Race, Evolution and Behavior

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Race, Evolution And Behavior: A Life History Perspective is a controversial book written by J. Philippe Rushton in which he claims 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)

[edit] 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 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 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.

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.

[edit] Critiques

[edit] Validity of the methodology of aggregation

In Race, Evolution and Behavior, Rushton uses a methodology he calls "aggregation" of evidence, in which he averages hundreds of studies, modern and historical, with equal weight regardless of the quality of the data to demonstrate the racial patterns he asserts. He says that by averaging many studies the results one gets can be very accurate. He argues that measurement errors typically cancel out when multiple studies are averaged, and that his approach is less biased than the work of researchers who selectively pick and choose from the worldwide literature based on critical analysis.

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:

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.^[5]

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

The author is an earnest believer in genetically determined race differences, and he vows to cling tenaciously to his world view unless his opponents can provide conclusive proof to the contrary. In my opinion, this is the kind of approach to be expected from religious zealots and politicians, not professional scientists. A rigorous evaluation of the evidence cited by Rushton reveals the methods in most studies were seriously flawed and render the data inconclusive. If the evidence is so poor, the proper action for a scientist is to suspend judgment. In reality, there is not one properly controlled study of brain size comparing representative samples of races in the entire world literature.^[5]

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."

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

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

In a 1996 review of the book, anthropologist C. Loring Brace wrote that "Race, Evolution, and Behavior is an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy of 'racialism'" (Brace 1996). Brace argues that Rushton assumes the existence of three biological races with no evidence except Rushton's speculation as to what an extraterrestrial visitor to Earth would think. Brace also disagrees with Rushton applying the concept of heritability (normally applied in the context of individuals) to groups. Finally, Brace claims Rushton makes unsupported claims about sub-Saharan African societies.

Other critics have also charged that his interpretations, conclusions and methods are "sloppy" and "unscientific"^[6].

[edit] Validity of the concept of race

Main article: Race

Ongoing debate exists over the merit of the concept of 'race', especially from the perspective of genetics. Many scientists argue that common racial classifications are insufficient, inaccurate, or biologically meaningless.^[7] For example, Lewontin (1972) argues that there is no biological basis for race on the basis of research indicating that more genetic variation exists within such races than between them. Others assert that while this Lewontin is correct for single variables, when taking multiple variables data often cluster together according to traditional racial classifications (see Lewontin's fallacy). Whether or not such clusters are valid indicators of real difference, or simply artificially introduced statistical artifacts is a matter of significant debate.

Defenders of Rushton's book, such as Arthur Jensen, argue that race is a valid biological categorization. Cavalli-Sforza, whose genetic research is cited in Race, Evolution and Behavior^[1], 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:

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

To see this a little better, consider the following. It stands to reason that my brother and I are more genetically similar than either of us is to our third cousin, but that hardly means my brother and I are in one race, and our third cousin in another. The same is true with populations. Cavalli-Sforza’s trees are a bit like the genealogical tree that would show my brother and I as more closely related to each other than to our third cousin: they show that two local populations are more genetically similar than either is to a third population which is farther away. However, these trees include no information about the magnitude of genetic differences between populations, which is why they can neither support nor undermine the claim that biological human races exist.^[8]

Despite the numerous scientific studies^[9] whose results contradict Rushton's basic claims in Race, Evolution and Behavior,^[1] supporters of Rushton assert that his focus on race is consistent with the work of forensic experts, research in bio-medicine, and biologists studying geographic variation in other species.

[edit] Native American exception

Rushton's hypothesis described in Race, Evolution and Behavior^[1] has difficulty explaining why Native Americans, who are arguably Mongoloids and emigrated from the northernmost parts of Asia, do not currently have high scores on IQ tests or low crime rates, though their large crania are consistent with Rushton's model.^[10]Defenders of Rushton argue that genetic evidence suggests that Native Americans are an archaic form of Asian^{[citation needed]}, and thus may not be quite as advanced as the rest of the Asian race.

[edit] The Flynn effect

The most serious challenge to Rushton's aggregated data on IQ scores in Race, Evolution and Behavior^[1] 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.^[11]

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 G factor), while the low IQ's obtained by contemporary blacks (even in the third world) are somehow valid reflections of cognitive functioning. Defending his position, Rushton wrote:

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

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

[edit] Inappropriate application of r/K

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

The r/K dimension is derived from an extremely wide range of species. Its dogmatic application to the drastically reduced variance within contemporary Homo sapiens is statistically naive (for more detailed explanations, see Cernovsky, 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.^[12]

[edit] 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,^[13] and is openly praised by proponents of eugenics.^[14]

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."^[15]

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."^[16]

Rushton's sources, such as semi-pornographic books and the Penthouse magazine, have been dismissed by other researchers, or have been criticized as extremely biased and inadequate reviews of the literature, or simply false [3]. There have also been many other criticisms of the theory [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Some recent data show that blacks are not more psychopathic [11], nor do they differ from whites when testing for the big five personality traits [12], differences in sex hormones between whites and East Asians are best explained by environmental differences [13], and the fundamental prediction of the theory that blacks have a higher frequency of twins is disputed by some sources [14]. 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,[15] both demographic characteristics that are more common among Whites.[16]

[edit] Professional opinions

[edit] Favorable

Psychologist and Pioneer Fund scholar Arthur Jensen 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.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Unfavorable

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

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"^[17]

Humanities educator Dr. Barry Mehler ^[18], wrote critically of Rushton's book, stating:

"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'.^[19]

Dr. Marcus W. Feldman ^[20], 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:

"Rushton seldom carries out direct measurements and does not adequately explain his selective use of the research and writing of others."^[21]

[edit] 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."^[11] 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."^[11] 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.^[11]

[edit] Criticism

• Rushton, Mankind Quarterly and Eugenics, discussing the paper presented in 1989 on which Race, Evolution and Behavior was based.
• The Race-Research Funder, discussing the links of the Pioneer Fund to the distribution and positive reviews for Race, Evolution and Behavior.
• "Rushton Takes Over the Pioneer Fund", Bethune Institute, January 2003, making note of links from pro-fascist Paul Fromm to the distribution of Race, Evolution and Behavior.

• Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior, by Irving Louis Horowitz in Society, Jan-Feb 1995 v32 n2

[edit] References

1. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, 2nd special abridged edition, Port Huron, MI: Charles Darwin Research Institute.
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. ^ ^{a b} Book Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior
6. ^ Sloppy Statistics, Bogus Science and the Assault on Racial Equity
7. ^ Smedley and Smedley 2005; Helms et al. 2005; [2]
8. ^ Resurrecting Racism: The modern attack on black people using phony science. Chapter 3 by Francisco Gil-White
9. ^ Various studies contradicting Rushton's work:
   • http://ant.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/2/2/131
   • http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14992214&dopt=Citation
   • http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1488860&dopt=Citation
   • http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/miller-r-personality
   • http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Library/Miller/env-vary.html
   • http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://els/10905138/2003/00000024/00000005/art00040&unc=
   • http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/RUSHRV.htm
   • http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15638207&dopt=Citation
   • http://www.getcited.org/pub/103361483
   • http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9626146&dopt=Citation
   • http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr52_10t50.pdf
10. ^ A Four-Letter Word Called "Race", Dr. C. Loring Brace
11. ^ ^{a b c d} Race, Evolution, and Behaviour: A Life History Perspective (Review) Canadian Psychology, Nov 2001, by Fredric Weizmann
12. ^ 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.
13. ^ Institute for the Study of Academic Racism Archives
14. ^ http://www.eugenics.net/ Website including prominent reference to Rushton's works
15. ^ UWO Gazette Volume 93, Issue 68 Tuesday, February 1, 2000 Psych prof accused of racism
16. ^ Ressurecting Racism, Chapter 10, Francisco Gil-White.
17. ^ Barash D.P (1995) Book review: Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Animal Behaviour 49:1131-1133.
18. ^ Resume of Dr. Barry Mehler at Ferris State University http://www.ferris.edu/isar/resume.htm
19. ^ Foundation for Fascism: the New Eugenics Movement in the United States, Patterns of Prejudice by Dr. Barry Mehler
20. ^ http://www-evo.stanford.edu/marc.html
21. ^ How "Caucasoids" Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank: From Morton to Rushton

[edit] See also

• Race and intelligence (Average intelligence gaps among races)
• Resurrecting Racism Gil-White, Francisco.