Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective

But certainly not race. You know, J. Philippe Rushton may be the most brave man on the planet for publishing this book on a topic so verboten that it actually got him investigated by the Ontario police. Canada, what a country, everyday I wake up pleased that I don't live there. Rushton informs the reader in his Preface that his goal is to examine whether or not innate differences between the races exist. He is not interested in proscribing policy or advocating positions, yet, for many in our universities, objectivity is a curse word they may not believe can even exist in any capacity. Rushton unwittingly stepped into a punji trap by daring not to grovel before activists disguised as professors. The classic confusion between politics and science can best be summed up in an exchange I had with an instructor last summer. In reference to a discussion on sex differences she said: "But what good do you do society by studying things like that?" The answer: the goal is to find truth. However, to elucidate the truth not only is the reason we have universities in the first place, but also a great good in itself. What you have before you with Race, Evolution, and Behavior is the attempt on the part of a learned social scientist to integrate theory with reality. Rushton analyzes 60 separate factors and compares them to see if disparities exist among Asians, Caucasians, and blacks. Some discrepancies, such as skin cancer rate, society will accept without a blush, but others, such as intelligence are more flammable than a depot of kerosene. Rushton doesn't glide, he heroically pushes forth with facts and research. In my humble opinion, this beleaguered scientist is a hero.

The scale of recent social problems in South Africa needs another explanation than the glib "nurture" argument with which we have been fed ever since World War II. This makes Rushton's book so relevant to understanding our situation. Despite huge efforts and money spent on black education, not only in separate schools under apartheid, but now, less than 50% of black children obtain the most basic school-leaving qualification.In fact, Rushton refers to some IQ testing done in conjunction with psychologists at the local liberal University of the Witwatersrand which shows that the mean IQ of first-year black university students is 84, conistent with the mean for the population at large of 75.All of Rushton's theory can be corroborated by everyday experience in South Africa: extreme violence and aggression displayed by young black males of low intelligence and high sex drives. This country has the highest rate for murder and rape in the world, 50 per 1000 members of the population, as against 8 per 1000 in the US, and about 4 for Britain.Also differential levels of demographic expansion predicted by his theory fits the SA case perfectly: over the past century blacks multiplied by 20, whereas whites only trebled (with the help of outside immigration of Europeans).Despite a high degree of initial scepticism (I have also been trained in the liberal, politically correct mode of thought), I found all of Rushton's arguments very convincing, as well as the theory of the evolutionary split 110 000 years ago between Africans and the rest, and 40 000 years ago between Caucasians and Mongoloids. With my current knowledge of evolution, the latter was both fascinating and highly plausible.Holding views like Rushton's in contemporary South Africa under black rule will probably land one in prison or at least make one liable for a large fine. And yet, given the level of violence experienced by whites who are being killed by the thousands in so-called "criminal" attacks, the tendency of different races towards aggression needs to be held up in broad daylight.The issues addressed by Rushton - he does not at all come across as a right-wing fanatic, rather more like a cool scientific mind - are of such relevance for South Africa and the rest of the world that it reminds one of Galileo confronting the Catholic Church to say that the earth revolves around the sun and being damned for it. Despite the fundamentalist outrage at this kind of reasoning, courageous people everywhere need to get a serious, scientific debate about race going. Rushton has already made a significant contribution.

The scientific evidence marshaled forth in this book is not only a scathing attack on the pseudo-scientific ramblings of Stephen Gould, Jared Diamond, Leon Kamin and the like, but an implicit denunciation of the political tendencies of the past thirty years that have elevated race-centric policies to a national obsession. Like all great scientific works of unimpeachable integrity, this book is apolitical, but it would be naive and simplistic to presume that this work carries no social or political implications. Rushton makes this point in the introduction of the book when he quotes a famous sociologist who openly admits sociology does not exist as a value-free science, but to push an agenda. Rushton's book is "controversial" and "incendiary" only because it conflicts with the aims of leftist politics. The science itself is solid and indisputable. Underlying Rushton's explication of empirical race differences is what population geneticists refer to as the r-K continuum. Without going into too much detail, the idea is that in order to cope with different environments species adapt specific reproductive strategies to maximize gene-flow into the next generation. K-selected species devote more energy to nurturing and less to reproduction, while r-selected species tradeoff parental support in favor of reproducing. While humans are at the K end of the spectrum, it is possible to differentiate among separate human populations (races). Rushton provides an overwhelming amount of empirical support -- everything from brain size, maturation rates, dizygotic twinning, age of menarche, gestation periods, frequency of sexual intercourse -- that shows the races consistently lining-up in the following order: Africans, Europeans, and East Asians, with East Asians being the most K-selected and Africans the least. The data ably refutes the two theological premises of egalitarianism: 1) race is not a valid scientific category and 2) races differences are due to environmental factors, not nature. Let's push the argument some more and think about it this way: either the races are equal or they are not. Now, what evidence can an egalitarian put forth that makes racial equality more plausible than racial inequality? Since the world conforms quite perfectly to the theory of raical inequality -- compare and contrast the history of the European race with the African race -- from what evidence does it make sense to infer that the races are equal? Since the facts directly contradict the theory of race equality the burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of egalitarians. To those who still shutter at the prospect however, I pose a simple question: If race equality is true, then why don't we observe it? Many critics here and elsewhere seemed upset that Rushton did not provide a stark and clear dividing line between the races. This however confuses the scientific concept of race. Is there a Siberian Husky gene that differentiates it from a Pit Bull gene? Is

This is a controversial book. It is fair, I think, to say that it was not written for popular consumption, but rather as a treatise aimed at the author's colleagues. The evidence is clear: in order to understand the bulk of the book, one must be conversant with statistical formulae and procedures, and have more than average knowledge of evolutionary anthropology, psychometrics, and psychology. The book is replete with graphs and formulae, and much of the language is technical.It has been called "incendiary," "racist," and the publisher of the first edition "caved in to [the] pressure" and withdrew from publishing the book and apologized for having distributed it. (See the Preface to this , the third edition.)"Why this attempt to trash or suppress this book?" asks the author in the Preface, "Because there is no stronger taboo today than talking about race. In many cases, just being accused of 'racism' can get you fired. Some vocal groups in academia and the media simply forbid an open discussion of race."But, J. Phillipe Rushton is no racist. He is a scholar, and an extremely well-qualified scholar at that. Despite the efforts of left-wing egalitarian social scientists to discredit his work because of the inescapable conclusions it presents, it is clear that his approach to his subject is neutral and clinical. Like Charles Murray's The Bell Curve, he is being attacked because he is the messenger, and the presents he brings are antithetical to their cherished belief that nurture (environmental effects), not nature (genetic evolution) is the reason for the divergence in SAT scores between the races. His worst sin is that he makes an excellent case, and is very persuasive.This book is about genetic factors and their differential effect on the three main racial branches of the human species; the Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid. It is heavily researched, footnoted, attributed and extremely scholarly.What the author found, after twenty years of studying the three major races, is that in the brain size, intelligence, sexual behavior, fertility, personality, maturation, life span, and crime and family stability rates, Orientals fall at one end of the spectrum, and Blacks at the other, with Whites in between. Orientals are slower to mature, less fertile, less sexually active, have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are opposite in those characteristics. And he has much evidence--hundreds of studies--to show that the reason is genetic, and that there are good, solid natural reasons for the variations.The chicken is an egg's way of producing another egg. The organism is the gene's way of producing more genes. Whether the methodology chosen for the organism's success is production of more offspring, as in a relatively benign climate like Africa, or in a harsher environ like Siberia, to develop better tools, shelter, domestic animals, and depend upon the careful nurture of fewer young, the problem is still successful procreation of th

By aggregating data on some sixty behavioral and physical traits, Rushton shows that they cluster on a racial continuum comprised of Negroid, Caucasian, and Mongoloid. This is an amazing result, because it shows in the clearest manner that racial differences are robust (a biological reality, not a social construct). Amazing too is the fact that the data used derive from quite varied sources over an extended period of time. One just does not expect such a beautiful result. Seems too tidy to be true. Critics have disputed his results, and to his credit, Rushton usually responds. Rushton explains his results in evolutionary terms, using the life history (r/K theory) approach. The differences between the three races derives from the adaptations each human population made as it encountered new environments on migrating out of Africa. His key point is that the sixty traits associate with a particular ecology AND that the racial variation of these traits correlates with the adaptive demands made on the populations that became Caucasians and Mongoloids. This part of the argument depends on the Out-of-Africa view of human phylogeny (populations that became Caucasian and Mongoloid migrated out of Africa about 110,000 years ago). But Multiregionalists propose a different interpretation. So there is no consensus on human phylogeny, and new evidence is constantly coming to hand that troubles both interpretations. For example, Chinese archaeologists recently reported fossil human remains dating to 200,000 BP. If this and other startling new findings hold up, the phylogenetic tree must be redrawn in its entirety! So it's premature to claim closure on this debate (not that Rushton DOES claim closure).Since Galton's pioneering work, psychologists have devised many methods for estimating trait heritability in the absence of direct genetic evidence. Such is Rushton's procedure. However, as human genetics becomes ever more refined, direct evidence about the genetics of traits will come to light and thus provide a set of tests for Rushton's theory. He underscores this fact and welcomes the tests. This is a robust, empirical theory of race that makes many testable predictions. Well done!