evolution, and behavior: A life history perspective. By J. Philippe Rushton. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. 1995. 334 pp". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 98 (1): 91–94. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330980110. ISBN 1-56000-146-1.
  19. ^ Weizmann, Fredric (November 2001). "Race, Evolution, and Behaviour: A Life History Perspective (Review)". Canadian Psychology. doi:10.1037/h0088141.
  20. UWO Gazette Volume 93, Issue 68 Tuesday, February 1, 2000 Archived May 15, 2011, at the Wayback Machine Psych prof accused of racism

External links

Categories: