Race, Evolution, and Behavior: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Miradre (talk | contribs)
9,214 edits
→‎Critical responses: remove quote by wilson taken out of context - remove crovovic study for undue weight
Line 119: Line 119:


==== Favorable reviews====
==== Favorable reviews====
Psychologist [[Arthur Jensen]] <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:
Psychologist [[Arthur Jensen]] Rushton's close friend: <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:


<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>
<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>


[[Hans Eysenck]], the most cited psychologist in the world, of the [[University of London]], has said:
[[Hans Eysenck]], Rushton's thesis advisor, has 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>
<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>


Line 133: Line 133:
In ''Evolutionary Anthropology'', [[Henry Harpending]] wrote:
In ''Evolutionary Anthropology'', [[Henry Harpending]] wrote:
<blockquote>I believe that this is very important and pioneering work and that Rushton deserves congratulations for bringing it together and, most of all, for trying to understand it within the framework of modern science. Perhaps there will ultimately be some serious contribution from the traditional smoke-and-mirrors social science treatment of IQ, but for now Rushton’s framework is essentially the only game in town.<ref>Harpending, Henry. [http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/iq.pdf Evolutionary Anthropology], 1995.</ref></blockquote>
<blockquote>I believe that this is very important and pioneering work and that Rushton deserves congratulations for bringing it together and, most of all, for trying to understand it within the framework of modern science. Perhaps there will ultimately be some serious contribution from the traditional smoke-and-mirrors social science treatment of IQ, but for now Rushton’s framework is essentially the only game in town.<ref>Harpending, Henry. [http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/iq.pdf Evolutionary Anthropology], 1995.</ref></blockquote>

[[Harvard]] biologist [[E.O. Wilson]], one of the two co-founders of r/K selection theory, stated (in 1991, prior to the appearance of the book) that "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> from Knudson P. (1991), ''A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society''; Rushton on Race, Stoddart Publishing (ISBN 0773724672)</ref>


[[Irving Louis Horowitz]], the director of the book’s publisher Transaction Press, wrote that although he was unconvinced of Rushton’s conclusions, the book was still an important contribution to the field of social science:
[[Irving Louis Horowitz]], the director of the book’s publisher Transaction Press, wrote that although he was unconvinced of Rushton’s conclusions, the book was still an important contribution to the field of social science:
<blockquote>It may well turn out that this sort of analysis is a crock. Indeed, not a few psychologists have heatedly claimed just that. By the same token, we are publishers of a wide ranging series of books on the African presence in Asia and Egypt, with claims of African origins in science and culture. These too have had their detractors (not a few of which have been published in Society by the way). Scholarship is an uneven and rocky road. While for the most part, issues of such fundamental antipathies do not occur, it is precisely the safeguarding of just those works which dare to tread on dangerous ground that need the most protection.</blockquote>
<blockquote>It may well turn out that this sort of analysis is a crock. Indeed, not a few psychologists have heatedly claimed just that. By the same token, we are publishers of a wide ranging series of books on the African presence in Asia and Egypt, with claims of African origins in science and culture. These too have had their detractors (not a few of which have been published in Society by the way). Scholarship is an uneven and rocky road. While for the most part, issues of such fundamental antipathies do not occur, it is precisely the safeguarding of just those works which dare to tread on dangerous ground that need the most protection.</blockquote>


Horowitz concludes that “For these reasons, Professor Rushton is and must be considered a valued member of both the academic and scientific communities to which he contributes.”<ref>Horowitz, Irving Louis. [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''] in Society, Jan-Feb 1995 v32 n2.</ref>
Horowitz concludes that “For these reasons, Professor Rushton is and must be considered a valued member of both the academic and scientific communities to which he contributes.”<ref>Horowitz, Irving Louis. [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''] in Society, Jan-Feb 1995 v32 n2.</ref> Horowitz later retracted support for the book and had the remaining copies destroyed.


====Later favorable studies ====
====Later favorable studies ====
Line 147: Line 145:
Rushton (2004) argued that the theory was supported by relationships between brain weight and several other variables among 234 [[mammalian]] species: longevity (r = .70), gestation time (.72), birth weight (.44), litter size (-.43), age at first mating (.63), duration of lactation (.62), body weight (.44), and body length (.54). The relationship remained after controlling for body weight and body length. Looking 21 [[primate]] species, brain size still correlated .80 to .90 with life span, length of gestation, age of weaning, age of eruption of first molar, age at complete dentition, age at sexual maturity, inter-birth interval, and body weight.<ref>{{cite doi|10.1016/j.intell.2004.06.003}}</ref>
Rushton (2004) argued that the theory was supported by relationships between brain weight and several other variables among 234 [[mammalian]] species: longevity (r = .70), gestation time (.72), birth weight (.44), litter size (-.43), age at first mating (.63), duration of lactation (.62), body weight (.44), and body length (.54). The relationship remained after controlling for body weight and body length. Looking 21 [[primate]] species, brain size still correlated .80 to .90 with life span, length of gestation, age of weaning, age of eruption of first molar, age at complete dentition, age at sexual maturity, inter-birth interval, and body weight.<ref>{{cite doi|10.1016/j.intell.2004.06.003}}</ref>


Črovović (2004) examined different rK strategies among different groups of [[Romani]] in Serbia.<ref>Sexual and Reproductive Strategies Among Serbian Gypsies, Jelena Črovović, POPULATION & ENVIRONMENT
Volume 25, Number 3, 217-242, DOI: 10.1007/s11111-004-4485-y</ref>


Figueredo and various colleagues (2004, 2005, 2006) have in several different studies argued that that the r/K factor underlays several personality and life history parameters.<ref>{{cite pmid|17019827}}</ref><ref>{{cite doi|10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.009}}</ref><ref>{{cite doi|10.1016/j.dr.2006.02.002}}</ref>
Figueredo and various colleagues (2004, 2005, 2006) have in several different studies argued that that the r/K factor underlays several personality and life history parameters.<ref>{{cite pmid|17019827}}</ref><ref>{{cite doi|10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.009}}</ref><ref>{{cite doi|10.1016/j.dr.2006.02.002}}</ref>

Revision as of 12:38, 11 April 2011

Race, Evolution and Behavior
File:Race evolution and behavior.jpg
Cover of the unabridged third edition of Race, Evolution and Behavior
AuthorJ. Philippe Rushton
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
SubjectEvolutionary psychology
PublisherTransaction Books, later The Charles Darwin Research Institute
Publication date
1995, 1997, 2000
Pages388
ISBN978-0965683616

Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective is a controversial evolutionary psychology book (first unabridged edition 1995, third unabridged edition 2000) 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 across 60 different behavioral and anatomical variables, with Mongoloids (Orientals, East Asians) at one end of the continuum, Negroids (blacks, Africans) at the opposite extreme, and Caucasoids (whites, Europeans) in the middle.[1]

A number of responses have criticized the book, its selection of data, its methodology, and its conclusions.

Summary

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

Rushton argues that Mongoloids, Caucasoids, and Negroids fall consistently into the same one-two-three pattern when compared on a list of 60 different behavioral and anatomical variables. (Rushton's 2000 book, like other population history works, e.g. Cavalli-Sforza 1994, uses the terms Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid to describe these groups broadly conceived, but these terms have 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.)[3] Rushton uses averages of hundreds of studies, modern and historical, to assert the existence of this pattern. Rushton's book is focused on what he considers the three broadest racial groups, and does not address other populations such as South East Asians or Australian aboriginals.

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 writes 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 evolutionary history correlates with, and is responsible for, a consistent global racial pattern which explains many variables such as worldwide crime statistics or the global distribution of AIDS.

r/K selection theory

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
Academic achievements none 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).
Further information: r/K selection theory and Life history theory

Rushton writes 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 argues 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 of his data parsimoniously.

Critical responses

Professional opinions

Favorable reviews

Psychologist Arthur Jensen Rushton's close friend: [4] and Professor Emeritus of educational psychology at the University of California, Berkeley,[5] 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.[6][7]

Hans Eysenck, Rushton's thesis advisor, 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.[2]

In Contemporary Psychology, Glayde Whitney wrote:

Serious scientific considerations of similarities and differences among the living races of humankind have been in eclipse for most of a century. With Race, Evolution and Behavior author Rushton goes a good distance toward reinstating objective scientific rationality to this important and sensitive area of investigation.[8]

Jensen, Eysenck and Whitney have been grantees of the Pioneer Fund, which has also funded some of Rushton’s research.[9]

In Evolutionary Anthropology, Henry Harpending wrote:

I believe that this is very important and pioneering work and that Rushton deserves congratulations for bringing it together and, most of all, for trying to understand it within the framework of modern science. Perhaps there will ultimately be some serious contribution from the traditional smoke-and-mirrors social science treatment of IQ, but for now Rushton’s framework is essentially the only game in town.[10]

Irving Louis Horowitz, the director of the book’s publisher Transaction Press, wrote that although he was unconvinced of Rushton’s conclusions, the book was still an important contribution to the field of social science:

It may well turn out that this sort of analysis is a crock. Indeed, not a few psychologists have heatedly claimed just that. By the same token, we are publishers of a wide ranging series of books on the African presence in Asia and Egypt, with claims of African origins in science and culture. These too have had their detractors (not a few of which have been published in Society by the way). Scholarship is an uneven and rocky road. While for the most part, issues of such fundamental antipathies do not occur, it is precisely the safeguarding of just those works which dare to tread on dangerous ground that need the most protection.

Horowitz concludes that “For these reasons, Professor Rushton is and must be considered a valued member of both the academic and scientific communities to which he contributes.”[11] Horowitz later retracted support for the book and had the remaining copies destroyed.

Later favorable studies

Lynn (2000) examined surveys of sexual behavior and found the racial differences to be consistent with the theory.[12]

Rushton (2004) argued that the theory was supported by relationships between brain weight and several other variables among 234 mammalian species: longevity (r = .70), gestation time (.72), birth weight (.44), litter size (-.43), age at first mating (.63), duration of lactation (.62), body weight (.44), and body length (.54). The relationship remained after controlling for body weight and body length. Looking 21 primate species, brain size still correlated .80 to .90 with life span, length of gestation, age of weaning, age of eruption of first molar, age at complete dentition, age at sexual maturity, inter-birth interval, and body weight.[13]


Figueredo and various colleagues (2004, 2005, 2006) have in several different studies argued that that the r/K factor underlays several personality and life history parameters.[14][15][16]

Rushton, Bons, and Hur (2008) argued that there is a general factor of personality, based on the r/K theory, that underlies the Big Five personality traits.[17] Rushton and different colleagues have in several more studies argued that this general factor is empirically supported. The factor was also related to emotional intelligence and humor.[18][19][20][21][22][23] Amigó and colleagues also found support for the theory.[24] Rushton and colleagues (2010) have also argued that this general factor of personality is a factor in personality disorders.[25] Erdle and Rushton (2010) argued that the underlying biological mechanism for this personality factor may be differences in J. A. Gray's Behavioral Inhibition System and Behavioral Activation System, finding support for this from analyzing self-reported expectancies of reward and punishment, self-esteem, and positive and negative affect.[26] Veselka and colleagues (2009) also found support for the general factor of personality and that it is partially heritable.[27][28] Linden and colleagues (2010) found that the general factor of personality was a predictor of likeability and popularity among classmates.[29]

Rushton and Jensen (2005) have seen the theory as supporting the partially genetic explanation for racial differences in IQ.[30]

Charles and Egan (2005) argued that high mating effort is strongly related to delinquency which supports the use of the theory in order to understand forensic issues.[31]

Kanazawa (2007) found support for the theory, as well as several related, when examining how average national IQs varied with geography.[32]

Voracek (2009) found evidence for that suicidal behavior across nations is related to the theory.[33]

Templar in a 2008 study argued that Rushton's r/K factor explained 75% of the variance for national differences in IQ, birth rate, infant mortality, HIV/AIDS, life expectancy, skin color, and GDP (median r=.68). He argued that birth rate, infant mortality rate, and the prevalence of HIV/AIDS correlated higher with IQ than with GDP.[34] Wicherts et al. (2010) criticized this for ignoring demographic changes such as that in much of the twentieth century, fertility and infant mortality rates have been much higher in China than in European countries.[35]

Rushton and Templar in a 2009 study argued that violent crime (murder, rape, and serious assault) was lower in countries with higher IQs, higher life expectancies, lighter skin color, and lower rates of HIV/AIDS. Higher national incomes or higher rates of infant mortality did not affect the results. Differences in testosterone was suggested as one possible explanation for some of these differences, as well as for differences in aggression and some measures of sports performance between different races.[36][37]

Unfavorable

Validity of the concept of race

Main articles: Race (classification of human beings) and Race and genetics

In a review of Rushton's book, Richard Lewontin (1996) wrote:

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.[38]

In a review of Rushton's book, anthropologist C. Loring Brace (1996) wrote:

"Race, Evolution, and Behavior is an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy of 'racialism'"[39]

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.

Validity of the data and the methodology of aggregating the data

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 argues that by averaging many studies the results one gets can be accurate. The expectation being that the law of large numbers will make individual flawed results cancel one another out.

Douglas Wahlsten (2001), a biologist, criticized this in a review:

"However, 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. The methods of obtaining the brains were also far from contemporary standards for neuroscience. A report of five black Civil War soldiers from 1865 is given the same weight as a 1934 study of over 300 dead Kenyans. One of the two studies with more than one racial group involved the unclaimed bodies of the indigent and executed criminals in the Baltimore area. Those data varied greatly in the time from death to removal of the brain and method of preserving the brains. Numerous factors can affect measures of brain size, and valid inferences about group differences can be drawn only if it is certain that members of different groups were treated the same way. In my opinion, most of the data raked into one big pile by Rushton are worth less for scientific analysis and should be excluded. Unfortunately, Rushton has not done the hard work of separating the potentially valuable data from the trash. He misleads unwary readers by claiming that averaging many studies can overcome poor research methods. Faced with this kind of criticism, Rushton tells us: "My response is that critics have failed to show an opposite predicted ordering in brain size, intelligence, sexual restraint..." (p. 236). For his critics to succeed, they supposedly must prove the null hypothesis that group differences are "randomly distributed around a mean of zero." This is a posture I term "chip-on-the-shoulder science." 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."[40]

Brace in his review claimed that Rushton makes unsupported claims about sub-Saharan African societies."[39]

r/K theory as an explanation for the data

Rushton argued that European and Asian peoples adapted to survival in "predictable cold environments" requiring increased brain size and parenting behavior. Liberman (2001) argued that many animal species do not follow the predictions of r/K theory. He further argued 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. Liberman argues, 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. Brace in a comment writes 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.[41]

Evolutionary Biologist Joseph L. Graves (2002) criticized Rushton's application of r/K selection and Life History theories arguing that Rushton doesn't understand the concepts:

I ran a search on BIOSIS using r- and K-selection as keywords for the period of 1995 to 2001, and found only one article. This appeared in the Journal of Environmental Biology, rather ironically concerning algal diversity in treated versus untreated sewage. Stearns (1992) and Roff (1992) presented r- and K-theory as a once useful heuristic that no longer serves any purpose in the discussion of life history theory. It should be noted that their conclusions appeared three years before Rushton published his analysis of human 'racial' variation, with r- and K-selection as its cornerstone. It is hard to understand how any serious student of life history evolution could have missed these developments in the theory. In fact, I had the opportunity to present these same observations to J.P. Rushton personally. This occurred at a panel discussion held at the John Jay College of Criminal Law, City University of New York, 20 March 1997. Yet his newly released abridged version of Race, Evolution and Behavior would still claim that r- and K-life history theory was 'a basic principle of modern evolutionary theory'. This would indicate that either Rushton does not agree with the theoretical and experimental work invalidating r- and K-theory, does not understand the argument, or has consciously chosen to ignore it. If the first possibility were true, then we would expect some theoretical justification to appear in his work that addresses these specific criticisms. Yet absence of such a response only supports my view that Rushton does not understand life history theory. Thus he employs it incorrectly and through this error his work serves racist ideological agendas.[42]

Psychologist and Peace Studies Researcher David P. Barash wrote (1995) in a 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[...]. Bad science and virulent racial prejudice drip like pus from nearly every page of this despicable book"[43]

Scott MacEachern (2006) argued 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. He therefore argued that regional differences in IQ test score results should not be ascribed to variations in human evolutionary development.[44]

Peregrine et al. (2003) argued, 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." They used data from the "186-society Standard Cross-Cultural Sample" and found no statistical support for the predicted associations between "race" and behavior.[45]

Francisco Gil-White, writing in regards to Peregrine's work, states:

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.[46]

Other

Allen et al. (1992), while not commenting on the book, criticized Rushton's earlier studies regarding twinning 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."[47]

Cernovsky (1995), while not commenting on the book, criticized similar earlier studies by Rushton.[48]

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.""[49]  The director of Transaction Press Irving Louis Horowitz, although he had defended the original edition of the book, "condemned the abridged edition as a 'pamphlet' that he had never seen or approved prior to its publication."[49] 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.[49] After the mass mailing, 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."[50] Francisco Gil-White wrote "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."[51]

Reviews

See also

Related:

References

  1. ^ Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (PDF) (2nd special abridged ed.). Port Huron, MI: Charles Darwin Research Institute. ISBN 1560003200.
  2. ^ Presented at the Symposium on Evolutionary Theory, Economics and Political Science, AAAS Annual Meeting (San Francisco, CA, January 19, 1989)
  3. ^ 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.

  4. ^ Jensen is listed in a study by Haggblom et al. (2002), of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the twentieth century, at number 47.
  5. ^ http://www.edb.utexas.edu/robinson/danr/JEBS%2031(3)%20-06_Jensen%20profile.pdf
  6. ^ RACE, EVOLUTION, and BEHAVIOR: A Life History Perspective
  7. ^ Review by American Renaissance Store of J. Philippe Rushton, [1] (archived from the original on 2007-10-15)
  8. ^ Whitney, Glayde (December 1996). Contemporary Psychology. 41 (12): 1189–91. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  9. ^ The Race-Research Funder. Institute for the Study of Academic Racism, April 17, 2000.
  10. ^ Harpending, Henry. Evolutionary Anthropology, 1995.
  11. ^ Horowitz, Irving Louis. Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior in Society, Jan-Feb 1995 v32 n2.
  12. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1023/A:1006633632359, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1023/A:1006633632359 instead.
  13. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.intell.2004.06.003, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.intell.2004.06.003 instead.
  14. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 17019827, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=17019827 instead.
  15. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.009, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.009 instead.
  16. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.dr.2006.02.002, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.dr.2006.02.002 instead.
  17. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.03.002, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2008.03.002 instead.
  18. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.015, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.015 instead.
  19. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1375/twin.12.4.356, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1375/twin.12.4.356 instead.
  20. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.015, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.015 instead.
  21. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.009, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.009 instead.
  22. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.011, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.011 instead.
  23. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.06.002, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2009.06.002 instead.
  24. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 20480675, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=20480675 instead.
  25. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1375/twin.13.4.301, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1375/twin.13.4.301 instead.
  26. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.025, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.025 instead.
  27. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1375/twin.12.3.254, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1375/twin.12.3.254 instead.
  28. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1375/twin.12.5.420, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1375/twin.12.5.420 instead.
  29. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.08.007, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.jrp.2010.08.007 instead.
  30. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235 instead.
  31. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.06.021, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2004.06.021 instead.
  32. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.intell.2007.04.001, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.intell.2007.04.001 instead.
  33. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 20178273, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=20178273 instead.
  34. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.05.010, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2008.05.010 instead.
  35. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.028, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.028 instead.
  36. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.intell.2009.04.003, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.intell.2009.04.003 instead. http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2009%20INTELL%20(Crime).pdf
  37. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.011, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.011 instead. http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1292538/998768009/name/Templer+Reply+to+Wicherts.pdf
  38. ^ "Review: Of Genes and Genitals". Transition. 0 (69): 178–193. 1996.
  39. ^ a b "Review: Racialism and Racist Agendas". American Anthropologist, New Series. 98 (1): 176–7. March 1996.
  40. ^ Book Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior
  41. ^ Lieberman L (2001). "How "Caucasoids" got such big crania and why they shrank. From Morton to Rushton". Curr. Anthropol. 42 (1): 69–95. doi:10.1086/318434. PMID 14992214. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/lieberman-on-rushton.pdf
  42. ^ Graves, J. L. (2002). "What a tangled web he weaves Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory". Anthropological Theory. 2: 2 131–154. doi:10.1177/1469962002002002627.
  43. ^ Barash D.P (1995) Book review: Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Animal Behaviour 49:1131-1133.
  44. ^ Africanist archaeology and ancient IQ: racial science and cultural evolution in the twenty-first century World Archaeology Volume 38, Number 1 / March 2006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438240500509918
  45. ^ Peregrine, Peter N.; Ember, Carol R.; Ember, Melvin (September 2003). "Cross-cultural evaluation of predicted associations between race and behavior". Evolution and Human Behavior. 24 (5): 357–364. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00040-0.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  46. ^ Resurrecting Racism, Chapter 10
  47. ^ 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.
  48. ^ 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.
  49. ^ a b c Weizmann, Fredric (November 2001). "Race, Evolution, and Behaviour: A Life History Perspective (Review)". Canadian Psychology.
  50. ^ UWO Gazette Volume 93, Issue 68 Tuesday, February 1, 2000 Psych prof accused of racism
  51. ^ Resurrecting Racism, Chapter 10, Francisco Gil-White.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior&oldid=423503144"