Race, Evolution, and Behavior: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:28, 3 July 2009

Claimed Average Differences Among Blacks, Whites, and Orientals from Race, Evolution, and Behavior
	Blacks	Whites	Orientals¹
Brain size
Cranial capacity (cubic centimeters)	1,267	1,347	1,364
Cortical neurons (millions)	13,185	13,665	13,767
Intelligence
IQ test scores	85	100	106
Cultural achievements	Low	High	High
Reproduction
2-egg twinning (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
Personality
Aggressiveness	Higher	Intermediate	Lower
Cautiousness	Lower	Intermediate	Higher
Impulsivity	Higher	Intermediate	Lower
Self-concept	Higher	Intermediate	Lower
Sociability	Higher	Intermediate	Lower
Maturation
Gestation 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 pregnancy	Earlier	Intermediate	Later
Lifespan	Shorter	Intermediate	Longer
Social organization
Marital stability	Lower	Intermediate	Higher
Law abidingness	Lower	Intermediate	Higher
Mental health	Low	Intermediate	Higher
Source: Unabridged edition, Race, Evolution, and Behavior (p. 5).

Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective is a controversial book written by J. Philippe Rushton, a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, and the current head of the Pioneer fund. Rushton argues that race is a valid biological concept and that racial differences frequently arrange in a continuum of Mongoloids (Orientals, East Asians) at one extreme, Negroids (blacks, Africans) at the opposite extreme, and Caucasoids (whites, Europeans) in the middle.^[1] 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^[2]-White-Black Difference).^[3]

The 1st unabridged edition was published in 1995 and the 2nd unabridged edition was published in 1997.

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 Mailing Controversy below)

Summary

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 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.)^[4] 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.

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), 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.

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 r/K selection theory to the much smaller inter-racial differences within the human species. While all humans display extremely K-selected 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 r-selected 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.

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 r/K selection theory explains all his data quite parsimoniously.

Critical response

Rushton’s research has been heavily criticized due to its controversial subject matter of race and intelligence, particularly by those who oppose a hereditarian view of human nature.

In Race, Evolution and Behavior, Rushton relies on a method called “aggregation of evidence”, (described here), in which he draws inferences from a wide number of studies, both historical and modern. Some researchers have been critical of this approach because of concerns that it overlooks flaws in measurements which may have occurred in specific studies.^[5] Other researchers have asserted that the predictions made by Rushton’s theories have not been borne out by reality,^[6] and have raised doubts as to the validity of “race” as a biological concept.^[7] (See Race and genetics.)

Professional opinions

Favorable

Arthur Jensen, an eminent psychologist^[8] and Professor Emeritus of educational psychology at the University of California, Berkeley,^[9] has said:

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.^[10]^[11]

Hans Eysenck of the University of London has said:

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.[4]

Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson (one of the two cofounders of r/K selection theory) states:

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.^[12]

Some critics have asserted that the viewpoints of some of these researchers may have been biased, due to their having been grantees of the Pioneer Fund, the same organization which has funded much of Rushton’s research.^[13] However, this claim would not apply to E. O. Wilson, as he has never been a Pioneer Fund grantee.

Unfavorable

Psychologist and Peace Studies Researcher David P. Barash wrote in a scholarly review of Race, Evolution and Behavior^[1]:

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."^[14]

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

"Rushton seldom carries out direct measurements and does not adequately explain his selective use of the research and writing of others."^[15]

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."^[16] 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."^[16] 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.^[16]

Reviews

Favorable

What is Intelligence and Who has it?, The New York Times’ review of Race, Evolution, and Behavior, The Decline of Intelligence in America, and The Bell Curve.
The Return of Racial Science, by Glayde Whitney, published in Contemporary Psychology, December 1996, pp. 1189-1191.
Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior, by Henry Harpending, published in Evolutionary Anthropology, 1995.

Unfavorable

The Race-Research Funder, discussing the links of the Pioneer Fund to the distribution and positive reviews for Race, Evolution and Behavior.
Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior, by Irving Louis Horowitz in Society, Jan-Feb 1995 v32 n2.

References

^ ^a ^b 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)
^ 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.
^ Presented at the Symposium on Evolutionary Theory, Economics and Political Science, AAAS Annual Meeting (San Francisco, CA, January 19, 1989)
^ The decline in usage of these terms can be seen year by year in a Google Scholar 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:
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.[1]
^ Book Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior
^ Cross-cultural evaluation of predicted associations between race and behavior in Evolution and Human Behavior. 24(5), Sep 2003, 357-364. Peregrine, Peter N.; Ember, Carol R.; Ember, Melvin: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00040-0
^ Resurrecting Racism: The modern attack on black people using phony science. Chapter 3 by Francisco Gil-White
^ Jensen is listed in a study by Haggblom et al. (2002), [2] of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the twentieth century, at number 47.
^ http://www.edb.utexas.edu/robinson/danr/JEBS%2031(3)%20-06_Jensen%20profile.pdf
^ RACE, EVOLUTION, and BEHAVIOR: A Life History Perspective
^ Review by American Renaissance Store of J. Philippe Rushton, [3] (archived from the original on 2007-10-15)
^ Knudtson P. (1991), A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society; Rushton on Race, Stoddart Publishing (ISBN 0773724672)
^ The Race-Research Funder
^ Barash D.P (1995) Book review: Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Animal Behaviour 49:1131-1133.
^ How "Caucasoids" Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank: From Morton to Rushton
^ ^a ^b ^c Race, Evolution, and Behaviour: A Life History Perspective (Review) Canadian Psychology, Nov 2001, by Fredric Weizmann

External links

Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective; 2nd Special Abridged Edition

[reb2ndabridged-1] 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)

[2] 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.

[3] Presented at the Symposium on Evolutionary Theory, Economics and Political Science, AAAS Annual Meeting (San Francisco, CA, January 19, 1989)

[4] The decline in usage of these terms can be seen year by year in a Google Scholar 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:
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.[1]

[5] Book Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior

[6] Cross-cultural evaluation of predicted associations between race and behavior in Evolution and Human Behavior. 24(5), Sep 2003, 357-364. Peregrine, Peter N.; Ember, Carol R.; Ember, Melvin: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00040-0

[7] Resurrecting Racism: The modern attack on black people using phony science. Chapter 3 by Francisco Gil-White

[8] Jensen is listed in a study by Haggblom et al. (2002), [2] of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the twentieth century, at number 47.

[9] ttp://www.edb.utexas.edu/robinson/danr/JEBS%2031(3)%20-06_Jensen%20profile.pdf

[10] RACE, EVOLUTION, and BEHAVIOR: A Life History Perspective

[11] Review by American Renaissance Store of J. Philippe Rushton, [3] (archived from the original on 2007-10-15)

[12] Knudtson P. (1991), A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society; Rushton on Race, Stoddart Publishing (ISBN 0773724672)

[13] The Race-Research Funder

[14] Barash D.P (1995) Book review: Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Animal Behaviour 49:1131-1133.

[15] How "Caucasoids" Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank: From Morton to Rushton

[weizmann-16] Race, Evolution, and Behaviour: A Life History Perspective (Review) Canadian Psychology, Nov 2001, by Fredric Weizmann

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{POV|date=July 2009}}
 <div style="float:right; padding:2px; margin-left: 1em; font-size:90%;">
 {| class="wikitable"
@@ Line 9: / Line 11: @@
 | colspan=4 | '''Brain size'''
 |-
-| [[Cranial capacity]] || 1,267 || 1,347 || 1,364
+| [[Cranial capacity]] (cubic centimeters) || 1,267 || 1,347 || 1,364
 |-
 | Cortical neurons (millions) || 13,185 || 13,665 || 13,767
@@ Line 105: / Line 107: @@
 Citing genetic research by [[Cavalli-Sforza]], the [[African Eve]] hypothesis, and the [[Single origin hypothesis|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), 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.
 <!--  Commented out because image was deleted: [[Image:R&A.gif|left|thumb|200px|Rushton and Ankney (2000, Fig. 4) plotted the cranial capacities and approximate time of evolutionary emergence of humans' evolutionary ancestors and the three races Rushton and Ankney believe humanity can be categorized into. {{deletable image-caption|1=Saturday, 29 December 2007}}]] -->
@@ Line 113: / Line 114: @@
 {{cleanup|date=July 2008}}
-==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.
+==Critical response==
-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:
+Rushton’s research has been heavily criticized due to its controversial subject matter of [[race and intelligence]], particularly by those who oppose a [[hereditarian]] view of human nature.
-<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>[http://www.cjsonline.ca/articles/wahlsten.html Book Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior]</ref></blockquote>
+In ''Race, Evolution and Behavior'', Rushton relies on a method called “aggregation of evidence”, (described [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0020025506000764 here]), in which he draws inferences from a wide number of studies, both historical and modern.  Some researchers have been critical of this approach because of concerns that it overlooks flaws in measurements which may have occurred in specific studies.<ref>[http://www.cjsonline.ca/articles/wahlsten.html Book Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior]</ref>  Other researchers have asserted that the predictions made by Rushton’s theories have not been borne out by reality,<ref>''Cross-cultural evaluation of predicted associations between race and behavior'' in Evolution and Human Behavior. 24(5), Sep 2003, 357-364. Peregrine, Peter N.; Ember, Carol R.; Ember, Melvin: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00040-0</ref> and have raised doubts as to the validity of “race” as a biological concept.<ref>[http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap3.htm Resurrecting Racism: The modern attack on black people using phony science. Chapter 3]  by Francisco Gil-White</ref> (See [[Race and genetics]].)
-Wahlsten also further criticizes Rushton's particular use of data in the same book review:
-<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>
-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."
-In a review of Rushton's book, anthropologist [[C. Loring Brace]] wrote:
-<blockquote>"''Race, Evolution, and Behavior'' is an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology.  It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy of '[[racialism]]'"<ref name=brace>[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7294%28199603%292%3A98%3A1%3C176%3ARARA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I Review: Racialism and Racist Agendas], American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 98, No. 1. (Mar., 1996), pp. 176-177.</ref></blockquote>
-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.<ref name=brace/>
-Other critics have also charged that his interpretations, conclusions and methods are "sloppy" and "unscientific"<ref>[http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/ukwise.htm Sloppy Statistics, Bogus Science and the Assault on Racial Equity]</ref>.  For example, Rushton's diagram of cranial capacities is in error, as Neanderthal in fact had a greater cranial capacity than modern humans <ref>[http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoneaderthalensis.htm Homo neanderthalensis<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>.
-===Validity of the concept of race===
-{{main|Race (classification of human beings)}}
-[[Cavalli-Sforza]], 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 [[Cavalli-Sforza]] 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>[http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap3.htm Resurrecting Racism: The modern attack on black people using phony science. Chapter 3]  by Francisco Gil-White</ref></blockquote>
-In a review of Rushton's book, Richard Lewontin wrote:
-<blockquote>The first problem for his theory is that there need to be major races.  That is, the differences between "Oriental," "Black," and "White" need to be more than skin deep.  In claiming that these old racial categories correspond to 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>[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0041-1191%281996%290%3A69%3C178%3AOGAG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5 Review: Of Genes and Genitals], Transition, No. 69. (1996), pp. 178-193.</ref></blockquote>
-===Failure of predictions===
-In a response to Rushton's book, Peregrine found, even though using "three versions of the ‘race’ variable, each representing one of the apparent definitions that Rushton used", that "Rushton’s predictions do not find much support, regardless of how ‘race’ is operationalized."<ref>''Cross-cultural evaluation of predicted associations between race and behavior'' in Evolution and Human Behavior. 24(5), Sep 2003, 357-364. Peregrine, Peter N.; Ember, Carol R.; Ember, Melvin: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00040-0</ref>
-Gil-White, writing in regards to Peregrine's work, states:
-<blockquote>The authors are not doing justice to their own findings. It is not true that "Rushton’s predictions do not find much support"; what is true is that Rushton’s predictions are completely contradicted.<ref>[http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap10.htm Resurrecting Racism, Chapter 10]</ref></blockquote>
-===The Flynn effect===
-{{Refimprovesect|date=July 2007}}
-The most serious challenge to Rushton's aggregated data on IQ scores in ''Race, Evolution and Behavior''<ref name=reb2ndabridged/> concerns the [[Flynn effect]] 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 [[General intelligence factor|g factor]]), 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>
-===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>[http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Rushton/rushton-black-reply.html 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.</ref></blockquote>
-=== Other criticisms ===
-{{Citations broken|date=April 2008}}
-Rushton's application of r/K theory has been severely criticized: for example, by noting that many animal species do not follow the predictions of r/K theory.<ref>Joseph L. Graves, "[http://ant.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/2/2/131 What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory]," ''Anthropological Theory'' 2, no. 2 (2002): 131&ndash;54;</ref><ref name=autogenerated1> Leonard Lieberman et al., "[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14992214&dopt=Citation How 'Caucasoids' Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank],"; ''Current Anthropology'' 42 (2001): 69&ndash;95;</ref><ref> Zack Cernovsky, "[http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Rushton/rushton-black-reply.html On the similarities of American blacks and whites: A reply to J.P. Rushton]," ''Journal of Black Studies'' 25 (1995): 672.</ref>  Rushton, whom the [[Southern Poverty Law Center]] characterizes as an "academic racist"<ref>[http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=580 "Into the Mainstream: Academic Racists' Work Inching Toward Legitimacy]." ''Intelligence Report'', Southern Poverty Law Center, Winter 2005. Retrieved 02-17-2007.</ref>, heads the [[Pioneer Fund]], a nonprofit organization Tucker (2002) accused of misusing social science to politically fuel oppression and funding specialized research to "prove <nowiki>[what it alleges as]</nowiki> the genetic and intellectual inferiority of blacks."<ref>Tucker, William H. Tucker (2002). ''The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund''. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-252-02762-0</ref>  Despite such accusations, [[Harvard]] biologist [[E.O. Wilson]] (one of the two cofounders of r/K selection theory) states "I think Phil [Rushton] 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."<ref>Knudson P. (1991), ''A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society''; Rushton on Race, Stoddart Publishing (ISBN 0773724672)</ref>
-[[Richard Lynn]] has developed similar theories and argues that the [[ice age]] that took place in East Asia from about 28,000 to 12,000 years ago acted as a selection force on East Asians to increase intelligence by requiring the building of shelter, making clothes, and making fires, and selected especially strongly for spatial skills such as those needed to hunt large prey and build the tools necessary to do so. (Lynn 1991)  Rushton (1996) has cited the fact that the order in Blacks, Whites, and East Asians appeared is the same as the order of their respective brain sizes as additional evidence. Critics argue that tropical rain-forest conditions, being more constant, would favor K-selection, while seasonal Arctic environments would be less predictable and associated with r-selection, exactly the opposite of what Rushton has argued for. Rushton has responded that it is the East African [[savanna]] that should be compared to the Arctic. Critics respond that Northern mice, foxes, and deer are not better endowed intellectually than their tropical relatives, and the same is true for virtually all other animals with Arctic and tropical representatives. However, even assuming that the savanna vs. the Arctic has such an effect, this means that Rushton selectively chooses only a very few of the wide variety of habitats humans have lived in for a long time, but then makes general clams for much larger areas with many different habitats such as Africa and all blacks.<ref name=autogenerated1 />  Similarly, the theory has difficulty explaining why [[Indigenous peoples of the Americas|Native Americans]], who appeared even later and emigrated from the northernmost parts of Asia, do not currently have high scores on IQ tests.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}  On the other hand, Rushton (1995) 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. But it can be argued that life along the fertile river plains in China was not particularly harsh.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} It is also questionable that conditions in deserts are no less harsh but people living there do not currently score high on IQ tests.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
-The theory is directly contradicted by the only comparative study on IQ scores in different European nations that showed a statistically insignificant association between the average IQ and latitude of various European nations.<ref>Buj, V., 1981, Average IQ values in various European countries, Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 168-169[http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/articles/greekiq/ Summary]</ref> In contrast, Beals et al. (1984) p. 309, reported a correlation of 0.62 ([[p-value|p]]=0.00001) between latitude and cranial capacity in samples worldwide, and reported that each degree of latitude was associated with an increase of 2.5 cm³ in cranial volume. A more recent study finds this pattern only when including a Siberian population living in extremely cold condition. The explanation may be natural selection for a thermoregulatory capacity in extremely cold environments, resulting in brachycephalization, rather than a selection for intelligence.<ref name="Cold">Charles C. Roseman, "[http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/35/12824 Detecting interregionally diversifying natural selection on modern human cranial form by using matched molecular and morphometric data]" ''Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences of the United States'' vol. 101 no. 35 (August 31, 2004):12824-12829.</ref>
-Scott MacEachern suggests that through the study of [[archaeology]] one may test Rushton's assertions that African populations suffer severe cognitive deficits when compared to other modern humans. Rushton wrote that mental deficits are visible in an evolutionary context, advancing environmental explanations for such deficits, and asserting that such cognitive differences existed prehistorically as well. Scott MacEachern writes that examination of the archaeological record does not support the claims made by these researchers; rather, it suggests that regional differences in IQ test score results should not be ascribed to variations in human evolutionary development.<ref>''[http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(j4osh5n00il0t255ihnpi5ju)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,6,9;journal,5,26;linkingpublicationresults,1:104736,1 Africanist archaeology and ancient IQ: racial science and cultural evolution in the twenty-first century]'' World Archaeology Volume 38, Number 1 / March 2006</ref>
-Research on racial differences in twinning and testis size was the subject of a review by author and scientist [[Jared Diamond]] (1986) in the journal ''Nature'', in which he investigated correlations between possible racial variations in testicular size and hormone levels, and reported on one study suggesting that dead Danish men at [[autopsy]] have larger testicles than dead Chinese men. Some studies also suggested lower hormone levels and frequency of twins among Asians than Africans. However, Diamond notes that smaller testicle size among Koreans was not associated with a lower frequency of sexual intercourse, which contradicts the Rushton rK-theory. Higher frequency of twins in certain African populations can be explained by large scale consumption of [[yam (vegetable)|Yams]], which in rats produce such results.<ref name="Yam">"[http://info.med.yale.edu/external/pubs/ym_su99/scope/scope1.htm What's in a yam? Clues to fertility, a student discovers]," ''Yale Medicine'' Summer 99</ref>
-Rushton's sources, such as a "semi-pornographic book" and [[Penthouse (magazine)|Penthouse]] magazine, have been dismissed by other researchers, criticized as extremely biased with inadequate reviews of the literature, as misreporting the results, or as simply false.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20041213121817/http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Rushton/rushton-black-reply.html On the similarities of American blacks and whites: A reply to J.P. Rushton.] Zack Cernovsky. Vol. 25, Journal of Black Studies, 07-01-1995, pp 672.</ref> There have also been many other criticisms of the theory.
-<ref>[http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3764746 Could r selection account for the African personality and life cycle] MILLER E. M. Personality and individual differences 1993, vol. 15, no6, pp. 665-675</ref><ref>[http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://els/10905138/2003/00000024/00000005/art00040&unc= Cross-cultural evaluation of predicted associations between race and behavior] Peregrine P.N.1; Ember C.R.; Ember M. Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 24, Number 5, September 2003, pp. 357-364(8)</ref><ref>[http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/RUSHRV.htm Kicked out of Africa - but what next?<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
-<ref>[http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17748940 Africanist archaeology and ancient IQ : racial science and cultural evolution in the twenty-first century] MACEACHERN Scott World archaeology 2006, vol. 38, no1, pp. 72-92.</ref>
-One study examining the National Center for Health Statistics of 1985  in California found standardized Dizygotic twinning rates of approximately 3.7, 6.6, and 9.7 per 1000 for Asians, whites, and blacks, respectively. <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_199512/ai_n8722265 Ethnic comparison of twinning rates in California]</ref> More recent, US-wide studies from data gathered over several years show that the racial gap in twinning rates has vanished. <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11968567] Trends in twin and triplet births: 1980-97</ref> <ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060928111611/http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr52_10t50.pdf Table 50] (archived from [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr52_10t50.pdf the original] on 2006-09-28), National Vital Statistics Reports Vol. 52, No. 10, December 17, 2003. CDC.</ref> This goes counter to a basic assumption in Rushton's claims. 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,<ref>[http://www.azcentral.com/families/articles/0228fam_twins.html Twins explosion<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> both demographic characteristics that are more common among Whites.<ref>Preview and Abstract of [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-7354(200005%2F06)32%3A3%3C132%3AUOISIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z Use of Infertility Services in the United States: 1995] (2000), Elizabeth Hervey Stephen and Anjani Chandra, JSTOR</ref> A scholarly article reviewing Rushton's claims regarding twinning makes various criticisms and concludes: "Moreover, Rushton misinterprets a number of relevant aspects related to the biology of twinning. The claim that ethnic differences in twinning rates provide evidence for an r/K typology in human populations with respect to reproductive strategies does not appear to be warranted."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1488860&dopt=Citation Twinning and the r/K reproductive strategy: a critique of Rushton's theory.] Allen G, Eriksson AW, Fellman J, Parisi P, Vandenberg SG. Acta Genet Med Gemellol (Roma). 1992;41(1):73-83.</ref>
-A [[meta-analysis]] shows that blacks are not more psychopathic<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15638207&dopt=Citation Are there ethnic differences in levels of psychopathy? A meta-analysis.] Skeem JL, Edens JF, Camp J, Colwell LH. Law Hum Behav. 2004 Oct;28(5):505-27.</ref>, that differences in sex hormones between whites and East Asians are best explained by environmental differences<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9626146&dopt=Citation Comparative rates of androgen production and metabolism in Caucasian and Chinese subjects.] Santner SJ, Albertson B, Zhang GY, Zhang GH, Santulli M, Wang C, Demers LM, Shackleton C, Santen RJ. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1998 Jun;83(6):2104-9.</ref>, and that blacks do not differ from whites when testing for the [[big five personality traits]].<ref>[http://www.getcited.org/pub/103361483 Race, job applicants, and the five-factor model of personality: implications for black psychology, industrial/organizational psychology, and the five-factor theory] Collins, Judith M. Gleaves, David H. Journal of Applied Psychology [JAP], 83(4), 531 - 44.</ref>
-==Controversy and criticism==
-Popular science commentator [[David Suzuki]] protested Rushton's racial theories and spoke out against Rushton in a live televised debate at the [[University of Western Ontario]]. "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 [[eugenics]] movement,<ref name=ferris>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060626123757/http://www.ferris.edu/ISAR/archives/mehler/foundation.htm Institute for the Study of Academic Racism Archives] (archived from [http://www.ferris.edu/isar/archives/mehler/foundation.htm the original] on 2006-09-13)</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>[http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/2000/February/1/News3.htm UWO Gazette Volume 93, Issue 68 Tuesday, February 1, 2000] Psych prof accused of racism</ref>
-[[Francisco Gil-White]] 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>[http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap10.htm Resurrecting Racism, Chapter 10], Francisco Gil-White.</ref>
 ===Professional opinions===
+==== Favorable ====
+[[Arthur Jensen]], an eminent psychologist<ref>Jensen is listed in a study by Haggblom ''et al.'' (2002), [http://htpprints.yorku.ca/archive/00000064/] of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the twentieth century, at number 47.</ref> and Professor Emeritus of [[educational psychology]] at the [[University of California, Berkeley]],<ref>http://www.edb.utexas.edu/robinson/danr/JEBS%2031(3)%20-06_Jensen%20profile.pdf</ref> has said:
-====Favorable====
-=====Pioneer Fund grantees=====
-Most of the favourable criticism on this work has come from researchers who, like Rushton, have been [[Pioneer Fund]] grantees. Paul Lombardo, Director of the Program in Law and Medicine, Center for Biomedical Ethics, University of Virginia, describes the Pioneer Fund this way:
-<blockquote>''Pioneer represents a missing link in the history of eugenics that connects the racial radical branch of American eugenics in the first third of the century, to eugenics in 1930s Germany, and to hereditarian politics of recent years as exemplified in books like The Bell Curve.''</blockquote>
-Psychologist [[Arthur Jensen]] 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.<ref>[http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/reb.html#What%20Others%20Have%20Said RACE, EVOLUTION, and BEHAVIOR: A Life History Perspective]</ref><ref>Review by American Renaissance Store of J. Philippe Rushton, ''[http://web.archive.org/web/20071015193947/http://amren.com/newstore/cart.php?page=rushton_unab_#What%20Others%20Have%20Said] (archived from [http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/reb.html#What%20Others%20Have%20Said the original] on 2007-10-15)</ref></blockquote>
-Journalist [[Jared Taylor]], editor of the [[American Renaissance (magazine)]] and self-professed [[racialist]] said:
+[[Hans Eysenck]] of the [[University of London]] has said:
-<blockquote>''Anyone who wants to understand the world as it is, and to base policy on facts rather than on fantasies, must read this very important book.''</blockquote>
-[[Hans Eysenck]] of the [[University of London]] said:
 <blockquote>''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.''[http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/reb.html#What%20Others%20Have%20Said]</blockquote>
+[[Harvard]] biologist [[E.O. Wilson]] (one of the two cofounders of r/K selection theory) states:
-Psychologist, and associate editor of the journal "Mankind Quarterly" [[Richard Lynn]] wrote:
+<blockquote>''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.''<ref>Knudtson P. (1991), ''A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society''; Rushton on Race, Stoddart Publishing (ISBN 0773724672)</ref></blockquote>
-<blockquote>''Should, if there is any justice, receive a Nobel Prize.''<ref>[http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/reb.html#What%20Others%20Have%20Said]</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20071015193947/http://amren.com/newstore/cart.php?page=rushton_unab_ Synopsis](archived from [http://www.amren.com/newstore/cart.php?page=rushton_unab_ the original] on 2007-10-15) of ''Race, Evolution, and Behavior'' by J. Philippe Rushton, American Literary Store.</ref>.</blockquote>
+Some critics have asserted that the viewpoints of some of these researchers may have been biased, due to their having been grantees of the [[Pioneer Fund]], the same organization which has funded much of Rushton’s research.<ref>[http://www.ferris.edu/isar/Institut/pioneer/rushton.htm The Race-Research Funder]</ref>  However, this claim would not apply to E. O. Wilson, as he has never been a Pioneer Fund grantee.
-=====Others=====
-[[Harvard]] biologist [[E.O. Wilson]] (one of the two cofounders of r/K selection theory) states:
-<blockquote>''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.''<ref>Knudtson P. (1991), ''A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society''; Rushton on Race, Stoddart Publishing (ISBN 0773724672)</ref></blockquote>
 ==== Unfavorable ====
-Psychologist and [[Peace Studies]] Researcher David P. Barash wrote in a scholarly review of ''Race, Evolution and Behavior''<ref name=reb2ndabridged/>:
+Psychologist and [[Peace Studies]] 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>
+<blockquote>''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>
+[[Leonard Lieberman]], professor of Anthropology at Central Michigan University wrote regarding Rushton's book:
-Humanities educator Dr. Barry Mehler <ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060909040859/http://www.ferris.edu/isar/resume.htm Resume of Dr. Barry Mehler at Ferris State University] (archived from [http://www.ferris.edu/isar/resume.htm the original] on 2006-09-09)</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 name=ferris /></blockquote>
-Dr. Marcus W. Feldman <ref>[http://www-evo.stanford.edu/marc.html Feldman Lab > Marcus W. Feldman<!-- Bot generated title -->]</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>[http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Lieberman2001CA.pdf How "Caucasoids" Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank: From Morton to Rushton]</ref></blockquote>
+==Mailing Controversy==
-Professor Zack Z. Cernovsky:
+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>[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3711/is_200111/ai_n9007738 Race, Evolution, and Behaviour: A Life History Perspective (Review)] 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/>
-<blockquote>In summary, although Rushton's writings and public speeches instill the vision of Blacks as small-brained, oversexed criminals who multiply at a fast rate and are afflicted with mental disease, his views are neither based on a bona fide scientific review of literature nor on contemporary scientific methodology. His dogma of bioevolutionary inferiority of Negroids is not supported by empirical evidence. Acceptance of similar theories should not be based on racist prejudice but on objective standards, that is, conceptual and logical consistency and integrity, quality of methods and data, and an analysis of disconfirmatory trends. Rushton's racial theory does not meet any of these standards.[http://web.archive.org/web/20041213121817/http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Rushton/rushton-black-reply.html]</blockquote>
+==Reviews==
-Professor Joseph L Graves:
-<blockquote>This article examines both the flaws in the general theory, and specifically Rushton's application of that same theory to human data. It concludes that neither Rushton's use of the theory nor the data that he has assembled could possibly test any meaningful hypotheses concerning human evolution and/or the distribution of genetic variation relating to reproductive strategies or 'intelligence', however defined.[http://ant.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/2/2/131]</blockquote>
-===Mailing Controversy===
+===Favorable===
+* [http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/16/books/what-is-intelligence-and-who-has-it.html ''What is Intelligence and Who has it?''], ''The New York Times''’ review of ''Race, Evolution, and Behavior'', ''The Decline of Intelligence in America'', and ''The Bell Curve''.
-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>[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3711/is_200111/ai_n9007738 Race, Evolution, and Behaviour: A Life History Perspective (Review)] 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/>
+* [http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/reb_gw.html The Return of Racial Science], by Glayde Whitney, published in ''Contemporary Psychology'', December 1996, pp. 1189-1191.
+* [http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/iq.pdf Review of ''Race, Evolution and Behavior''], by Henry Harpending, published in ''Evolutionary Anthropology'', 1995.
-===Criticism===
+===Unfavorable===
-* [http://web.archive.org/web/20060626123757/http://www.ferris.edu/ISAR/archives/mehler/foundation.htm, ''Mankind Quarterly'' and Eugenics] (archived from [http://www.ferris.edu/ISAR/archives/mehler/foundation.htm the original] on 2006-06-26), Rushton discussing the paper presented in 1989 on which ''Race, Evolution and Behavior'' was based.
 * [http://www.ferris.edu/isar/Institut/pioneer/rushton.htm ''The Race-Research Funder''], discussing the links of the [[Pioneer Fund]] to the distribution and positive reviews for ''Race, Evolution and Behavior''.
+* [http://web.archive.org/web/20041116141447/http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/bell-curve/rushton-review.html  Review of ''Race, Evolution and Behavior''], by Irving Louis Horowitz in Society, Jan-Feb 1995 v32 n2.
-* [http://bethuneinstitute.org/documents/racialscientestrushton.html "Rushton Takes Over the Pioneer Fund", Bethune Institute, January 2003]{{citation broken|date=March 2009}}, making note of links from pro-fascist Paul Fromm to the distribution of ''Race, Evolution and Behavior''.
-* [http://web.archive.org/web/20041116141447/http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/bell-curve/rushton-review.html  Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior], by Irving Louis Horowitz in Society, Jan-Feb 1995 v32 n2
 == See also ==