This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JereKrischel (talk | contribs) at 04:38, 20 June 2006 (adding Charles Murray). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Professor John Philippe (Phil) Rushton Ph.D , D.Sc (born December 3, 1943) is a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, Canada, best known for his controversial work on racial differences.

Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London, and is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American (APA), British (BPS), and Canadian Psychological Associations, and was a fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation in 1988. He is the current head of the Pioneer Fund.

Biography

Born in Bournemouth, England, Rushton's father was a building contractor, while his mother was French and gave him his middle name. Rushton was raised in South Africa during the reign of white-dominance and apartheid. Rushton received a B.Sc in psychology from Birbeck College at the University of London in 1970 and in 1973 received his Ph.D from the London School of Economics for his work on altruism in children. He then moved to the University of Oxford where he continued his work until 1974.

Rushton taught at York University in Canada from 1974-1976 and the University of Toronto until 1977. He then moved to the University of Western Ontario, and was made a full professor there in 1985. He received his D.Sc. from London in 1992.

Rushton has published more than 100 papers and articles, written a number of books, including a pair on altruism, one on 'scientific excellence', and a psychology text (co-authored). In 1988 he was awarded a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship. Following his work on behavioral genetics and sociobiology Rushton began studying racial differences.

Specific works

Genetic similarity hypothesis

Rushton began his career with studies on altruism. He has hypothesized a heritable component in altruism and is the creator of the Genetic Similarity Theory, which states that individuals tend to be more altruistic to individuals who are genetically similar to themselves, and less altruistic, and sometimes outwardly hostile to individuals who are less genetically similar. Rushton describes "ethnic conflict and rivalry" as "one of the great themes of historical and contemporary society" and suggests that it may have its roots in the evolutionary impact of individual from groups "giving preferential treatment to genetically similar others". Rushton argues that "the makeup of a gene pool causally affects the probability of any particular ideology being adopted". Foreshadowing the massive controversy that would erupt over his later racial theories, Rushton writes "religious, political, and other ideological battles may become as heated as they do because they have implications for genetic fitness".

Critiques

In order for Rushton's theory to be plausible, one must believe that individuals can discern genetic similarities and differences. Population geneticists, such as Cavalli-Sforza, have found that genetic differences within superficially identifiable groups (various "races") are in fact of much greater magnitude than genetic differences between such groups. This challenges Rushton's hypothesis by denying him a mechanism by which individuals can accurately determine who is more and who is less genetically similar.

His hypothesis is also challenged by counter examples indicating hostility between genetically similar groups, and peace between genetically different groups. A critique by John Tooby & Leda Cosmides stated, "For example, immigrants originally from neighboring villages in Italy were prevented from working together because of the serious violence that would erupt; yet these same individuals lived peacefully among Chinese immigrants (Sowell 1981)."

Race evolution hypothesis

Rushton wrote the book Race, Evolution And Behavior: A Life History Perspective, in which he outlines an extremely controversial theory of virtually every aspect of human nature and the course of world history. Rushton claims that there are three main "races" of human-kind, Mongoloids (i.e. Orientals), Caucasoids (i.e. whites), and Negroids (i.e. blacks). He further asserts that these group fall persistently and repeatedly into the same one-two-three pattern when compared on a list of 60 different behavioral and anatomical variables.

The book grew out of his earlier paper, Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits (With Reference to Oriental-White-Black Difference), which was presented at the Symposium on Evolutionary Theory, Economics and Political Science, AAAS Annual Meeting (San Francisco, CA, January 19, 1989).

The book claims 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.

Citing genetic research by Cavalli-Sforza, the African Eve hypothesis, and the Out of Africa 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). Rushton has claimed that this first, second, and third chronological sequence perfectly correlates with, and is responsible for, what he believes to be a consistent global multi-dimensional racial pattern on everything from worldwide crime statistics, the global distribution of AIDS, to personality.

Citing genetic research by Cavalli-Sforza, the African Eve hypothesis, and the Out of Africa 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). He further asserts that throughout all of evolution, more ancient forms of life (i.e. plants, bacteria, reptiles) tend to be more genetically primitive and less evolved than newer forms of life (i.e. mammals, primates, humans) and that the much smaller racial variation within the human species is consistent with this trend. "One theoretical possibility," said Ruston, "is that evolution is progressive, and that some populations are more advanced than others". Critics claim that race is just a social construct with no biological reality (see Criticism).

Rushton believes that if his model proves to be accurate, then two important predictions can be made about the course of world history. He expects Mongoloid populations could be expected to outdistance the predominantly Caucasoid populations of the Western world, and second, Negroid populations, given their alleged statistical bent toward promiscuity and social chaos, were especially at risk for AIDS.

Although Rushton acknowledges socio-economic and cultural factors, he believes they are more likely to be the product than the cause of a lot of the differences he describes. He asserts for example, "that many African-American youth have adopted a culture of anti-intellectualism", implying that their decisions about culture are based on their race.

While Rushton acknowledges alternative interpretations, he believes that his collection of world-wide data is best explained by his r-k theory. While Rushton agrees that contemporary social and economic trends obviously confound the data he describes within any particular time and place (i.e. 20th century America), he believes that such contradictions to his interpretations do not substantially effect his assertions of behavioral consistency of the "races" all over the world, and throughout the course of world history, along with alleged anatomical analogues like brain weight and penis size as evidence of an ancient gene mediated evolutionary hierarchy.

Critiques

Questionable methodology

Rushton claims to use a methodology he calls the "aggregation" of evidence, in which he averages hundreds of studies, modern and historical, with equal weight to demonstrate the patterns he asserts. He claims that by averaging many studies, which may include those that used poor research methods, the results one gets can be very accurate. He claims that measurement error typically cancels out when multiple studies are averaged, and asserts that his approach is less biased than the work of researchers who selectively pick and choose from the world-wide literature based on critical analysis.

A number of prominent scientists however dismiss his methodology, including biologist Douglas Wahlsten, who in a review of Rushton's book wrote:

averaging does no thing 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.

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

...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

Wahlsten also further criticizes Rushton's particular use of data in the same book review:

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.

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, regardless of critical analysis, 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. Given the consistency of his findings, and the parsimonious explanation he provides, 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 lead to erroneous dismissal of fascinating brain-behavior relationships for six decades."

In a 1996 review of the book, anthropologist C. Loring Brace wrote that "Race, Evolution, and Behavior is an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy of 'racialism'" (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.

Other critics have also charged that his interpretations, conclusions and methods are "sloppy" and "unscientific".

Penis size claims

Rushton has claimed that the evolution of intelligence is inversely related to the evolution of penis size, representing a genetic trade-off saying "it's more brain or more penis. You can't have everything." Rushton has not provided any direct evidence to support this assertion, instead relies on examples of evolutionary trade-offs between brain size and reproductive frequency that permeates the r-K evolutionary scale. No study has ever shown a correlation between reproductive frequency and penis size.

Critics question Rushton's data on penis size, particularly one study, conducted in 1898 by an anonymous French Army surgeon who traveled through Africa and recorded the size of African penises, and from a second study comparing the penises of Nigerian medical students to Czech army officers. In this study, it turned out the Nigerians penises were longer, and the Czech's had greater circumference. Critics note that if penis girth is used instead of penis length, the Caucasoid sample averaged larger penises. Rushton counters that variablity among samples and overlapp between groups is to be expected, however when aggregating the world-wide literature as a whole, he finds that Negroid penises are not only longest, but thickest also. Rushton points out that almost any confirmed hypothesis can be discredited if one only looks at subsets of data, and does not believe such an approach is useful for making progress in science. Rushton cites studies World Health Organization studies in the United States showing that 9% of black men have penis circumferences exceeding 150 mm, while only 5% of White men do. (See #Poor methodology for more information regarding Rushton's "aggregation" methodology)

Rushton referred to three WHO cited studies on penis size (used for procurement policies regarding condom size) to bolster his assertions regarding geographic distributions of penis size based on race. Further FHI studies indicated no significant breakage and slippage rates for condoms based on racial groups, however, challenging the other studies.

Is race a valid concept?

Defenders of Rushton, such as Arthur Jensen believe in the biology of race despite the genetic research which has found greater differences within "races" than between "races", claiming that "if the differences between the means of various populations were not larger than the mean difference between individuals within each population, it would be impossible to distinguish different populations statistically." Despite their claims, mathematically it is possible to distinguish arbitrary groups which have minor differences between means, but more differences within those groups. For example, blue and green bags of coins may differ as groups, by 2 cents, but within groups larger amounts:

Cavalli-Sforza, whose genetic research forms the basis for much of Rushton's work, also considers all racial classifications to be arbitrary. Rushton supporters, however, continue to claim the genetic linkage trees Cavalli-Sforza provides clearly show distinct branches for all the three main races Rushton describes. Gil-White, responding to these claims wrote:

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.

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.

Despite the vast number of scientific studies undermining Rushton's basic claims , 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.

There have been genetics studies which have identified general correlations between self-identification of race/ethnicity, and genetic cluster membership, (Tang et al. 2005), which are cited by Rushton supporters - critics assert that it is a misinterpretation of them to suggest they support Rushton's positions.

Francisco Gil-White also challenges arbitrary categories of race on the basis of the lack of clear demarcations, acknowledging that biogeographic diversity exists, but has no sharp boundaries:

Partly to blame for the illusion that there are human races are run-of-the-mill perceptual and cognitive biases, and the rest of the blame goes to social conditioning, so that Americans end up with categories of ‘black,’ ‘white,’ and ‘yellow’ races that are solid and clearly defined in their heads. But what about the real world? In the real world, it turns out, there simply are no sharp boundaries dividing humanity into groups that correspond to these mental constructs.

Acknowledging such ideas, on page 420 of the the g factor Berkely scholar Arthur Jensen writes:

Nowadays one often reads in the popular press (and in some anthropology textbooks) that the concept of human race is a fiction (or, as one well-known anthropologist termed it, a "dangerous myth"), that races do not exist in reality, but are social constructs...I believe this line of argument has five main sources, none of them scientific:

• Heaping scorn on the concept of race is deemed an effective way of combating racism...

• Neo-Marxist philosophy (which still has exponents in the social sciences and the popular media) demands that individual and group differences in psychologically and socially significant traits be wholly the result of economic inequality, class structure, or the oppression of the working class in a capitalist society...

• The view that claims the concept of race (not just misconceptions about it) is scientifically discredited is seen as a way to advance more harmonious relations among the groups in our society...

• The universal revulsion of the Holocaust...

• Frustration with the age-old popular wrong-headed conceptions about race has led some experts in population genetics to abandon the concept instead of attempting candidly to make the public aware of how the concept of race is viewed by most present-day scientists.

Despite its political incorrectness, on page 430-431 of the g factor, Jensen defends the scientific validity of race:

Cavalli-Sforza et al. transformed the distance matrix to a correlation matrix consisting of 861 correlation coefficients among the forty-two populations, so they could apply principal components (PC) analysis on their genetic data...PC analysis is a wholly objective mathematical procedure. It requires no decisions or judgments on anyone's part and yields identical results for everyone who does the calculations correctly...The important point is that if various populations were fairly homogenous in genetic composition, differing no more genetically than could be attributable only to random variation, a PC analysis would not be able to cluster the populations into a number of groups according to their genetic propinquity. In fact, a PC analysis shows that most of the forty-two populations fall very distinctly into the quadrents formed by using the first and second principal component as axes...They form quite widely seperated clusters of the various populations that resemble the "classic" major racial groups-Caucasoids in the upper right, Negroids in the lower right, North East Asians in the upper left, and South East Asians (including South Chinese) and Pacific Islanders in the lower left...I have tried other objective methods of clustering on the same data (varimax rotation of the principal components, common factor analysis, and hierarchical cluster analysis). All of these types of analysis yield essentially the same picture and identify the same major racial groupings.

Native American exception

Rushton's hypothesis has difficulty explaining why Native Americans, 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. Defenders of Rushton claim that genetic evidence suggests that Native Americans are an archaic form of Mongoloid, and are thus according to Rushton's model, may not be quite as advanced as the rest of the Mongoloid race. Rushton (1995) also argues that lower scores of Native Americans can be attributed to the evolutionary relaxation of cognitive demands due to the more temperate environment and comparative ease with which North American fauna could be hunted. Skeptics of this defense note it can be argued that life along the fertile river plains in China was not particularly harsh, and it is also questionable that conditions in deserts are no less harsh but people living there do not currently score high on IQ tests.

The Flynn effect

The most devastating challenge to Rushton's worldwide data on IQ scores concerns the Flynn effect and the now well documented fact that industrialization and urbanization causes the average IQ of entire countries to rise by massive amounts. 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.

Rushton has responded to the Flynn Effect by simply claiming that the low IQ's of pre-WWII whites have little to do with general intelligence (the g factor), while the low IQ's obtained by contemporary blacks (even in the third world) are somehow valid reflections of cognitive functioning. Skeptics find that defense particularly weak, finding no reason to believe that a set of results that contradicts his hypothesis should be dismissed arbitrarily.

Jensen claims that because the bulk of the data on the Flynn Effect comes from after 1950 it is improper to extrapolate the data much further back in time, ironically undercutting Rushton's "aggregation" methodology while defending Rushton (See #Poor methodology for more information regarding Rushton's "aggregation" methodology).

Rushton also points to a study by Fick that found that black African children obtained a mean IQ 35 points lower than whites in 1929, which may imply that the gap between the races may have been constant, adjusting in lock-step with each other over the 20th century. Challengers of Rushton's claims find these studies more appropriately explained by environmental and cultural conditions, and use the same large gap between past and present groups of the same "race" as prima facie evidence that environment has a greater effect than any racial genetics. However psychologist Robert C. Nichols describes such arguments as a "faulty" syllogism:

1. We do not know what causes the test score changes over time.

2. We do not know what causes racial differences in intelligence.

3. Since both causes are unknown, they must, therefore, be the same.

4. Since the unknown cause of changes over time cannot be shown to be genetic, it must be environmental.

5. Therefore, racial differences in intelligence are environmental in origin.

Proponents of the genetic perspective point to the fact that 20th century enevironment also caused the height of men and women to increase by several inches while the height difference between the sexes remained genetic.

Describing the U.S. Flynn Effect, Arthur Jensen writes:

If the Flynn Effect is caused by environmental factors, it is most remarkable that a steady rise in the population's average test scores over a period of fifty or sixty years has had no effect on the mean IQ difference between blacks and whites, which has remained at about 1 SD since World War I. This era has been one of steadily diminishing disparities between blacks and whites in educational, social, and economic opportunities. Yet the general upward secular trend in the overall population level of mental test scores has not changed the standardized difference between the mean test scores of black and whites.

Brain size gene

Over a decade and a half since the media firestorm over Rushton's views first erupted, University of Chicago geneticists published data in the journal Science that links two sets of genetic variations (alleles) to brain size, race, and spurts in human evolution. These genetic variations were relatively common in Europe and Asia, but significantly less frequent in sub-Saharan Africa.

Earlier, these researchers showed these genetic variations to be much more frequent in humans than in other mammals, though the chimpanzees, who are closest to humans in DNA, showed levels that suggest significant evolution in the direction of humans. This work has been carried out under the direction of a Dr. Bruce Lahn whose team had studied the prevalence of variants of two genes that are disabled or damaged in human cases of severe microcephaly, in which the brain develops to only 30 percent its normal size. The fact that they are damaged in microcephalics is thought to indicate that they are necessary for normal brain growth.

Dr. Lahn's team examined the DNA of 1,184 people around the world-excluding racially mixed areas like North America, Russia and Australia. They estimated that one undamaged variation, microcephalin haplogroup D (sometimes called variation one, or V1) first appeared around 40,000 BC and has since spread to some 70 percent of humans. It is more common in Europe, Asia, South America and Latin America than in sub-Saharan Africa. At three percent, it is especially rare in Congo pygmies, who are at the bottom of black Africa's socio-economic ladder and along with Khoisans, split off the black family tree much earlier than other black groups.

Dr. Lahn and colleagues noted that the arrival of V1 coincided roughly with the first signs of human habitation and agriculture; V2 appeared about the time of the first cities and the development of written language.

Social Class Theory

Rushton asserts that the r and K traits he claims differentiate the races, also differentiate the social classes within each race, though to a much lesser extent. The lower class, claims Rushton, tend to display characteristics more associated with an r-strategy (low IQ, short lifespans, large families, high crime rates etc). Rushton further contends that these class based differences help explain the rise and fall of civilizations observed throughout the course of world history. He hypothesizes that the more K selected individuals build the civilization, but once the society becomes wealthy, the more numerous off-spring of the r selected members are given the resources to survive. Then, according to his model, as r selected individuals become more numerous, the society lacks the intellect, industriousness, and social order to maintain itself, and thus collapses. According to Rushton, the collapse of the society creates scarce resources and leads to intense competition which favours the more intelligent K selected members. Finally, he asserts that as the K selected members become more numerous, the society is able to rebuild its civilization and the cycle continues.

Critiques

Casual inspection of world history clearly illustrate large gaps in his hypothesis, which does not account for external effects of invasion, disease, migration and politics.

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

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, 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.

Controversy and criticism

Popular science commentator David Suzuki protested the theory and spoke out against Rushton in a live televised debate at the University of Western Ontario. "There will always be Rushtons in science," Suzuki thundered "and we must always be prepared to root them out!". Rushton is accused by critics of advocating a new eugenics movement , and is openly praised by proponents of eugenics.

Rushton has been considered by many scholars to be more of a self-promoter than serious scientist. After mass mailing a booklet 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."

Since 2002, Rushton has been the president of the controversial Pioneer Fund, which aims "to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences." Rushton's work has received grants from the fund totalling over $1 million USD since 1981.

Rushton's sources, such as semi-pornographic books and the Penthouse 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 . Actual recent data show that blacks are not more psychopathic , nor do they differ from whites when testing for the big five personality traits , 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

Some scientists have come to Rushton's defense, including Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson who is one of the two cofounders of r/K theory said:

I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher ... The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is it's logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species-a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk, for example-no one would have batted an eye.

Psychologist David P. Barash wrote in a scholarly review:

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"

Barash ends his lengthy review with the sentence: "Bad science and virulent racial prejudice drip like pus from nearly every page of this despicable book".

Psychologist Arthur Jensen had a more favorable opinion:

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.

Hans j. Eysenk of the University of London adds:

Professor Rushton is widely known and respected for the unusual combination of rigour and originality in his work....Few concerned with understanding the problems associated with race can afford to disregard this storehouse of well-integrated information which gives rise to a remarkable synthesis.

Psychologist and associate editor of the journal "Mankind Quarterly" Richard Lynn wrote:

Should, if there is any justice, receive a Nobel Prize.

Dr. Barry Mehler wrote critically of Rushton's misrepresentation of research he cites:

"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'.

Dr. Mark Feldman, Stanford University Population Biologist and recognized authority on r/K selection theory, claims that r/K is "absolutely inapplicable" to differences between humans. Feldman concluded that Rushton's work "doesn't really classify as science ... it has no content, it is laughable".

Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve writes:

Rushton is a serious scholar who has assembled serious data. Consider just one example: brain size. The empirical reality, verified by numerous modern studies, including several based on magnetic resonance imaging, is that a significant and substantial relationship does exist between brain size and measured intelligence after body size is taken into account and that the races do have different distributions of brain size.

Notes

1. Racial Scientist Rushton Takes Over Pioneer Fund
2. Kin selection, genic selection, and information-dependent strategies by John Tooby & Leda Cosmides (1989). Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12, 542-544.
3. Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (PDF) (2nd special abridged edition ed.). Port Huron, MI: Charles Darwin Research Institute. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |month= (help)
4. 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 Indian Subcontinent.
5. Book Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior
6. Book Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior
7. Sloppy Statistics, Bogus Science and the Assault on Racial Equity
8. FHI Report
9. Neupane S, Abeywickrema D, Martinez K, et al. Acceptability and Actual Use Breakage and Slippage Rates of Standard and Smaller Latex Condoms: Nepal and Sri Lanka. Durham, NC: Family Health International, 1992.
10. Joanis C, Brookshire T, Piedrahita C, et al. Evaluation of Two Condom Designs: A Comparison of Standard and Larger Condoms in Ghana, Kenya, and Mali. Durham, NC: Family Health International, 1990.
11. Andrada A, Ravelo N, Spruyt A, et al. Acceptability and Functionality of Standard and Smaller Latex Condoms during Human Use: Philippines. Durham, NC: Family Health International, 1993.
12. Cavalli-Sforza
13. Resurrecting Racism: The modern attack on black people using phony science. Chapter 3 by Francisco Gil-White
14. 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
15. The methodology of this study required severe classification constraints (e.g. the groups in question are assumed to be mutually exclusive with no multi-racial cases). Also, the study only looked at United States ethnic groups ("white", African-American, and Hispanic) and Taiwanese (East Asian) samples that would potentially obscure continuously distributed gene frequencies. In short, the results of these studies are not at all incompatible with Brace's concept of morphological diversity across geographic clines.
16. Resurrecting Racism: The modern attack on black people using phony science. Chapter 2 by Francisco Gil-White
17. On the similarities of American blacks and whites: A reply to J.P. Rushton. Vol. 25, Journal of Black Studies, 07-01-1995, pp 672.
19. http://www.eugenics.net/ Website including prominent reference to Rushton's works
20. UWO Gazette Volume 93, Issue 68 Tuesday, February 1, 2000 Psych prof accused of racism
21. Foundation for Fascism: the New Eugenics Movement in the United States, Patterns of Prejudice by Dr. Barry Mehler
22. CBC Radio, 18 February 1989

See also

• Race and intelligence (Average intelligence gaps among races)

References

• Barash D.P (1995) Book review: Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Animal Behaviour 49:1131-1133.
• Lynn, Richard. The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund. University Press of America, 2001.
• Brace, C. Loring (1996). "Racialism and Racist Agendas". American Anthropologist. 91 (1): 96–97.
• Rushton, J. P. (2000). Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (3rd ed.). Port Huron, MI: Charles Darwin Research Institute. ISBN 0965683613. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |month= (help)

• Rushton, J. P. and Ankney, C. D. (2000). "Size Matters: A Review and New Analyses of Racial Differences in Cranial Capacity and Intelligence That Refute Kamin and Omari" (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences. 29: 591–620. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00256-1. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Tang H, Quertermous T, Rodriguez B, Kardia SL, Zhu X, Brown A, Pankow JS, Province MA, Hunt SC, Boerwinkle E, Schork NJ, Risch NJ (2005). "Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies". Am J Hum Genet. 76: 268–275. PMID 15625622.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

External links

• Rushton's UWO faculty page with links to publications
• Rushton's personal page and curriculum vitae
• Biography from the Pioneer Fund
• Abridged version of Race, Evolution, and Behavior

• "Psych prof accused of racism" The Gazette of UWO February 1, 2000

Opinion

• Miscellaneous materials from mugu.com

Criticism

• "Kin selection, genic selection, and information-dependent strategies" Critical commentary from evolutionary biologists John Tooby & Leda Cosmides, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, (1989).
• A Critique of Rushton's Claims
• Rushton, Mankind Quarterly and Eugenics
• The Race-Research Funder
• "Rushton Takes Over the Pioneer Fund", Bethune Institute, January 2003

Pro-Rushton

• "The New Enemies of Evolutionary Science", essay by Rushton
• "Academia's road to ruin", editorial by Ian Hunter
• "Race, Rushton, And Us: Getting Used To What We Can't Change"
• "The Mismeasures of Gould", Rushton, 1997.
• "Paternal Provisioning versus Mate Seeking in Human Populations", Edward M. Miller, 1994. An alternative explanation for Rushton's racial triochotomy, derived from parental investment theory instead of differential K theory.

• 1943 births
• Canadian psychologists
• Race and intelligence controversy
• Human evolution
• University of Western Ontario
• Natives of Hampshire
• London School of Differential Psychology
• Alumni of Birkbeck, University of London
• Alumni of the London School of Economics
• Living people