Talk:J. Philippe Rushton/Talk Archive 2006-09-18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Issues with reorg 1.1 Moved some stuff 2 Race Evolution section 3 Other problems 4 Protected 5 penis size, the r/K factor, etc. 6 Making the argument for linear evolution 7 I thought Wikipedia does not allow original research 8 Why was reply to the Flynn Effect edited out? 9 Incorrect criticism of Rushton's 3 way model 10 Page unprotection request 10.1 Sorry, edit conflict 11 suggestion 12 neutral language 13 Race and Cavalli-Sforza 14 Gil-White 14.1 Snyderman and Rothman 15 Unprotection request 16 Rushton and the extreme right 17 Raised during apartheid in South Africa 18 -oids 19 Race 20 Athletic??? 21 testosterone?

[edit] Issues with reorg

Let's discuss particular issues with particular sections here, as per the massive reorg that recently occured. Blanket reverting isn't helping move the article to a more NPOV stance - we need to work collaboratively with eachother, and express what our concerns are, and I think then we can more effectively address our issues. Please, let's talk about specific concerns you have here, and find some common ground on how to address it before doing massive reverts. Thanks! --JereKrischel 21:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop describing all Rushton supporters by their most infamous description (i.e. Pioneer fund). One of the experts you quote was fired from his university but i don't describe him as fired professor. Also, the section on Rushton's race theory was very well written. Why would you erase half of Rushton's own views from an article about Rushton, while providing ample room for your own original research on racial mathematics. Why do you erase pro-Rushton quotes calling them red-herring while keeping in negative quotes?

I also think a huge problem is that we're all editing too much to quickly. That doesn't allow us to debate edits slowly point by point. You've already reorganized the entire article in a massive way allowing four complete sections all devoted to criticism. In light of all the changes you've already made, it would be nice if you could make future changes more slowly, describing each one, and make more effort to not play favorites with experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs)

The problem I'm having is that we did the reorg to separate things out, and instead of working with the new structure, old parts are being put back in without thought. For example, there is a section that says "(See Criticm)", and there is no section like that anymore.

I'm sorry if the Pioneer Fund seems to be an infamous description - they are particularly notable, and I think it should be clear where his support comes from. I tried to be neutral about putting that in (I didn't say, "From the infamous, facist Pioneer Fund") - is there a way we can include that salient information in an NPOV fashion for you?

Why is it relevant to point out where Rushton's supporters get their funding from? Every person being cited has some kind of bias yet only the bias of Rushton's supporters is pointed out. All of these people are being cited because they are experts so only their relevant qualifications (i.e. Harvard biologist)should be mentioned. You seem more interested in discrediting all those who agree with Rushton than producing a neutral article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs)

Well, the obvious answer is that if everybody supporting him is funded by the same group, they may have motives beyond pure academic ones in supporting his research. Is there a contra-example to the Pioneer Fund, that represents Rushton critics? If everyone on the other side is being funded by a single entity, I think it's important to note that too. I'm sorry if you feel like making associations clear is somehow discrediting people, but attribution is important. Much in the same way you'll have media disclaim their financial relationships to companies they cover in the press, I think that it is absolutely best practice here to make the funding connection clear - after all, Rushton is the president of the Pioneer Fund now, right? What might happen to people's grants if they contradicted him? --JereKrischel 01:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well he wasn't the president of the Pioneer fund at the time those quotes were taken. Obviously most of the people who support Rushton do similar research and thus get similar funding, but this is true in many areas of research. Seems kind of biased to describe all Rushton supporters as "Pioneer fund scholar" but describe all his detractos by their professional qualifications, even though in many cases, his detractors have lesser qualifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 (talk • contribs)

I'm not describing all Rushton supporters as Pioneer Fund scholars - I'm only describing those who are Pioneer Fund scholars as Pioneer Fund scholars. Have I mislabeled someone? Or are you asserting that there are no Rushton supporters who are not funded by the organization he is the president of? I fully support putting everyone's qualifications in their description, but we should also note those who have direct financial ties to the Pioneer Fund in the name of full disclosure. --JereKrischel 03:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the red-herring quotes, they may belong *somewhere*, but when put in arbitrarily they don't make sense - PC analysis doesn't refer to absolute genetic difference at all, and it shouldn't be held up as an argument. I'm sure there are better arguments to hold up - let's find them together! --JereKrischel 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if you read Jensen's quote, he seems to think that PC analysis describe genetic similarity and so that view deserves representation. It's not our job to decide which expert is correct. You posted an intelligent expert refuting race to counter Jensen's view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs)

I think we put that back in already:

Rushton supporters claim that when Principal components analysis is performed on data from Cavalli-Sforza, major racial groups did indeed form widely seperated clusters

Would you like to expand on that? Or have we settled it? --JereKrischel 01:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved some stuff

Okay, I've tried to re-add most of the NPOV portions of the previous POV edits - hopefully this gives us a good place to start. In general, I'm trying to leave the sections describing his work completely neutral (merely stating his beliefs, not making every argument he has), and putting all the debate in the Criticism sections - mostly that's because otherwise the argument ranges too wildly - one person will point out A, then the other one will say B, but look C, then someone responds to C, which leads to D, and has nothing to do with A.

I also removed text directly lifted from another website. We're not allowed to do that without attribution. If we want to make those arguments, we can summarize and reference them, but wholesale copying is not allowed.

Thank you everyone for helping with this - I'm sure with some hard work between us, we'll have a fair and balanced article addressing everyone's issues. Let's take our time, be polite, and assume good faith. Thanks! --JereKrischel 23:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Race Evolution section

Okay, I understand that there are issues with POV here, but let's not do blanket reverts. I think the cite for his book is good, the caption for the included image, and the shortened length of laundry lists. If there are additions past that you see should be made, let's try them out one by one to see if we can find some compromise! Thanks! --JereKrischel 00:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue's not POV, this issue is that when I encouraged you to reorganize the page, you took the liberty of eliminating much of the content from his primary theory. You cut out crucial explanations about the relevance of splitting off dates, many of the variables he discussed, the unifications of all the variables through r/K, the survival challenges of different environments. You devoted more detail to the criticism (including your own original arguments) than the original arguments of the subject of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 20 June 2006

Okay, for the variables he discussed, they're all in the table - I think it's pretty much overkill to list them all in the text.

We still have the information regarding the splitting off dates, and we still have the mention of the unified r/K. We also still have the survival challenges for colder environments...what in particular do you think is missing? --JereKrischel 00:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Splitting off dates:

Rushton concludes that Negroids branched off first (200,000 years ago), Caucasoids second (110,000 years ago) and Mongoloids last (41,000 years ago). Rushton has claimed that this first, second, and third chronological sequence perfectly correlates with, and is responsible for, what he believes to be a consistent global multi-dimensional racial pattern on everything from worldwide crime statistics, the global distribution of AIDS, to personality.

You didn't explain how or why the splitting off dates correlate with the pattern he describes in the broader evolutionary context which is one of the most important aspects of the theory. You edited out his quote about some populations being more advanced than others which is a radical idea because most people assume that all modern humans are at the same level of evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs)

Okay, let me try and edit that in...the specific quote you'd like would fit in well with "Rushton believes that this branching represents a linear evolution, with Negroids being the least evolved, and Mongoloids being the most evolved." --JereKrischel 01:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unified r/K:

Rushton believes that his collection of 60 different variables can be unified by a single evolutionary dimension known as the r and K scale. His theory is based on an attempt to apply the inter-species r/K selection theory to the immensely 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.

You edited out a lot of the r and K differences he claims to have seen among the races. He describes 60 different variables. The previous version mentioned as many of them as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I think it is inappropriate to laundry list all 60, or even more than a few. The table represents that data in a much more concise manner than a repetitive list. Certainly, the mere laundry list doesn't improve his argument - we've already declared that the variables he's chosen cover a broad range. --JereKrischel 01:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Survival challenges:

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 believes 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.

Is there something missing there? --JereKrischel 00:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The other problem is you just impulsively edit things you have no knowledge of in a way that badly distorts reality. For eample you write:

He asserts for example, "that many African-American youth have adopted a culture of anti-intellectualism", implying that their decisions about culture are based on their race.

You make it sound like Rushton is accusing African-American youth of adopting a culture of anti-intellectualism. It was Rushton detractors who claimed that anti-intelletucal culture was artificially lowering their IQ scores. Rushton simply replied that perhaps the culture was a product, not the cause, of the low IQ's.

I'm sorry, I thought I had followed that reasoning - genetics cause low IQs...low IQs cause anti-intellectual culture. Let me see if I can freshen that up a bit with your thoughts. --JereKrischel 01:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other problems

Why did you move Charles Murray's quote out of the "Questionable Methodology" section. It's obvious that you just want to cite all the scholars with a negative view of Rushton's methodology so that the reader comes away with the impression that his data is all crap. But Charles Murray defending Rushton's data and scholarship provided much needed balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I can see what you mean. I was trying to put the professional opinion in its own section, because I thought it wasn't a really good argument. Let me see if I can find a good way to move it. --JereKrischel 01:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why did you edit out this part of Jensen's quote:

This is true, however, only if one is comparing the range of individual differences on a given characteristic (or on a number of characteristics) within each population with the range of the differences that exist between the means of each of the separate populations on the given characteristic

You imply that race is invalid because differences within races exceed difference between them, but here Jensen explains that that's an oversimplification. You don't have to agree with Jensen, but his view is crucial to understanding why Rushton focuses on race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs)

Mostly because it was cited in a weasely way, leading off with "This is true.." Let me try and extract the whole quote and edit the section. --JereKrischel 01:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I also have a problem with this statement:

This research directly contradicts Rushton's proposed "evolution" of the races, demonstrating biogeographic evolution occuring as recently as 500 years ago, rather than 200,000, 110,000 or 41,000 years ago.

Can you please avoid making categorical authoritative statements like "the research directly contradicts". You downplay all the ways in which the theory supports Rushton's views (including editing out a quote) and then draw dogmatic attention to what you view as a contradiction. All Rushton said is that the races split off 200,000, 110,000, & 41,000 years ago. This research in no way shape or form contradicts those assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs)

You're absolutely right, I should have made it clear that that is only one interpretation. Made the edit, hope it helps! --JereKrischel 01:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a little better but again I have problems with your statement:

This research is seen by some as directly contradicting Rushton's proposed "evolution" of the races, demonstrating biogeographic evolution occuring as recently as 500 years ago, rather than 200,000, 110,000 or 41,000 years ago.

First of all you edit out the quote by a frequently cited expert Christopher Brand who sees the study as a total validation of Rushton and you replace it with "the research is seen by some". Who exactly are these some (besides you) and why is that bizare interpretation given weight? Also Rushton is describing splitting off dates which have absolutely nothing to do with this study and in no way, shape, or form are contradicted by it. From now on, if you wish to express a point of view could you please just cite an expert. If you can't find an expert that holds your view could you please just leave it out. Adding your own opinions as though they are a widely held academic criticism has no place in a wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 (talk • contribs)

I placed the Brand quote in the professional section...maybe we should move it back around. I'll definitely get a cite for you when the page opens up again. Whether or not you believe that observations of recent evolution contradict Rushton's assertion that the races branched off from each other tens of thousands of years ago is up to you, but some people do believe it directly contradicts his assertions of a tri-level hierarchy of races. --JereKrischel 03:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Some people do believe that the Earth is flat too but that doesn't mean they deserve space in a Wikipedia article. Please just stick to citing experts and leave your own opinions out of the article. How does the spread of a brain size variant contradict the dates at which humans split off? Now what you could say is that the study shows significant brain size evolution occuring after the races diverged but editorializing that as a contradiction of Rushton's theory is simply incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

I'll give you a professional cite - if there is any "flat earth" going on here it's on Rushton's part :). Simply put, Rushton asserts that there is a linear progression between his tri-level hierarchy - and he asserts the more recently "evolved" line is the most advanced. In order for his linear "evolution" to hold water, you need to believe that since isolation, no new evolutionary pressures have been applied to a given race - that the evolutionary pressures have remained constant, and that because of that, a "Negroid" today is much like a "Negroid" of 200,000 years ago, and a "Mongoloid" today is much like a "Mongoloid" of 41,000 years ago. Seing the speed of evolution continuing in time periods an order of magnitude less undercuts his idea because it asserts that in the past 41,000 years, and the past 200,000 years, these supposedly fixed populations have been simultaneously and independently reacting to environmental pressures and developing neurogenetic adaptations. --JereKrischel 16:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hominoids, apes, and monkeys represent a tri-level hierarchy within the primate order with the most recently evolved line being the most advanced, and yet since isolation massive new evolutionary pressures have been applied to a given grouping (i.e. hominoids) so I think it's probably your argument that doesn't hold water. Further hominoids, apes, and monkeys are very different from their direct ancestors millions of years ago. And the notion that the rapid line of brain evolution from which monkeys, apes, and early hominoids chronologically branched off (in direct correlation with their brain size) has continued full speed into modern humans, suggests that the chronological branching of modern races off that line will also correlate with brain size. Now if brain evolution has ended with the emergence of modern humans, then the splitting off dates would be irrelevant because the line from which races are diverging would have no neurogenetic significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.70 (talk • contribs)

You're drawing a false analogy there. First of all, the isolation you assert between humans is denied by the genetic Most recent common ancestor (see Rohde, Olson, and Chang (2004)). You also have Lahn's data to contend with, showing biogeographical continuities and discontinuities that challenge a simplistic notion of a tri-level hierarchy. Not to mention the question as to what is the "branch" and what is the "trunk" - you seem to pick a definition that is convenient, not supportable.

And contrary to your understanding, continuing brain evolution, observed world wide, in such recent times (well before the 41,000 years that "Mongoloids" were supposed to have "branched"), makes the case for judging people based on their ancestor's geographic location only a few hundred to thousand years ago. More likely than not, evolution continues to this day, confounding the attempts of people to pigeon-hole and classify humans into neat, discrete categories.

The most recent bit of evolution I've read about was a butterfly species within the past decade or so. Does this put them higher on the evolutionary hierarchy than those of us who have had 46 chromosomes for the past 200,000 years? :) --JereKrischel 04:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because the genetic isolation between groupings within the human species is much less than isolation between groupings within the primate order in no way invalidates an analogy between them. It just means that the analogy must be scaled down by an enormous degree. Indeed the r/K differences Rushton sees among the races are extremely tiny compared to the r and K differences seperating hominids, apes, and monkeys. This is exactly what we should expect given the fact that the latter groupings experienced far more extreme genetic isolation. Also far more brain evolution has occured since the 3 primate groupings became isolated, yet we still can evaluate them by their splitting off dates. Your reasoning seems flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Actually, *especially* because the genetic isolation is orders of magnitude less the analogy is invalidated. Conflating organisms which can be biologically distinguished as species, and those which exist on a continuum of change (in varying vectors) within the same species is flawed reasoning. What you're missing in your primate hierarchy is every little step inbetween that exists with humans - I believe the example is taking a bike ride from Scandanavia to Africa: you will not reach an identifiable point where people stop being "white", and start being "black". And to assert again, you can evaluate things on "splitting off dates" prejudges the question of which is the trunk and which is the branch. Rushton is simply finding patterns where none really exist. --JereKrischel 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually hominids, apes, and monkeys also exist on a continuum of change. For example chimpanzees share far more of their DNA with humans than they do with many or all other apes. At least PC analysis can group human populations into Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid categories, but a genetic PC analysis of all primates would probably contradict the human-ape-monkey division of primates because chimps and humans would cluster together, suggesting that the primate division (well accepted by biologists) is actually more arbitrary than the racial one. Indeed so continuous are the variations between humans and monkeys that chimps were originally considered to be the product of people having sex with monkeys and there was much confusion among early explorers over where to draw the line between man and ape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

A continuum is different that discrete discontinuities. The colorful thought that chimps may have been a product of people having sex with primates is something that I believe has been fairly discredited - unless Rushton has been performing experiments in this area :). When I refer to a continuum between all humans, I mean that you can find examples anywhere on the analog scale - 99% the same, 99.1% the same, 98.99% the same. Between hominids, apes and monkeys, you do not have this analog continuum - you have discrete differences that genetically prevent breeding (total genetic isolation), rather than a range of differences that cannot be biologically distinguished in anything but an arbitrary way. --JereKrischel 21:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Even today many dictionaries describe apes as a type of monkey, suggesting just how fuzzy the boundaries between the primates are. Of course the continuum going from one race to another is going to be alot more smooth but that's because the entire genetic spectrum has been scaled down by orders of magnitude so differences between divisions can become invisible to the naked eye. In addition to that, humans have become so successful an animal that they've migrated to every corner of the globe, so within almost every race, you see dark skin and fair skin adaptations to different climates. If apes and monkeys were as adaptable as humans, they too would diversify into many different geographic forms and this diversity would further blur the distinctions between the 3 levels of primates. Lastly, human races are capable of inter-breeding which allows all the races to blend perfectly into one another, but this in no way contradicts the fact that 10,000 years ago, humans were divided into relatively isolated breeding populations and even today, most humans can be statistically organized by a matrix of correlated traits that are rooted in common ancestry. If technological advances suddenly allowed the genetic crossing of humans, apes, and monkeys we could see a perfect continuum of these 3 groups emerge too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Most humans have a recent common ancestor of less than 5000 years ago - apes & monkeys have to go much further back. Again, both you and Rushton are conflating two completely separate issues - species differences, which by definition create total genetic isolation, and "racial" differences which are confounded by the continual sharing of genetic information. --JereKrischel 21:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The common ancestor from 5000 years ago is only caused by interbreeding between races. Like I said, if new technology progresses to the point where groups with more extreme isolation (i.e. humans, apes, monkeys) can produce offspring together, then you could see in the future all primates sharing a very recent common ancestor, but that wouldn't change the fact that many primates are primarily human, ape, or monkey in their genetic composition. About 10,000 years ago all the major races were relatively isolated from one another but then new technologies allowing efficient transportation caused them to interbreed more frequently. The fact that they're capable of interbreeding only means that an arbitrary threshold of genetic isolation had not yet been met, but the difference between races and species is a matter of degree. Even Darwin described races as incipient species, and within other species, races are described as subspecies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but postulating a technology that would allow specific species to overcome the genetic isolation caused by the inability to breed in no way brings you to a conclusion as to what the results of that breeding would be, much less if the hybrids that were created were sterile, or could continue breeding with or without technological assistance. The "arbitrary" threshold of genetic isolation is critical - without it, you essentially have a single gene pool and in the case of genetic research with humans, biogeographic differences of an order of magnitude smaller than variation within a given geographic area.

By your logic, we should consider non-breeding cousins as a separate "race", or a separate subspecies, right? --JereKrischel 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And no Rushton is not prejudging which racial group is the trunk or the branch. Virtually all human population geneticists will tell you that by far the oldest and deepest branch of the human family tree is between Africans and non-Africans. The non-African branch however continued to split into other races. A splitting of a branch represents an evolutionary development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

The genetic trees discovered clearly show that both the "African" and "non-African" branch continued to split - why does one count as the "branch" and one as the "trunk", other than colonial western convention? --JereKrischel 21:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The African branch only split into various ethnic groups within the African race. By contrast the non-African branch actually split into different races or if you don't like the term race, geographically isolated populations on different continents. The other reason why Africa is viewed as the trunk is because the first population of modern humans was in Africa and that population is ancestral to all of today's populations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but you and Rushton clearly mistaken here - the African branch has had isolations just as long and significant as any other branch of human biogeographic diversity. Take for example the sickle-cell anemia issue related to environmental pressure: it is common in some African populations, but not in others. For some reason, you and Rushton want to consider such geographic and genetic isolation on the continent of africa different than that between africa and asia? Or africa and europe?

Again, I point out here that you and Rushton arbitrarily made a decision on what is a "trunk", and what is a "branch", and have completely ignored the genetic research that has indicated biogeographic "splits" (which is probably the better term - a split into two equal branches that continued to respond to environmental pressures and selection) within each of Rushton's "races" (and including "races" he never even imagined). See http://www.friesian.com/trees.htm for a graphic representation of how West Africans are a more recent development than Europeans. Perhaps if you saw all of these splits as only various ethnic groups within the Human race, you'd have a better understanding of the scientific data available. --JereKrischel 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Rushton, me, or you wish to think. PC analysis and other objective statistical procedures cited by Jensen and Sforza clearly show that the African branch of the human tree forms a single cluster, while the non-African branch forms several clusters which is exactly what we would expect since the African branch remained on one continent while the non-African branch diversified into several continents. It's easy to arbitrarily single out any one particular trait (i.e. sickle-cell anemia) and divide Africans in to different races, but when the full range of genetic correlations are entered into a PC analysis, non-africans form widely separated genetic clusters, while different ethnic groups within Africa cluster together.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs) 

Read Principal components analysis, please. "Objective statistical procedures" are hardly implemented objectively when selecting what data to simplify away - and Rushton's interpretation of the clusters is hardly objective. How you can assert that the genetic diversification that occured on the continent of africa is any different that diversification that could occur elsewhere during the same time period is beyond me. And how can you deny the genetic distance trees is quite amazing. When you talk about the "full range" of "genetic correlations", what specifically are you talking about? Have you ever done a PCA on anything before? Do you have data you can demonstrate your point with, or are you just repeating sound-bites? I get the feeling that you are pushing a specific POV (without malintent) by denying any balanced critique of Rushton's work. How can we change the wording to allow a full expression of the contradictions Rushton faces on several fronts, but still remain sympathetic enough to allow the reader to decide whether Rushton or the other researchers are correct? --JereKrischel 02:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The PC analysis is cited in the article. Jensen has done yet another staistical analyis on another collection of genetic data by yet another researcher that has not been cited. All Rushton is saying is that life forms that branch off earlier are less evolved than higher branches. This is hardly a controversial idea, and is expressed in biology classes all over North America. The only reason it's controversial in Rushton's case is because he was the first to apply the idea to human sub-species. You argue that Rushton is prejudging the data by asserting which life-forms branched off earlier, but why does this criticism apply to Rushton only? Why not criticise the significance of splitting-off dates across the entire spectrum of living organisms? Why not criticise biologists who argue that reptiles are less evolved than mammals because they branched off earlier? All your same arguments could apply (i.e. genetic diversification has continued to occur among reptiles too)? Why not claim that biologists who study reptiles are prejudging the data by assuming that mammals branched off of reptiles and not the other way around. My point is that we have to judge human biological diversity by the exact same standards that are applied within any other biological category. The only response you've provided to this point is that humans are similar enough to interbreed, but all this means is that races are sub-species and not a species, but the genetic relationship among subspecies within a species is directly analogous to the relationship between species within an order, which is directly analogous to the relationship between orders within a class, which is directly analogous to the relationship between classes within a kingdom. True, sub-species can slowly blend together, and the distinction among them may one day vanish all together, but for now Rushton's ideas stand within a well-supported scientific framework. I think you need to step out and look at this from a much broader evolutionary perspective.

[edit] Protected

The page has now been protected to force all involved parties to use the talk page to resolve disputes, rather than furthering this disruptive edit war. Once you have reached an agreement and protection is no longer necessary, please let me know or request unprotection. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] penis size, the r/K factor, etc.

article says: Rushton has not provided any direct evidence to support this assertion, instead relies on examples of evolutionary trade-offs between brain size and reproductive frequency that permeates the r-K evolutionary scale. No study has ever shown a correlation between reproductive frequency and penis size.

there's a well established trade off between testis size and brain size: http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3367 bat species with promiscuous females have relatively smaller brains than do species with females exhibiting mate fidelity. This pattern may be a consequence of the demonstrated negative evolutionary relationship between investment in testes and investment in brains, both metabolically expensive tissues. --Rikurzhen 02:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, Rushton never cited studies on human testes size. Not even sure if any have been done. --JereKrischel 02:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Rushton does either, but I'm familar with at least one study done by someone who is now famous and probably wishes he hadn't (PMID 3083267). --Rikurzhen 02:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Rushton does mention the weight of the testes. I was planning on adding that to the table. He finds Caucasoid men have much heavier testes than Mongoloid men. I'll have to put a question mark for black men though since he cites no study for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 (talk • contribs)

Of course, Diamond only cites a 1974 study on differences between some Danish and Chinese testes on autopsy. Amazingly, this seems to be one of extremely few, or maybe the only study, on this in the world. He also notes "An explicit test revealed no relation between testis size and copulatory frequency in Korean men." Ultramarine 02:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess this sort of leads into the questionable quality of the research he chose to "aggregate"...I wouldn't be averse to making some note of the testes size studies, but what he said was, more-brains, less-penis, not more-brains, less-balls. Kindof OR for us to make the explanation for him, perhaps? --JereKrischel 02:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, we'd need to find testes-size to brain-size studies, not testes-size varying over biogeographic category, right? Not sure if you get anything just by saying balls are different between biogeographic areas... --JereKrischel 02:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Rushton never claimed that brain-size and sexual anatomy were inversely correlated among individuals, only between populations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 (talk • contribs)

What? So the trade-off somehow happens at a group level, but not an individual level? How would that work if a given population group he defines "evolves" and increases brain-size? Would that evolution somehow cause other population groups to spontaneously reduce their testes size? Can any group in isolation evolve into a big-brain/big-testes group? If Rushton claimed that brain-size and sexual anatomy only inversely correlate amongst populations, he's got a bigger problem defending his position that I originally thought. --JereKrischel 03:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Rushton never commented on tradeoffs at the individual level one way or another. But if in one environment brain size is selected and in another environment penis size is selected, you could very easily have one population with the bigger brain, the other population with the bigger penis, without their being any inverse correlation within each population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, you failed to address my point. If you took a population, and it selected for simultaneously big-brain and big-penis, it would destroy any relationship that might have existed between groups. If you can't assert that that trade-off must exist within a group, you simply cannot assert that that trade-off must be constant between groups.

Let me illustrate:

• Point in time "A"
  • Group 1 has big brains, small penis
  • Group 2 has small brains, big penis

At this point, we assert that there is a trade off - a group either has big brains, or big penis.

• Point in time "B"
  • Group 1 has big brains, big penis
  • Group 2 has small brains, big penis

At this point, we cannot assert that there is a trade off - Group 1 has managed to generate a bigger penis (since there is no inverse relationship within the group, according to your interpretation of Rushton), and has now destroyed the "trade-off" observed at point in time "A". Now, maybe, if you assert that Group 2 was forced to simultaneously develop even *bigger* penises, then the observed "trade-off" may remain constant - but now you're asserting that evolutionary pressures on Group 1 somehow affect Group 2. What's your mechanism?? --JereKrischel 16:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's possible for evolution to select a population to have both large brains and large penis. But when Rushton speaks of an evolutionary trade-off he simply means that some traits are more important in some environments than others, so a population with a small brain and a large penis in a warm environment may evolve into a population with a large brain and a shrunken penis as the migrate North. Thus in order to pass on more genes in the colder environment, evolution has traded their larger penises for large brains. This needn't imply an intrinsic inverse relation between the two variables, but rather, Rushton seems to believe that as humans migrated North, those with small brains (regardless of penis size) died out, and those with big penis (regardless of brain size) also died out. If both a large brain and a small penis increased genetic fitness up North, than Northern populations would average both larger brains and smaller penis, than the ancestral population that stayed warm, without either variable requiring an intrinsic relationship within each population, or even correlating among individuals. Rushton believes that those with small brains lacked the survival skills required to solve the new challenges they faced up North, and those with large penises were too focused on having sex with multiple partners to invest the needed time to form the stable families required to pass on genes in the harsh cold. By contrast in extremely warm environments, survival was more often a matter of luck, since not even a large brain could solve the problem of unexpected diseases and severe drought. And since large brains are so metabolically expensive, prone to over-heating, and hazardous to child-birth, those with small brains and big penises arguabley had good odds of survival, because the more children you can father with the greatest number of women, the greater the chances one of them will survive an unexpected drought or disease. By contrast in a cold environment, fathering a huge number of babies with many women will likely lead to none of them surviving, since up North each child might require lots of individual attention to learn the needed skills, and require a father focused on hunting for his family, since plant food would be scarce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.70 (talk • contribs)

So, now you're back to arguing that penis size is inversely related to brain size on an individual level. As an individual moved to a climate, you're asserting that the environmental pressures on brain and penis would be inverse, favoring one over the other. This is what you earlier disclaimed, but it seems to be your point again. --JereKrischel 04:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Prima facie, if the testis size v. brain size correlation is driven by natural selection -- rather than pleiotropy -- then there's no need for a within group correlation between the two. I'm surprised to read that Rushton plays up penis size more than testis size as the latter has a much more direct connection to sexual behavior. Human penis size is inordinate compared to other apes, possibly a product of sexual selection, but so is human brain size. --Rikurzhen 03:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. testes size is more relevant to Rushton's theory, especially since the more r selected chimps have testes almost 3 times heavier than humans. I think Rushton focuses more on penis size mainly because there's a lot more data (i.e. international condom sizes)Kinsley data etc. Rushton also argues that a larger penis increases the odds of penetrating etc and thus is related to reproductive output, at least within humans. Of course mechanisms change when you try to extrapolate to wildly different species, some of which reproduce without the need for a penis.

It seems that Rushton is continually confounded with the need to come up with new explanations :). If testes size v. brain size correlation is driven by natural selection that is proportional wherever you go (that is to say, move to one place, and you'll trade off one way, move to another, and you'll trade off another way), then the differences should be observable on an individual level as well, don't you think? After all, such differences would simply be reflective of having a family living on a colder or warmer side of town, right? --JereKrischel 04:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

By your own logic (which states that correlations among populations must be matched by correlations within them) then there MUST be intra-human variation between brain-size and reproductive capacity since inter-species variation is clearly shown by the r-K scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Um, wrong, by my own logic, finding no correlation between brain size and penis size within a given population, or in general amongst humans, the intra-human variation asserted to exist is obviously a misinterpretation of the data. Inter-species variation on the r/K scale is inappropriate to apply in terms of a single species - much like the ideal gas law breaks down when it encounters Van der Waals forces, r/K simply doesn't apply within a species. The attempt of Rushton to do so is clearly contradicted by the data - data he chooses to ignore. --JereKrischel 02:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually you're the one who is clearly contradicted by volumes of literature you don't even know exists. Sevel studies imply the r-k continuum differentiates populations within species, since races, are as Darwin said, "incipient species". Rushton cites Gadgil & Solbrig (1972) who studied the common weedy dandelion Taraxacum officinale sensu latu. "among populations of naturally occuring dandelions it was found that those biotypes growing on lawns more frequently walked on, mowed, or otherwise unpredictably disturbed (i.e., subject to r-selection) had, as expected, a higher seed output and a higher proportion of biomass devoted to reproduction than those dandelions growing in less disturbed areas. When the plants were subsequently grown from seed under greenhouse experimental conditions using a variety of temperatures and soils, it was demonstrated that the differences were genetically fixed." So just as the dandilion "race" exposed to unpredictable disruptions (i.e. mowing, being walked on) evolved an r strategy, Rushton is on solid evelotionary ground in claiming that those human populations exposed to unpredictable disruptions (severe unpredictable drought & disease in extreme hot climates) also evolved an r strategy. He backs this up not only by pointing to differences in sexual activity and desire, but differences in sexual anatomy, speed of the reproductive process, rate of maturation, and even frequency of twinning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

So now you and Rushton are asserting that unpredictable disruptions only occur in extreme hot climates? And that somehow because you could selectively breed dandelions, you can compare that to a continually mixing pool of humanity? Rushton's "pointers" to differences in sexual anatomy, etc, are pointers to bad data, and the simplistic application of flower studies are bad science.

Rushton never claimed that unpredictable disruptions ONLY occur in extreme hot climates. That's a straw-man argument. But clearly some environments select for more K traits than others, and since all the data Rushton could find in the world-wide literature (good data and bad data) points to racial difference in reproductive physiology, sexual behavior & anatomy, he applied r and K to human populations. F

I thought that Rushton's argument was that because a colder climate is harder to live in, it selected for a rearing-oriented strategy, and since a warmer climate is relatively easier to live in, it selected for a reproductive numbers-oriented strategy, 72.1.195.4, you're now trying to make the opposite point, i.e. that since warmer climates are more disruptive, people evolved an r strategy. You can't have the point both ways, lest you create a logical fallacy. I think this is an oversimplification and that both warm and cold climates have their share of challenges, and I don't see it goes more the way Rusthon describes it, or the way to describe it (which looks for all the world like the complete opposite). --Ramdrake 20:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

By Rushton's analysis, the unpredictable famine, disease and cold weather of Europe would have driven r-selection just as drought and disease in Africa would have. It also begs the question, over what time period do these disruptions need to occur - is a single hurricane in florida enough to drive humans to r-selection, or does it require 100 hurricanes over 10 generations? How many generations of "peace" are required to move closer to k-selection?

But the cold weather in Europe was actually very predictable, and just because diseases occur everywhere, does not mean they occur everywhere with equal frequency.

He's made a hypothesis based on disruption, and then with a magical wand asserted that historically, Africa had the most disruptions, Europe the middle, and Asia the least. Certainly the historical data on climate repudiates this terribly simplistic assertion, and the ham-handed application of observations on flowers to the complexity of human history is really quite amusing. --JereKrischel 17:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The analogy with weeds clearly shows you were wrong to assert that r and K evolution can not operate within a species. Now you wave a majic wand by implying that although r and K can apply within species, humans are somehow above the laws of evolution that govern every other form of life. And Rushton doesn't just assert that Africa had the most unpredictable survival challenges. I think many biologists would agree that many diseases spread more rapidly in warm climates like Africa, than in the extreme cold of historical North East Asia (Europe's climate was intermediate) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

No, I think JereKrischel is trying to point out that assigning an orderly amount of disruption scale to the different areas of the globe is a logical fallacy. One would first have to prove such a difference, and then it might be used to substantiate an r/K selection scheme. However, I don't see that claiming an r/K selection scheme based on something that can't be conclusively proven (that one climate was more difficult to live in than another) works, from a logical standpoint. And please do keep in mind that recent research points towards the fact that the first inhabitants of Europe, the Neanderthals, got supplanted by the Cro-Magnons coming from the South (eventually from Africa), because the Cro-Magnon were more adaptable than the Neanderthal (I'll look up a reference for you as soon as I find time). Thus, I think history so far tends to disprove Rushton's r/K hypothesis, if anything. --Ramdrake 20:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well applying an orderly amount of disruption scale is done all the time by population biologists studying r and K differences in non-human populations. Why is the burden of proof so much higher when humans are involved? And you are correct in pointing out that the modern humans from Africa were more advanced than cold adapted Neandertals, but climate is only half of Rushton's evolutionary model. The other half is splitting-off dates, and the modern humans who evolved in Africa emerged at a much later date than the Neandertals did so the greater adaptability of Cro-Magnon's is consistent with that aspect of Rushton's model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

The burden of proof is so high because Rushton claims it is harder to survive in a colder environment, and you claim that the amount of disruption in a warmer environment is greater, thus making it harder to survive, and making the use of a reproductive numbers-oriented strategy better. What I must point out is that this is the exact logical converse of Rushton's argument. Assuming you're both in good faith (which I do), either one of you is right (colder or hotter environment is harder to survive in), or you're both wrong (the difficulties pretty much are equivalent). In either case, it makes a very weak support for the r/K hypothesis as applied to humans, from a logical stance. Also, the splitting-off date (the first one, about 140 k years ago), was a bit before the emergence of Neanderthal, so conceivably, that would make Africans closer to Neanderthals, and the rest of the races closer to Cro-Magnon (or descendants thereof). This goes counter so many genetic studies I won,t begin to count them. --Ramdrake 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No what I think Rushton is claiming that in warm environments, survival is more a matter of luck (since disease can strike anyone)thus the only way to maximize the odds of passing on genes is by producing as many off-spring with many different partners as rapidly as possible, all of which should select for larger sex organs, more sexual behavior, and more rapid maturation. Since disease can randomly strike any area, those who produce offspring with as many different people in as many different places would be most likely to have at least some surviving off-spring. By contrast, in a cold environment, Rushton seems to argue that survival is less dependent on raw luck, because the challneges are within the control of those intelligent enough to build durable warm shelter, make fires, create warm clothes, form organized communities and families, create efficient tools for hunting and skinning large animals etc. Since luck would be arguabley less important in cold climates, increasing your genetic odds through raw reproductive numbers would be less relevant than evolving a larger brain that could solve survival problems. By contrast even a large brain would have trouble solving the problems of unexpected disease in warm climates.

Err... you think? Can you get an actual reference or quote? And I see even less evidence that survival is more a matter of luck in warm climates. Cold climates brings a higher incidence of upper respiratory infections, snowstorms, avalanches, frostbites, none of which are conducive to continued survival. Not sure if it's you or Rushton here, but it looks very much like someone is definitely spinning here, no offense intended.--Ramdrake 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not spinning, I'm just trying to articulate Rushton's side of the debate since I seem to be one of the few people here who actually read his book. And there's a lot more than just bad luck involved in being killed by respiratory infections, snowstorms, avalanches, as frostbites. I think you could argue quite plausibly that such forms of death would disproportionately strike those who lacked the brain size to create warm durable clothing and shelter, or who lacked the knowledge to avoid dangerous areas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Going back to Rushton's book (which I didn't read in its entirety, although I did read a 50-page abbreviated version that I found on the web), he sustains that warm climates with their droughts and their epidemics offer a much less predictable life pattern than living under more northerly climates, thus a reproductive numbers-oriented strategy was selected for warmer climates, and a rearing-oriented strategy was selected for colder climates. However, critics of Rushton raise (among several others) two very important points:

1. There is absolutely no evidence that living in warmer climates presents more of a challenge (or of a predictability challenge) than living in colder climates (in fact, intuitive reasoning would suggest the reverse is true, i.e. living under colder cilmates is more difficult). As a side point, Rushton mentions "unpredictable droughts" as a problem for warm climates, when during the period he refers to, most of north africa was covered with a rather dense forest.

I think Rushton agrees that colder climates are more difficult to survive in, but that death is more RANDOM (i.e. disease) in warm climates. If death can strike ANYONE, this leads to r selection. By contrast in cold environments, there were certain problem-solving skills people could acquire to avoid death, so death would disproportionately strike those with smaller brains.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

No, actually the only thing he says is that death is more random and more prevalent in warmer climates, for which there is no evidence. --Ramdrake 20:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Historical evidence, should his theory be right, would predict that civilisations should appear in colder climates first, and eventually spread to warmer climates. I believe Sumerian, Egyptian, Nubian, Greek, Roman, Arab, Meso-American civilisations prove to be rather convincing evidence that at least this prediction is disproved. --Ramdrake 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Rushton argues that Mongoloids and Caucasoid populations produced virtually all of the civilization advancements. I don't know how accurate his historical sources are, but certainly most of the populations you mention are Caucasoid and thus probably had ancestors that lived in cold environments, even if they later migrated to warm ones.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

There is NO evidence for most of these civilisations having previously inhabited colder climates, with the exception of the Meso-American civilisations. Again, you seem to be forming unsupported hypotheses to back up your claim. And in actually at least one case [[1]] a sedentary Egyptian population was shown to be related to other East African populations. That most of the major civilisations of history actually developed in warm climates puts a serious dent in Rushton's hypothesis. --Ramdrake 20:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I was forgetting the point of my earlier mention of the Neanderthal-Cro Magnon encouter: if once in the past, two species (or races, as that has not been established with any certainty one way or the other) met and the one that came from a warm climate overran the cold-adapted one, why would it be that later in history, cold-adapted races would get the upper hand? --Ramdrake 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Because later in history, the cold-adapted races emerged on higher branches of the evolutionary tree, while earlier in history, cold adapted Neandertals emerged on a lower branch than their warm adapted cousins. Because Neandertals branched off earlier, their adapations to the cold were more primitive (larger robust body build) than the more evolved populations who would later adapt to the cold by changing their behavior much more than their physique. Rember climate differentiation is only half of Rushton's evolutionary story; the other half is splitting-off dates.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Also, recent research suggests that mutation rates are also much faster in warmer climates. If it is so, why would the population advancement hinge on the evolution of its cold-adapted segments? I think you need to answer these questions. --Ramdrake 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Because generally speaking, evolutionary development takes place when there are major changes to an environment. The cold-adapted humans left Africa, and thus changed their environment dramatically, so it would follow that evolutionary developments would occur.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

You're saying The cold-adapted humans left Africa; do you now hypothesize that humans became adapted to cold before they left Africa? If so, please suggest a mechanism for this adaptation. Second, you say (humans who left Africa) changed their environment dramatically. What dramatic changes did these populations impart on their environment? Please cite some evidence. And you still need to address the point of how cold-adapted humans would undergo evolutionary development faster than their warm-adapted counterparts, when it is known that the mutation rate in warmer climates is much higher. --Ramdrake 20:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My point here wasn't to get into a debate about the r-K hypothesis (as applied to humans), but just to demonstrate that it invokes unsupported assumptions, that it makes some predictions which have been falsified by history, and generally speaking, upon close examination has enough holes in it that the validity of its application to the human race as Rushton advocates, at least deserves severe criticism, if not to be rejected outright. --Ramdrake 14:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Making the argument for linear evolution

Once we get unprotected, I'd like to propose an edit to your additions:

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). Working under the assumption that more ancient forms of life (i.e. plants, bacteria, reptiles) are less evolved than more recent forms of life (i.e. mammals, primates, humans) Rushton applies the same rationale to this branching sequence, stating:

One theoretical possibility, is that evolution is progressive and that some populations are more advanced than others^{[citation needed]}

Rushton has claimed that this first, second, and third chronological sequence perfectly correlates with, and is responsible for, what he believes to be a consistent global multi-dimensional racial pattern on everything from worldwide crime statistics, the global distribution of AIDS, to personality.

Hopefully that will be okay! --JereKrischel 02:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good but I really think that second paragraph could include several more variables that were mentioned in previous versions such as brain size and intelligence, rate of mental hospitalization, sexuality and the age at which babies crawl. Brain size is especially relevant because all through hominoid evolution brain size got bigger. Rate of mental hospitalization is especially interesting. And the age at which babies crawl is a good example of r/K and shows the utter diversity of his pattern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 (talk • contribs)

Could you pick three or four variables, and just leave the rest in the table? --JereKrischel 02:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay 4 variables: Brain size, personality, rate of mental hospitalization, and the age at which babies crawl. Deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 (talk • contribs)

Sounds good, keeps it nice and tight, demonstrates the wide variety, and complements the table. Thanks! --JereKrischel 03:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I thought Wikipedia does not allow original research

Paragraphs like this seem to lower the articles credibility:

Despite their claims, mathematically it is possible to distinguish arbitrary groups which have minor differences between means, but more differences within those groups (see Arithmetic mean). For example, blue and green bags of coins may differ as groups, by 2 cents, but within groups larger amounts:

First of all it appears to be original research. You cite no well known expert of any kind making that claim. It reduces the complex field of genetics to a simple formula, and it's presented in a way that implies it contradicts Jensen. Could you please leave your own arguments out and stick to citing experts? Wikipedia is about reporting facts, not making original arguments.

Yeah, the citation really isn't about anything expert, it's about definitions (see Arithmetic mean). I'm not sure that citing a standard mathematical practices is OR - if you'd like I'll try to find a better cite for that...might not be as clear, but I'm sure we can find one. --JereKrischel 03:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why was reply to the Flynn Effect edited out?

The Flynn Effect is mentioned as a devestating challenge to Rushton, but when a cogent reply complete with an actual quotes to frequently cited experts was added, you edited the whole thing out. Why are you trying to show only one side of debate, and the side of the debate you show is not attributed to any experts. Why was all this edited out?

However psychologist Robert C. Nichols describes such arguments as a "faulty" syllogism:

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

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

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

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

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

Proponents of the genetic perspective point to the fact that 20th century enevironment also caused the height of men and women to increase by several inches while the height difference between the sexes remained genetic. Critics claim that the genetic difference between males and females is an order of magnitude greater than any observed difference between "races".

Describing the U.S. Flynn Effect, Professor Emeritus of Educational Psychology at the University of California, Berkely writes:

If the Flynn Effect is caused by environmental factors, it is most remarkable that a steady rise in the population's average test scores over a period of fifty or sixty years has had no effect on the mean IQ difference between blacks and whites, which has remained at about 1 SD since World War I. This era has been one of steadily diminishing disparities between blacks and whites in educational, social, and economic opportunities. Yet the general upward secular trend in the overall population level of mental test scores has not changed the standardized difference between the mean test scores of black and whites.'''''''''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 (talk • contribs)

That was directly copied from http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/jen.htm. We're not allowed to copy websites and present them as original here. If you want to quote, or paraphrase, that's fine, but outright copying, AFAIK, is not allowed. --JereKrischel 03:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the faulty syllogism is a direct quote from Robert C. Nichols and the quote from Jensen can be found in his book. The argument in between originated here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Then the quote should be *quoted*, and referenced, not presented as written by Wikipedia editors. --JereKrischel 16:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect criticism of Rushton's 3 way model

You write:

One will note that at the same time Jensen defends the idea of race, his self-described analysis undercuts the 3-"race" hierarchy Rushton supports, and instead notes a 4-"race" distribution.

He doesn't undercut Rushton. Rushton never said there were ONLY 3 races. But his study is focused on the 3 broadest population groups. The existence of a fourth race (which btw is probably a mix of races) does not undercut the idea of 3 MAIN races. Again can we please just stick to reporting facts and quotes and leave our own personal interpretations out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but the 4 distinct clusters clearly indicate more "main" races than Rushton supposes - it really means he needs to go back to all his studies and re-analyze his data in terms of the additional "main" race. None of the clusters mentioned were any closer or farther from each other to be able to conclude that two of them could be treated either as a sub-group of one, or a mix of two. Even the thought that there might be mixes of races large enough to form distinct groups challenges Rushton, because then he'd have to analyze his data with regards to permutations and combinations of A/B/C. I think we can find a better way of stating it, but it seems pretty obvious from the citation. --JereKrischel 03:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

But Rushton's study is precisely focused on the three largest racial categories. How does the existence of a smaller racial categroy in anyway contradict his research? That's like someone doing a study on the 3 major cities in a country and then others complaining that they ignored the rural towns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Rushton is trying to say that people in city #1 are the smartest, and people in city #3 are the dumbest, with city #2 in between. He asserts this is because city #3 was founded first, and city #1 was founded last, and more recent cities are inherently smarter. Ignoring the rural towns and suburbs inbetween these cities, he has kept himself ignorant of larger patterns - for example, between city #3 & city #2 (dumber and dumbest), there is a suburb which "mixes" the two, is older than any of the cities, and is even smarter than people in city #1. Now his neat "evolution" has been shattered, since now the oldest area, and the newest area are the smartest. Adding in additional combinations and permutations of suburbs and rural towns inbetween the "cities" he has measured only further confounds his theory. --JereKrischel 17:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The selection of a number of groups to divide people into is (in general) arbitrary (but there are heuristics for such a selection). It doesn't follow necessarily that one person's view that people should be divided into 4 groups for analysis A is contradictory with another's view that people should be divided into 3 groups for analysis B. --Rikurzhen 18:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You're correct that it's arbitrary, but the conclusion of Rushton (neat, sequential "evolution" of races in a linear fashion), is thwarted by groups that do not fall along the line he draws. Of course his premise can't possibly hold in the first place, since evolution is a continuous process and isolated groups will continue to evolve in parallel, but it is particularly contradicted by additional biogeographic "races" he hasn't taken into account in his analysis. --JereKrischel 18:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you know those groups don't fall into the lines he draws? You have to start evolutionary research somewhere and so it makes sense to start with three largest genetic clusters of human-kind. Rushton is only one man. It's hard enough for one researcher to analyze hundreds of studies on 60 different variables when comparing the 3 largest races, but the existences of smaller races, along with divisions within races, is a challenges he leaves to future scholars. The existence of a 4th race would only undercut Rushton if Rushton theory was dependent on there being only 3 races, OR if the 4th race could be shown to somehow contradict his data. In neither case that's true, so your statement should be removed. Even if if you were right your statement should still be removed since your editorializing. It's hard enough to agree on an edit when we just report the facts. Adding original analysis and interpretation will make it impossible. And your statement about isolated groups evolving in parallel in no way contradicts the fact that throughout evolution, a populations that branch off earlier tend to be less K selected than populations that branch off later. Within primates, monkeys branched off earliest and are much less K selected than Hominoids branched off last and are the most K selected. Apes are intermediate in both K selection and splitting off date. This clearly contradicts your claim that parallel evolution makes splitting off dates irrelevant. In fact the pattern can be extended all through evolution, and not just within the primate branch which itself branched off later than others orders of mammals which are less K selected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.70 (talk • contribs)

I certainly don't know if additional clusters and groups that have been identified since Rushton's claims of a tri-level hierarchy fall along the lines he draws, and neither does he without further research. Also, the branching you refer to between homonid species is a completely different beast than with imagined "branching" within a single species. The other question you beg is which group is the branch, and which group is the trunk - especially when actual genetic studies show no greater distance between the biogeographic categories Rushton promotes in the order he asserts. There are also many cases of a later "branch" in the evolutionary ladder leading to a dead end, while earlier "branches" ended up evolving into higher species.

The pattern you think exists, doesn't. The splitting you think happened, didn't. We can certainly find a better way of stating the issue, but trying to defend Rushton from every logical fallacy he commits certainly isn't appropriate. We can work on the wording together and find a decent compromise, I'm sure! --JereKrischel 03:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Instead of saying things like "The pattern you think exists, doesn't. The splitting you think happened, didn't" can you please try to be a little more open-minded on this issue? The point is you can point to the existence of a fourth race, independent of the three largest races Rushton studies, without making the biased assertion that such a finding undercuts Rushton's research. Why do you have so much difficulty adhearing to Wikipedia's neutral perspective policy? In fact Rushton knew from the outset, that the 3 race model does not include all humans, but only the 3 largest populations which seems a good place to start. The existence of a 4th race, or even a 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th race is in no way a logical fallacy on Rushton's part since he's studying only the 3 largest races. Does the existence of xyy people undercut all the research finding differences between men (xy) and women (xx)? Does the existence of bisexual people undercut research on the two main sexual orientations (homosexual & heterosexual). Does the existence of additional kingdoms undercut research of biologists comparing the animal kingdom with the plant kingdom? If the sasquatch is suddenly discovered, does that undercut research done comparing known primates? And of course there are case of earlier branches that eventually go on to outdistance branches that were once higher. However if you're on the first branch, and you don't do any more branching, then by definition you're less evolved than higher branches. As for inter-species/intra-species comparisons, I think that's discussed above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry if it seems if I'm not being open minded - I'm not trying to insist that in the article Rushton's opinion should not be expressed, but I think we should make it clear when his opinion is challenged by others. Certainly as part of NPOV, we should flatly state conflicts without asserting who is right or wrong - the fact that Jensen's observed 4 clusters contradicts Rushton's asserted 3 clusters does not assert that Jensen is right, and Rushton is wrong. It could very well be that Rushton is correct and Jensen is mistaken.

Insofar as your analogies, yes, xyy people do challenge the differences between men and women, bisexuality and the continuum of sexual preference does challenge a simple homo/hetro POV, adding an additional Kingdom does require a new look at classifications, and a missing link would certainly challenge ideas about primate evolution. When your basic premise is that all humans can be ordered into 3 races, and you've observed a continuum upon which they all lie, and a 4th cluster, or 5th, or 100th is found, your simplistic notions need to be re-examined, and the studies need to be repeated. --JereKrischel 20:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK Rushton has never implied "all humans" can be ordered into these 3 groups, but is just referring to a pattern in 3 of the main groups. A single sentence giving this caveat is probably fine, maybe along the lines of: Some other branches in human history, such as the SE Asian and Pacific populations and Indigenous Americans may not have direct relevance to Rushton's model. (These look like the major branches not discussed, according to the trees in Cavalla-Sforza's 1994 book.p. 78) --Nectar 21:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he does: "Of course there are subdivisions within the three major races." He asserts that all other groups are just subdivisions of his imagined 3. The trees pointed out by Cavalli-Sforza illustrate quite clearly how he is both mistaken, and how the data he believes points out a 1-2-3 pattern needs to be re-examined. In the trees you can see how grouping North East and South East Asian as "Mongoloid" distorts the relationship that actually puts North East Asians closer to Caucasians. At the very least, he needs to repeat the studies which compared the "Mongoloid" group, and separate them out - without that data, the linear "evolution" he claims can't be asserted, since the mistaken categorization in his interpretations could have skewed the data in either direction.

Regarding the proposed wording change, I think it moves us in the right direction...maybe something like The observed genetic trees of biogeographic diversity illustrate large groups not well addressed by Rushton's tri-race model. For example, SE Asian, Pacific populations and Indigenous Americans represent a distinct branch of the tree farther away from Caucasian than NE Asians, leaving significant uncertainty as to the accuracy of studies which may have included them in other groups. --JereKrischel 21:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because Rushton believes that there are divisions within the 3 races in no way implies a denial of races outside the 3 races. Indeed I can quote a section from his book that makes clear he recognizes the existence of races outside the big 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Please, feel free to quote the book - it seems he's contradicted himself here by other statements, and having a clear example of that will be helpful. --JereKrischel 02:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

On page 235 of his book he writes "Of course it is simplified to divide all the world's people into just three major races. This ignores 'Negritoes' and 'Australoids', but also subdivisions within the macro races." Note that Negritoes are believed by many to be the original people of South East Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for the cite - I'll be sure to work in his self-contradiction and admission of gross over-simplification. Considering his tri-level hierarchy is predicated on the linear evolution of three "races", these additional complications he admits to puts his entire hypothesis in question. --JereKrischel 17:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop working your own opinions into the article. Wikipedia articles must remain neutral and asserting something as a "contradiction" or constantly putting your own spin on things, and interpreting the facts for the reader represents an unwelcome bias. And Rushton never used the term "linear evolution" that's just your interpretaion. And in my opinion the existence of other races outside the big 3 call nothing into question. Feel free to quote experts criticising his theory but working your own interpretations into the article is wholly unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Wait a second - interpreting the facts for the readers seems to be what you're trying to do - I'm merely presenting the facts as they are. Fact - Rushton predicates his tri-level hierarchy on the concept that there is a linear progression from african to caucasian to asian. Fact - genetic trees show that not only are there more than 3 branches, but that they include continuous adaptation on every branch. Your opinion about whether or not those two facts are contradictory seems to be an attempt to spin things in a particular way, whereas simply stating the contradiction exists, and allowing the readers to decide for themselves which one may be true and which one false is the only way to remain neutral, don't you agree? Now, of course the bold statement of facts can be considered POV pushing, so I'm sure we need to work on the exact language, but the basic concept being illustrated here is Rushton's contradictions with others - to work your own interpretation into the article, and defend Rushton with original theories of your own seems inappropriate.

Who said anything about "linear"? Let's not put words into Rushton's mouth.

The real question is, how can we alter the wording so that we convey clearly the contradiction faced by Rushton (by experts and their research), without prejudging whether or not Rushton, or the other experts are correct? That is the key to NPOV here, and I greatly appreciate your help in finding a way to express the facts in a sympathetic way. --JereKrischel 02:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The contradiction is in your head. All Rushton is saying is that the 3 largest races branched off at very different times and these splitting-off dates correlate with his r-K continuum. It's fine to mention the existences of races outside the big 3, but the existence of a 4th race in no way contradicts the existence of the 3 largest races, nor does it contradict the chronological correlates he found among them. We seem to be repeating the same arguments over and over again. Perhaps the page should just stay protected so that we can both move on.

People are unable to handle Rushton's findings so slap on neutrality tags. Skinnyweed 16:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be totally rewritten, preferably by someone who is not biased against rushton. First of all this article should be about rushton and his ideas. Instead it is basically an essay on why rushton is wrong. Each point made by rushton is followed by a comment as to why the point is incorrect. The job of this article is not to prove rushton right or wrong, it is only to tell about his ideas. All of these point for point critiques need to be taken out. Maybe they can be saved for the very end of the article, but they are not necessary. The article is also full of words which are not subjective and is worded to make rushton's ideas seem false. That is your opinion, it has no place in a wikipedia article. JereKrischel you have shown by the way you answer other peoples questions that you are not objective on this subject and should not have a hand in writing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.69 (talk • contribs)

Rushton's theory is extremely controversial, to say the least. No suggest that including treatment of criticisms of his work by main stream scientists is "not necessary" is simply out of the question for an encyclopdeia. Pete.Hurd 15:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say criticism couldn't be included, I just said it should be at the end of the article instead of a point for point critique of his view. The essay is completely against him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.69 (talk • contribs)

There's no rule that articles must be fawning treatments of their subjects. The articles must be verifyable and NPOV (meaning fair, and balanced). You might suggest that the article disproportionately represents criticisms, but I think you are going to have to argue that it over represents the criticisms that exist in the scientific/popular communicty, not that the criticisms amount to more than 50% of the article. If you disagree, or feel that the article has already done this, then I suggest you invesigate a Request for Comment. Pete.Hurd 16:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is possible to have a good, sympathetic article with clear point by point critiques of his extreme minority POV (WP:NPOV#Undue weight). Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be a vehicle for personal promotion, or for tin-foil hat POVs put forward as truth, and before my work here, the article was fairly fluffy, and although some portions had been added to provide balance, it was poorly organized.

Now, if you just wanted to put down the basic facts about Rushton and what he's written, without going into immense detail about why he thinks he's right, we wouldn't have to go point by point to illustrate to the reader that his POV is not incontrovertible fact. I'm sure we could prune the article down to his short bio, and a list of his works with no glowing or critical commentary.

Lastly, I'm sure we can all agree that we're all not totally objective, and it is our willingness to work with others of differing objectivity that will help us find NPOV and produce a good article. If we told anyone with an opinion to refrain from editing wikipedia articles, we wouldn't have much :). Anyway, 152.163.100.69, I hope we can work together to make a better article. I clearly think that the critiques should be there, but we could compromise and remove any POV mention on either side of his research (just simply state he is a controversial researcher and president of the Pioneer Fund and leave it at that). I'm open to other compromise alternatives you could come up as well. Thanks for your comments! --JereKrischel 16:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The article "Race and Intelligence" already makes about all of these points. You may wish to keep within this article's subject, which is J. Philippe Rushton. --Ramdrake 12:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Balanced" doesn't mean it has to give equal stature to all opinions. Rushton is very widely criticized both in the media and in the community. Therefore, I don't think it would do to present his position as a widely-recognized one, especially with the amount of criticism it has gained. The article should make it clear that his views on a number of points (especially his r-K hypothesis, to name one) are those of a very small minority. --Ramdrake 14:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Another example is how he can ascribe a "branching-off" date of ca. 200,000 years ago for Negroids, when that date places them early in the development of the Neanderthal, and about 150,000 years before the apparition of Cro-Magnon. If Negroids and Caucasoids had branched off this early, one of them would have likely retained significant Neanderthal-like traits, otherwise one would have to postulate they converged again to both have the appearance of modern man. That's just not the case. --Ramdrake 14:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, these are the numbers Rushton chose in his hypothesis, so I will let him defend them. He did seem rather certain of what they were, regardless of the archeaological and historical problems with it. --Ramdrake 17:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no contradiction: this is an article about Rushton and his ideas, and how they are received in the world. It would be unfair to present them as gospel, as they obviously are not, so a representative segment of criticism is needed on the subject. Would you consider an article about the Flat-Earth Society that failed to mention science has long ago demonstrated the Earth is (nearly) round? Same applies here: if one talks about Rushton, one must mention that his theories are at best controversial and at worst full of holes, as this is how they are considered. --Ramdrake 17:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok there is at least a few things which i think should be changed: "Foreshadowing the massive controversy that would erupt over his later racial theories" The word "massive" is a subjective term that i don't think should be included in this article. (unsigned by 205.188.117.69)

Hmm "extreme" controversy? Actually, controversy is keeping it polite. This man has been called a racist and his entire work dismissed as pseudoscience or bad science by more than one. So, yes I think a majorative epithet (?) is warranted here.--Ramdrake 19:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In short: no. Within group genetic differences are much larger than between-group differences in humans. This was demonstrated by Cavalli-Sforza and also duplicated. Also, Rushton's argument is based on humans being able to discern these "genetic differences" between races. If one demonstrates that genetic differences between races are smaller than between individuals of a same race, then Rushton's hypothesis falls flat. --Ramdrake 19:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see above, this is logical. This argument has been presented by several critics of Rushton. It is not OR. --Ramdrake 19:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is extremely controversial, and that's while being polite. We can also call it contested, called bad science, if you want. It's all been said. --Ramdrake 19:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged" because that's what Rushton says they are, without giving the proof. When you say something about someone, but you haven't (or haven't yet, in the case of the judicial system) brought proof of what you say, what you say are "allegations". And yes, if Rushton sounds like a racist, maybe that's because he's been called exactly that by more than one. It is all documented. --Ramdrake 19:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The claim seems to be a bad quotation of Jensen. His argument in it's context is more complex and seems to basically be arguing against Lewontin's Fallacy. (Jensen's italics also got left out of the quote here.) I think the race section should just summarize the race section at race and intelligence in a single paragraph and direct readers there for more information; it's not as big a controversy among biologists as it's sometimes made out to be.[2] --Nectar 20:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page unprotection request

Any edit wars ocurring seem to have been cooled. Unprotecting the page would make things easier.--Nectar 20:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Holding unpopular views is not (those in Colorado may substitute "ought not") to be cause for firing a professor. That's why there is tenure, so professors are free to discuss unpopular ideas which may (or may not) be true. Many of Rushton's critics defend his right to espouse his views, and his right to conduct research into the topic (even while they may think he's wrong and/or doing poor quality science). There is no contradiction there. Pete.Hurd 20:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why your so against changing words to make the article seem more professional and less like an opinion article. That should be the goal of wikipedia.

Well 205.188.117.69, I think I agree with you, representation of the theory and it's criticisms makes for a proper article. I thinkthe best way to do it is to present his theory bit by bit, and and present the other sourced and documented criticisms so they can be compared point for point. So I think you & I agree. I disagree with this other guy, 152.163.100.69, who says "All of these point for point critiques need to be taken out. Maybe they can be saved for the very end of the article, but they are not necessary" I assume you also disagree with such whitewashing. Pete.Hurd 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I know people who have worked with Rushton, who say he's a very nice guy. Attributing to me the view that he has horns growing out of his head etc. is a straw man, and fails the WP:AGF etc. standards WP editors are expected to live up to. Pete.Hurd 21:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down. The examples above are not weasel words if they are verified by sources. For example: "in which he outlines an extremely controversial theory of" are not weasel words if sources are provided to establish that the theory is controversial. Since that has been done, it's not controversial, it's just a fact you don't like mentioned. Similarly, "A number of prominent scientists however dismiss his methodology" would be a classic example of WP:WEASEL were it not for the fact that the prominent scientists are named, and their criticisms of the methodology is presented & discussed, statements supported by good sources are not weasel words. Pete.Hurd 21:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you're denying that the theory is controversial? You think that the theory is controversial, but that this claim is not adequately documented? Or you just flat out think that it would be impropper to state that the theory is controversial in an encyclopedia entry? Pete.Hurd 22:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "extremely controversial" is used in the Encyclopeia Brittanica Online, one example from the Herrera y Reissig, Julio entry "His poetry, extremely controversial in its own time for its innovations in form and language, was ... ". I don't see why Rushton's science can't be documented to meet such a status. Pete.Hurd 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. All I am saying is that the language of the article should be more neutral, you are being too nit-picking of everything I say. If rushton is a racist, let the FACTS speak for themselves. Let's not spoonfeed the readers the opinion of the author. That is not what wikipedia is about. "The most devastating challenge to Rushton's worldwide data on IQ scores " You see how the word "devastating" is not neutral. It's an opinion. You can just say a "challenge to Rushton's viewpoint is". You see how that is more neutral but still retains the information. I don't understand why you are so attached to these words that are not neutral. These words make the article look amateurish. I have looked at other articles about controversial figures, and they do not use the kind of opinionated terminology.

As for the britannica article, you are bound to find poorly worded phrasing in some parts. I know for a fact that there are also spelling mistakes and factual errors in britannica articles so saying that doesn't mean anything.

[edit] Sorry, edit conflict

To all the unsigned users: It would be nice of you to create yourselves an ID in Wikipedia and start signing your comments. Otherwise, this will get to be a mess very soon. No weasel words here, just stating the obvious.

Then, for the record: I am not against putting in this article more of Rushton's theories, as long as they are accompanied by cited criticisms (if there are any). To 205.188.117.69 (and possibly 64.12.116.69, who seem to be the same person, judging from their interventions - but I may be wrong!) your gist seemed to be pushing for having Rushton's hypotheses showcased here while toning down the rebuttal of his theories and the amount of controversy they generate. As Pete.Hurd pointed out, this sounds like whitewashing and I don't think the majority of the editors here want that.

As for the alleged weasel words used in the text, while I concur that several points in the article are badly cited, I don't think many of them are really weasel words, just poorly cited points (sorry for repeating myself).

As for my opinion, like everybody else, I'm entitled to one. I'm not trying to impart it on the article (please do see that I haven't touched the article yet), but I think I am within my rights to say that if we should include this or that point about Rushton's opinions, properly cited criticisms (if there are any) should also be included to appropriately represent the controversy around this character's opinions. Commendations about his work, also if properly cited, should also be included. The fact of the matter is, criticisms of his works and his opinions are plenty, and IMHO praise is somewhat rarer. I'm of the opinion that Wikpedia should also present this in order to offer a balanced reflexion of the subject. If anyone has problems with this, please let me know. If I go counter to a WP policy, please also let me know. Insofar as I know, I haven't done that yet. --Ramdrake 22:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"you are being too nit-picking of everything I say". Maybe you should be more careful in your choice of rhetoric. You contend that "in which he outlines an extremely controversial theory of" and "A number of prominent scientists however dismiss his methodology" are weasel words, and in your all-caps bold font accompanied by a sing-song "WEASEL WORDS, WEASEL WORDS, WEASEL WORDS...... REPEAT IT UNTIL IT SINKS IN." ... well, I think you ought to stand by what you say, if you are going to state things so vehemently. Since you use the phrase "Ask yourself, would you see this kind of wording in the encyclopedia britanica. The answer is no." more than once, I don't think it's inappropriate to point out that, yes, in fact, it's not uncommon in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I still don't understand how you can hold that "A number of prominent scientists however dismiss his methodology" amounts to weasel words if it's properly documented. Pete.Hurd 23:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You see your doing it again. You are just nit-picking. You don't see my point at all? I just think that the article should state facts. If a prominent scientist says "rushton is a racist" you can put it in as long as you quote him.

I used the encyclopedia britanica as an example by mistake. I didn't think you would be able to make a quote of the top of your head.

Ok maybe "A number of prominent scientists however dismiss" isn't a weasel word. I just quickly cobbled together a few quotes to make a point. Do I have to laboriously go over the entire article?

What about "The most devastating challenge to Rushton's worldwide data". Is "devastating" not a weasel word. Come on now. At least give me that one.

Personnally, I'd go for "most serious challenge". I personnally think "devastating" is a bit melodramatical. --Ramdrake 23:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree Pete.Hurd 23:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we can state the facts without having these unattributed opinions.

"I didn't think you would be able to make a quote of the top of your head." are you accusing me of fabricating the Encyclopedia Brittanica quote? Pete.Hurd 23:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, i think your way too sensitive Pete Hurd. I just didn't expect someone to be able to quote from the encyclopedia that's all.

• Laugh* Ok ... EB is on-line [3] and has a "search" function. (BTW, "you're" not "your") Pete.Hurd 23:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And Ramdrake, "most serious challenge" is good. That's exactly the kind of change I think would make this a better article.

Well, if we take those points one by one and take the time to discuss them honestly, I believe we can achieve something together. It's just that you first came across as complaining that there was too much undeserved criticism of Rushton's theories. That's why I launched in those long explanations trying to demonstrate how and why that criticism was deserved. Now, if you say the wording of some comments and criticism needs to be revised to be more factual, I agree. I won't go around boilerplating everything "weasel words", but I did get your gist. I'm not a good editor for long spots: I get too passionate about the things I write about to be good at it. But I think I can do a decent job rephrasing stuff that's poorly worded for whatever the reason may be. --Ramdrake 23:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] suggestion

I copied the article to a sub-page in the talk space: Talk:J. Philippe Rushton/Draft 1. Why not take a shot at working on a compromise text on that page? You might make more progress that way. --Rikurzhen 01:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Rikurzhen. I've gone ahead and did my best to rephrase most of the objectionable passages that user (unsigned) listed. Here's hoping this helped move the article in the right direction. --Ramdrake 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, has anyone noticed that two of the pro-Rushton reference are by Rushton himself? Not sure that's quite approriate. --Ramdrake 19:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Is race a valid concept?" portion and the "Critiques" paragraph that's right after the "Genetic similarity hypothesis" are both basically about the same thing. I think they should be merged together somehow. M314abc 14:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but they make two separate points. One challenges the very tenability of race as a biological concept, and a case can be made for the existence of races as a biological construct. The other challenges that based on what can be construed as the biological concept of race, people can recognize one another based on genetic similarities (this is one of the central arguments of Rushton's work). This one is much harder to defend, as if race is to exist as a biological construct, it is not based on genetic differences (which are much larger within races than between races), but based on biogeographically differential distribution (frequency in the population) of an unknown number of alleles. It would be important that both points are preserved if the sections are to be merged. --Ramdrake 14:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"First, he asserts that Mongoloid populations could be expected to outdistance the predominantly Caucasoid populations of the Western world. Second, he also argues that Negroid populations with their allegedly more reproductively-minded behavior were especially at risk for AIDS."

I changed a few things and I will tell you why. First what does rushton mean by outdistance? I am pretty sure he means technologically, but if you know differently i think that should be clarified. Using the word "outdistance" is vague and does not mean anything by itself. I think there needs to be another word their clarifying what is being "outdistanced". If you can think of something better than technologically then put it in. I'm also pretty sure rushton thinks that "mongoloids" are more intelligent than "caucasians" and that is the reason for the "outdistancing". I think the "reproductively-minded" is a little too P.C., "promiscous" is a better term. Finally I changed alleged because it is a non-neutral term. Seems like a word to avoid (like claim, believes etc.).

M314abc 19:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First, regarding Caucasoids and Mongoloids, Rushton seems fairly clear that this "outdistancing" is genetic first, and intellectual and behavioral second. From his readings, I get the impression he thinks Mongoloids, Caucasoids and Negroids are soon to go their separate ways, evolution-wise. That is why I think it's unwarranted to restrict the difference to the sole field of psychometrics (intelligence).

Second, Rushton is very careful not to use the word promiscuous anywhere in his description of Negroids, so I wouldn't put that word in his mouth. What he does say is that their behavioral strategy is geared towards reproduction based on numbers rather than intensive rearing. And lastly, if you were going to use "promiscuous", I can't see how you would balk at using "alleged". Rushton says Negroids are this way and that, and to prove it, he has only statistical circumstantial evidence that his detractors have long since torn to pieces. So, yes he is asserting something without solid evidence, and in English, that's an allegation. --Ramdrake 20:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll explain some of the changes I made. I just moved the Cavalli-Sforza part from the "genetic similarity theory" critiques section to the "Is race a valid concept". Changed "Population geneticists, such as Cavalli-Sforza, have found that genetic differences " to "has argued that genetic differences". (more neutral wording) Changed "identifiable groups (various "races") are in fact of much greater" to the sentence "(i.e. "races") are of much greater magnitude than genetic differences" (fact not a very objective term) Took out "Rushton's Genetic Similarity Theory is based on the assumption that individuals can discern genetic similarities and differences." (sentence is not very neutral and unecessary.) Took out "This challenges Rushton's hypothesis by invalidating a postulated mechanism by which individuals can accurately determine who is more and who is less genetically similar. " (not a neutral sentence and unecessary) M314abc 20:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the rearranging took out the part about the critical basis for Rushton's theory. Without it, the discussion about race as it pertains to this article is close to pure vacuity. Rushton uses his "Genetic Similarity Theory" to validate why historically speaking, people have tended to associate with like characters. From a purely social aspect of life (who are your friends), he makes it a genetically-based impulse, and then uses it to sustain his r-K hypothesis. The two sentences you took out are necessary (contrary to what you were saying), and possibly not neutral (I agree on this point), but it is one of the bases to critically refute Rushton's arguments. These sentences are needed. --Ramdrake 21:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well alledge is one of those words that make rushton's opinions seem highly dubious. It is the same problem I have with the word claim (a word to avoid). It's not that I necessarily think rushton is right in what he says. I just think that "say" is a better word because it doesn't have a negative (or positive for that matter) connotation. I just think we should let the facts speak for themselves and let the readers judge on their own whether he is a racist or not (a lot of evidence indicates that he may in fact be racist). It's the same reason I took out the dubious sounding sentences below. M314abc 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, then how about changing "alleged behavior..." to "behavior Rushton argues they exhibit"? That would also work for me. --Ramdrake 21:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you have reverted my edits. I think I did too many at once. I will try to do one edit at a time and explain why.M314abc 20:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I just explained a bit further up there why I reverted your edits. I would have tried to salvage something, but this was too intricate for my poor mind. --Ramdrake 21:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I took out the following sentence again "This challenges Rushton's hypothesis by invalidating a postulated mechanism by which individuals can accurately determine who is more and who is less genetically similar. " I think this is a bad sentence because for one, it is unecessary. If you read the sentences that precede it you can basically infer that information already. Second, this article doesn't need to tell us what to think. You have to ask yourself who is saying this sentence. Is it an expert opinion, or is it the person who wrote this sentence. I think we should stick to quoting of actual scientists. M314abc 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I also moved back part of the statement of a lack of relationship of penis size to reproductive frequency. I think it is important to articulate how much of Rushton's theories are NOT supported by evidence. --Ramdrake 00:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] neutral language

This article's language can probably be improved to avoid pov-pushing. That would generally look like:

• "X argues" instead of "X [alleges/claims/asserts]." (The current wording of "Suzuki thundered" should be changed to "Suzuki argued...")
• "The [argued/attributed/putative] phenomenon" instead of "the [alleged/claimed/asserted] phenomenon."

--Nectar 21:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Race and Cavalli-Sforza

"Cavalli-Sforza's results are not hypothesis, but fact. Previous version led to believe it was two competing hypotheses. Not." I'm not so sure about saying that something is a fact. I don't think we should be indicating that what he says is an absolute truth. Sforza interprets his results one way, but if you read his wikipedia article, other researchers interpret it differently. I mean there is a whole other wiki article on the validity of "race" as a concept. There is by no means a consesus among scientists. Sforza should be included in this article, however , mainly because Rushton uses data taken from him. You have to realize though that there are critics of Sforza's work too. (look at the end of his wiki article). "In a paper published in 1997, Shomarka Keita and Rick A. Kittles have criticized the primary methodology used by Cavalli-Sforza" M314abc 23:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The criticism levelled at Cavalli-Sforza is about the "inappropriateness of using a priori predefined racial categories and then sorting genetic diversity as much as possible into these categories." It is not about the fact that there is more genetic variation within the same race than between races.

However, if you must I wouldn't object to using the quote from the economists about Cavalli-Sforza: "challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that 'race' has any useful biological meaning at all." [4] (The Human Genome Survey, 1 July 2000, pg. 11)

I think this challenge is central to the criticism levelled at Rushton's hypothesis about the Genetic Similarity Theory. --Ramdrake 00:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW. I think we can improve this article by working together like this.

I'll think about how to change the above sentence, but will leave it like it is for now. I personally think we should move that part down to the "Is race a valid concept" category. To me it seems obvious that the genetic similarity hypothesis hinges on whether or not the concept of race is valid. So i don't think it necessarily has to be in the paragraph right after the "genetic similarity.." section. It seems likes its just a little repititous. I realize that it is slightly different. I think it would be better if all the Cavalli-Sforza stuff was in one section instead of being split up. M314abc 00:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said earlier on the talk page, I don't object to moving this section, as long as it is made clear the genetic similarity theory hinges on a concept of races where races are genetically dissimilar. The current (biological and debated) concept of race is based differing biogeographic distributions of alleles, which doesn't support Rushton's hypothesis. --Ramdrake 00:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think what this boils down to is - taking into account "Lewontin's Fallacy" - selecting pairs of individuals at random would find on average greater genetic similarity between individuals of the same ancestry than across ancestries.--Nectar 22:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think you could say one way or another. Cavalli-Sforza's studies find potentially more genetic differences between members of the same race than between menbers of different races. The only way to salvage this is through Lewontin's fallacy, invoking biogeographic distribution of allele frequency. However, Rushton's Genetic Similarity Hypothesis postulates that two individuals of the same race tend to associate because of genetic similarities. Given what Cavalli-Sforza has shown, I think it pretty much makes Rushton's hypothesis moot. --Ramdrake 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"More variance within groups than between groups" means a specific thing. If one group has variance represented by the numbers 1-5, and another group has variance represented by 2-6, more variance occurs within each group than between them and there is substantial overlap --but the groups still have different means. (i.e., randomly pairing individuals within groups and between groups will find on average greater similarity within groups.)--Nectar 00:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

randomly pairing individuals within groups and between groups will find on average greater similarity within groups Cavalli-Sforza's findings demonstrate exactly the reverse. Also, we are talking here about a mechanism by which people would identify each other and associate together based on genetic similarity. Please see [Human Genetic variation]]. Can you propose a mechanism by which this could be done? --Ramdrake 12:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cavalli-Sforza constructed a tree of human genetic clusters. The thing about clusters is that the units being clustered exhibit similarity with each other in the measurements being evaluated, otherwise they aren't clusters. Detection of degree of relation would occur by detection of traits.--Nectar 13:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So, we're talking about the detection of specific similar traits. I believe Rushton's hypothesis was that association was based on overall genetic similarity. I see a difference here. The first might work, but the second is disproved; however, re-reading Rushton, it seems pretty clear to me he meant the second. --Ramdrake 14:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If Lewontin is correct, then ethnic membership contains no meaningful genetic data. If the argument in Lewontin's Fallacy and the data in Cavalli-Sforza's clusters and in race in biomedicine is correct, then ethnic membership is statistically a proxy for genetic information. Most of Rushton's treatment of the subject, though, is not about ethnicity but about family members, spouses, friends etc.

Rushton devotes a section of his 1989 article to detection mechanisms in humans and animals.ctrl f Detecting Some of these are imprinting mechanisms, and seem to support arguments that exposure to ethnic diversity is valuable for children. His arguments and evidence are each debated in a number of ways in the reviews following the paper.--Nectar 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gil-White

Do you happen to know who "Gil-White, responding to these claims wrote:" who is this guy. His name appears under the "validity of race as a concept" column. The article though doesn't seem to say who he is. I think we need to make that addition.M314abc 14:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be Francisco Gil-White, a rather eccentric character in his own right, who wrote a scathing refutation of racial science (some of his points are way off the mark, but some of them are quite pertinent too). It can be accessed here: http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrintro.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramdrake (talk • contribs)

Our conclusion previously discussing this[5] is that Gil-White (1) makes many errors, (2) has questionable professional credibility, and (3) doesn't make any points that haven't been made better by notable authors, such as Gould. We should just cite Gould etc. for these points. Jensen wasn't responding to Gil-White, as the only exposure Gil-White's online book has received appears to have been through Wikipedia. If anybody's on the fence about any of these points, look at his articles on other subjects on his webpage and compare them to the Wikipedia articles on those subjects. --Nectar 21:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Nectar, that was your conclusion, which didn't quite meet consensus. While it is agreed that Gil-White made errors (I mentioned so earlier), and is eccentric (granted too), I think the discussion was that some of his points had some credibility. After all, Rushton was investigated by the police for possible incitation to hatred, and some of his students at the university tried to have him expelled. Compare to Gil-White whose students circulated a petition to have him reinstated (along with his course),and it starts to look to me like the pot calling the kettle black. So, I wouldn't ditch Gil-White just yet (although I might take him with a grain of salt).--Ramdrake 23:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's an accurate comparison. Rushton is a professor who is on the editorial board of Intelligence, is a fellow of the relevant scientific societies and associations, and has been supported by big names in the field like W. D. Hamilton and E. O. Wilson. Gil-White doesn't have any professional qualifications besides the brief position from which he was fired.

The conclusion that was reached[6] between Coroebus and I at the previous discussion was bipartisan. There doesn't seem to be any reason to cite Gil-White's website instead of the well-known and much superior published work by Gould, Sternberg, or the other authors Coroebus links to. (Why cite someone who needs to be taken with a grain of salt when we can cite respected scientists?)--Nectar 00:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have access to the psych articles Coroebus links to, their abstracts can be read at sciencedirect.com or I can post the full text.--Nectar 00:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the comparison wasn't meant to be 100% accurate. Obviously Ruston has the backing of at least part of the scientific establishment, while Gil-White only had the endorsement of his students. As far as professional qualifications go, let's please also admit in evidence that Francisco Gil-White holds a Ph.D. in cultural and biological anthropology and he has been published in several anthropological, psycholgical, and behavioral journals to the tune of about 15 publications in 6 years. Eccentric? Certainly! Provocative? Certainly. A kook without qualifications? No, not at all.

Please take note that several others of us didn't agree with the conclusion. Coroebus didn't agree either (if that's what you mean by bipartisan conclusion). --Ramdrake 12:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

? Coroebus' characterization of Gil-White's online book as "a paranoid rant" seems to be pretty unambiguous.--Nectar 13:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful, I believe you're getting pretty close to quote-mining. Coroebus did use those terms, but he was referring to this researcher's more global views, including political conspiracy theories and the likes. His contract wasn't renewed by his university, but it is meaningful in this discussion to point out that the reason he wasn't renewed had nothing whatsoever to do with his work and his publications on race and intelligence. --Ramdrake 14:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think those are warranted interpretations. Coroebus' response to your defense of the link to Gil-White was:

The link is of pretty poor quality though. Things like this, this, or this are going to present a much better counterpoint than such a paranoid rant from someone who isn't massively credible, Jay Joseph or Stephen Jay Gould do a much better job than Gil-White. --Coroebus 12:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Gil-White stated exactly what you say he didn't:

"...The objection to this course must therefore be sought elsewhere. But one will not have to look far. The UPENN psychology department to this day teaches IQ research as if it were science, so Gil-White was effectively a whistleblower in his own department."[7]

Gil-White's department agreed:

"Your description of how you will approach the last several topics of the course seems to have little to do with the psychological issues involved and instead to hinge on political interpretation of historical facts. The committee feels that this focus may not be appropriate for a course in psychology"

It doesn't seem possible to spin those statements in a positive direction. His department seems to be disaproving of his approach that neglects engagement with the psychological issues in favor of one-sided politics.--Nectar 21:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, he was let go for his political, anti-establishment views.

And here's another quote from Coroebus: "I do object to the reference that his department has somehow debunked him, in particular, contrary to your point 1, the main objections to his course seem to have been "your description of how you will approach the last several topics of the course seems to have little to do with the psychological issues involved and instead to hinge on political interpretation of historical facts. The committee feels that this focus may not be appropriate for a course in psychology", which is not, as far as I can see, an assessment of his scientific view of IQ testing (he may not have a scientific view of IQ testing, but that is beside the point)."

I'd rather we stopped arguing about what is after all a rather minor player in the field and moved on to something more constructive. Granted, the guy is very eccentric, and some of his ideas are off-base, but still he has done some genuinely good research, and some of his arguments are quite valid. If he levels some well-founded criticism at Rushton, we should leave it, I say. --Ramdrake 13:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Gil-White isn't a minor player in the field because nobody has read his website except for Wikipedia editors and his former students. The above interpretation of Gil-White's and his department's description of why his course was rejected clearly goes against the actual quotes. If you're saying Gil-White's above quote is the opposite of what really happened, why would we want to cite someone who can't be relied upon instead of respected scientists? If you want to cite Coroebus's opinion, it would be better to cite his conclusion (quoted in my last comment) rather than a comment made half-way through the conversation. Some WP editors have never come to bipartisan agreements, but it's not uncommon for more reasonable editors to do so. If you can convince Coroebus to withdraw his opposition then we can continue this conversation.--Nectar 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess this doesn't really matter anyway; the current quotes of Gil-White are a red herring in that section. As long as populations are genetically non-identical, they can exhibit varying degrees of r/K selection.--Nectar 12:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Nectar, is that besides identical twins, every individual can be seen as a non-identical population to everyone else - much of the argument here is whether or not the observed biogeographical differences yield differences of that significance. Take any population identified by Rushton (negroid/caucasoid/mongoloid), and you'll find varying degrees of r/K selection within that group more significant that between groups. Not to mention that even if populations are genetically identical, they can exhibit varying degrees of r/K selection based on the environment.

I would assert that if Gil-White is too fringe to mention, Rushton and the other Pioneer Fund folks fall into that same camp - especially on the Race and intelligence page. --JereKrischel 18:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"More variance within groups than between groups" means a specific thing. If one group has variance represented by the numbers 1-5, and another group has variance represented by 2-6, more variance occurs within each group than between them and there is substantial overlap --but the groups still have different means. (i.e., randomly pairing individuals within groups and between groups will find on average greater similarity within groups.) The significance or non-significance of the gap between those two means can only be determined by phenotype analysis (measuring traits).

While Gil-White's work in race and intelligence has never been cited except for by Wikipedia, you can see the actual standing of researchers like Jensen by reading the literature in the field. Check out, for example, the introduction to the Arthur Jensen article (a "King among Men" etc.), or the survey of expert opinion at the race and intelligence article (Jensen is the leading researcher in the position that was supported by the majority of experts) .[8] The APA statement on intelligence references Jensen and Lynn,[9] and Thomas J. Bouchard, also a grantee, was one of the members of that task force. Note that Ulric Neisser, who led the task force, has expressed views on the Pioneer Fund that are quite reasonable.[10] --Nectar 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you want to see the manner in which mainstream sources reference a figure like Lynn, check out Discover mag's 2005 summary of their 1982 issue. [11] --Nectar 21:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, how do you assert the negative of "Gil-White's work in race and intelligence has never been cited except for by Wikipedia"? And don't you think that the "position that was supported by the majority of experts" (that being a "partially genetic explanation") does not nearly conincide with Jensen's POV as closely as you seem to imply?

Also, insofar as measuring significance, I think that the large gap is not in merely measuring phenotypes (which are not 1-to-1 causal to allele differences), but isolating the specific function and mechanism by which that phenotype is expressed. That is to say, unless you can both determine a specific genetic difference between two groups, and show that this difference is the direct cause of measured traits, you have only a guess as to the reason for a correlation (as opposed to let's say, environmental or cultural factors). --JereKrischel 02:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

1. I didn't find any references to Gil-White's R&I work in the professional literature, but you're free to search (that's probably where the burden of proof lies).

2. In the Snyderman and Rothman survey the average estimate of the heritability of IQ differences within the black population was only slightly lower than the estimate for within the White population, suggesting they view the supposed heritable contribution to the gap as being significant (unless even economically privilaged people with gifted IQs were subject equally to the same environmental effects that lower the scores of other blacks). I don't see any reason to believe respondents supported the partly genetic hypothesis but didn't support those who have most prominently done the research and formulated the arguments for that hypothesis --but we can't really know.

3. Yeah, phenotype analysis including heritability determination. --Nectar 12:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to contribute Nectar then go to the draft (below).M314abc 00:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snyderman and Rothman

Once more, the 20 years old survey of some persons using IQ tests is not evidence of what researchers think today.Ultramarine 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Your claims about the survey being "irrelevant" aren't legitimate. The survey is the most recent gauge of the expert community's actual opinion and is supported by 4 more recent references, whereas you've provided zero references for your many original claims. If you'd like to actually read the survey so that you don't have to make inaccurate claims about it that can be arranged. This is discussed ad infinitum here.--Nectar 22:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You provided none more relevant source for what the researchers think today. A twenty years old survey is uninteresting. Imagine if there was a 20 years old survey of meterologists, farmers, climate researchers, and others studying the weather. Is that interesting for if there is a majority support for global warming among climate researchers today? Ultramarine 22:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The hypotheses Wikipedia editors tend to regard as being the most persuasive on the environmental side were intact prior to the 1987 survey, and the claims that the partially genetic hypothesis has no support were already being made. Much has occured since then, but I'm not going to list the major events. Partisan WP editors will argue opinion has since skewed to which ever side they're on, but the default position in rhetoric would probably be that each side has an equal claim to opinion skewing to their side.

Recent events like the publication of Pinker's Blank Slate, the discovery of what appears to be behavioral genetic ethnic variation (Harpending and Cochran 2002), and the high profile reception of Cochran et al.'s Ashkenazi intelligence theory would disqualify any simple claims about the large percentage gaps between specialists' responses reversing. The strongest reference we have on this subject is Sternberg's 1995 acknowledgement of the results.[12] --Nectar 08:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection request

Do you think we should unprotect this article? I think it's time to let other people contribute.64.12.116.69 00:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be good to semi-protect it, it seems that we're getting somewhere with non-anon editors. --JereKrischel 18:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rushton and the extreme right

We should incorporate information from sources like this one: [13] Ultramarine 23:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raised during apartheid in South Africa

My apologies, Nectar, but stating the undisputed fact (not simply an accusation), that he was raised in South Africa during a period of white-dominance and apartheid is not a criticism. If we were to assert he was a racist because of that, that would be an accusation and criticism.

I believe we can probably find direct criticisms like that to cite in a later section, but it seems relevant, informative, and neutral to make it clear under which system of government he was raised. If anything, it may give him a more sympathetic light. --JereKrischel 16:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I think Nectar is right about that sentence. While it may be a factual sentence it is worded in such a weasely way. Saying both "White dominance" and "Apartheid" is a little over dramatic. Two adjectives that both mean basically the same thing? The sentence's connotation is definitely not NPOV. I mean, why is this sentence in there? I don't think it serves any real purpose except to give a reason for rushton's "racism". (unsigned by User:70.138.28.71)

Maybe we should remove one or the other (it is a bit redundant), but not both, as it gives some historical context to where he comes from. --Ramdrake 22:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I can buy working on the tenor of the sentence without removing the relevant information. Let me see what I can come up with. --JereKrischel 01:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but the sentence "was raised there under the race-based apartheid system controlled by a white minority" is even worse than the sentence it replaced. I still don't see how apartheid needs to mentioned at all. I think most people already know that South Africa had an apartheid system. The readers don't need us to spoon feed them. If we have that sentence why don't we also say "Rushton was born in England, a country that had a large empire that exploited native people". Or you could say "Rushton was born in England, a country that embraces multiculturalism and does not restrict immigration based on race. We could also add "He moved to Canada, a majority white country". Or "He moved to Canada, a country that guarantees rights to citizens of any race". See how these sentences state facts yet are either unecessary or not NPOV. (There are other sentences in this article that could use some work too) I mean take any subject and you can follow that subject by a factual statement giving it a certain connotation. For instance we could write "Gil-White, assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania until his contract was "denied renewal" in 2006". This type of thing needs to be avoided in general. Even if I personallly don't change these types of sentences, someone else eventually will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.28.71 (talk • contribs)

Hmm.. well, I think if Stephen Jay Gould's family had moved to Cuba when he was young, it wouldn't be necessary to say "moved to communist Cuba" instead of "moved to Cuba." (Some critics see Marxist influence on his scientific positions.)--Nectar 03:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be important to say "pre-communist Cuba", if one was talking about a specific prior era that although familiar to us folk over 35, may not be generally known to others. Since South Africa is no longer under apartheid rule, it is notable (though not a criticism), that Rushton was raised during that era. Much in the same way one might say that some historical figure lived in Imperial Japan, or Colonial America, or post-war Germany. --JereKrischel 05:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason the editors at Gould's page would reject "communist Cuba" is that, though it's historically accurate, mentioning it implies it's relevant. In this case that would be an implied connection between his time under communism and his supposed Marxism. When detail isn't relevant from a neutral pov, it's problematic if including it also advances unintended connotations (e.g. Gould is a communist). That's the difference between these examples and examples like Colonial America. Such connotations shouldn't be presented under Wikipedia's neutral voice, but rather attributed to the sources that advance them. (Details that are relevant from a neutral point of view, on the other hand, may frequently come down on one side of a debate.)--Nectar 11:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I disagree with you, Nectar - I think the editors at Gould's page would reject "communist Cuba" because that is what it is today, and mentioning its form of government does not uniquely identify an era readers might not be familiar with. And certainly, no matter what you think of Rushton, his ideas, or apartheid, his time there during his formative years is highly relevant. Whether he developed a subtle racism during that time, or whether he developed significant sympathy for those being discriminated against would be a matter of POV - but in either case, give his notoriety on race-issues, it is critical no matter what implication you draw. --JereKrischel 16:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The article has changed the information that was present in the given reference. The references states "I was born in Bournemouth, England, in 1943. . . We emigrated to South Africa and later to Canada so I went to school in several places." Do we have any basis to speculate on what ages he was there for?--Nectar 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do. A post written by Rushton himself indicating the ages he was there. I've put the reference in. --JereKrischel 01:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -oids

Mongoloid, Caucasoid, or Negroid have become obsolete since Rushton wrote his 2000 book, and his more recent articles have primarily used other terms. (The US National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), for example, were changed in 2004, deleting terms like "Black," "White," and the -oids in favor of "African Continental Ancestry Group" etc.ctrl f ethnic) I think Asian, Caucasian, and African are what we should use, including a note clarifying what they refer to in this context.--Nectar 03:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Rushton used obsolete terminology is not up to us to correct, though, don't you think? I think we should use the terms he uses when speaking of his works, and when citing his later articles, use more recent terminology. Otherwise, we're interpreting his works, not reporting on them. --JereKrischel 05:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't hold for describing the work/writings/thoughts of individuals in the more distant past. --Rikurzhen 05:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias describe things from a current perspective using current language, so in that sense articles are not just reportive. Articles use Native American instead of Indian even when referring to source written pre-1960s. --Nectar 07:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not just continue to use "Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid", as Rushton primarily does, to be true to his words when talking about his specific works, and include a note clarifying that since his choice of these words in his earlier works, such terms have become "obsolete"? --JereKrischel 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia to use obsolete language unless there's a special reason to. As well, Rushton's more recent works primarily use other terms, so prioritizing the older terms doesn't seem important.--Nectar 23:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think when referring to his older work, we should use the language he used, and when referring to his more recent work, use the language he used. We can indicate to the reader that his old terms are now considered "obsolete", although I'm not sure what your definition of that really means. My concern is that a white-washing of terms he has used regularly paints an inaccurate portrayal of his work. For example, what happens when "Asian/Caucasian/African" becomes obsolete, and it is considered more proper to say "Eastern Hemisphere/Western Hemisphere/Southern Hemisphere"? One might very well state that there isn't a one-to-one correspondence between Asian/Mongoloid, Caucasian/Caucasoid, African/Negroid - after all, there are significant populations in Africa which are as white as anyone (and therefore considered "caucasoid" by Rushton), and there are certainly Asian populations which he would not count as Mongoloid (or not consider at all in his 3 "races"). While I think it may be appropriate to give the reader notice of his "obsolete" language, revising it seems beyond what we should do. --JereKrischel 01:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a one-to-one correspondence between Asian/Mongoloid etc. so it is necessary to include a note to clarify, but in the big picture the terms are pretty equivalent. North Africans are considered to be predominately of Caucasian (Middle-Eastern) background with sub-Saharan admixture.ctrl f north african South Asians, if that's the Asian group you're referring to, are also in the Caucasian branch.

What matters is not the terms that were used and are now not used, but the concept they referred to, which is still used -- there are branches of human biogeographic history, including Asians, Caucasians, and sub-Saharan Africans. It's now not appropriate for an encyclopedia to refer to Native Americans as Indians or Savages, or to Africans as Negroids. A scholar.google.com search will show usage of the -oids has tapered off in the scientific literature in the last few years.--Nectar 02:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Nectar, I respectfully disagree with you. It may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia to refer to Native Americans as Indians or Savages, but if the entry is reporting on someone who DOES, we should not censor or revise what they have said. (See Nigger for a perfectly reasonable example of encyclopedic use of the otherwise "obsolete" word) Furthermore, as you've clearly pointed out, the term "African" in place of "Negroid" would be inaccurate, lumping in North Africans, and the term "Asian" in place of "Mongoloid" would also be inaccurate, as South Asians are considered Caucasoid.

I think, however, you are correct that we should point out that the language that Rushton has used in his past work is inappropriate. How we do that without being too POV against Rushton, I don't know...perhaps we can include a note as to his recent change of terminology? Do you have an example of his more polite terminology in later works, compared to his obsolete terminology in his earlier workds? --JereKrischel 03:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Re: "African" in place of "Negroid" would be inaccurate. Africans being used to refer to sub-Saharans, and North Africans being used to refer to North Africans does occur in the literature. South Asians for these purposes are Caucasian and referred to as such. Treatments of these subjects usually define how they're using terms, so it shouldn't be a problem for Wikipedia to do this also.

2. Re: we should not censor or revise what they have said. Cavalli-Sforza and Rushton used the oid terms to refer to concepts. The terms have changed, but the concepts have remained the same. If an article is on a source that refers to Native Americans as Indians, it may note that usage, but the article itself will refer to them as Native Americans, not Indians. (e.g. "[X source] argues Native Americans..." instead of "[X source] argues Indians...")--Nectar 04:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the concepts of Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid really have any new terms that refer to the same thing - besides being very rough and inexact (quite arguably meaningless) geographic categories (since there are certainly Negroid Europeans, and Caucasoid Africans), they are also contradicted by genetic distance trees of Cavalli-Sforza. My point isn't to argue their utility though, but simply to point out that they don't have "non-obsolete" analogs. --JereKrischel 06:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's Rushton and Jensen's treatment of race in Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235-294.

The fuzziness of racial definitions does not negate their utility. To define terms, based on genetic analysis, roughly speaking, Blacks (Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Europe; and East Asians (Orientals, Mongoloids) have most of their ancestors from Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002). Although he eschewed the term race, Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000, p. 70) maximum likelihood tree made on the basis of molecular genetic markers substantially supports the traditional racial groups classification. Of course, in referring to population or racial group differences we are discussing averages. Individuals are individuals, and the three groups overlap substantially on almost all traits and measures.[14] --Nectar 05:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'm not sure if "Whites/Blacks/East Asians" would be any more "appropriate" than "Caucasoid/Negroid/Mongloid" - I had thought you had meant that Rushton used "African/Caucasian/Asian", geographic indicators which although sloppy and inaccurate, may be considered less offensive than "oids"...but White-Black-East Asian seems to really be even worse.

It also seems that they specifically use the term Negroids/Caucasoids/Mongoloids - are there other recent papers where they entirely eschew those terms? --JereKrischel 06:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This paper is probably going to be the best representation of Rushton and Jensen's current preference in terminology, and the terms they predominately use in it are Whites/Blacks/East Asians. The -oids appear when they define their terms, and at least one of them has a second mention later in the (51 page) article. The sensitive nature of ancestry and ethnicity may mean the terminology isn't as precise as the concepts discussed in areas like that which Cavalli-Sforza works in, but that just means treatments of the subject need to define how they're using the terms. Whites/Blacks/East Asians seem pretty standard so there aren't any problems with using those, but that article has a much broader scope than the main discussion of this article --r/K selection theory applied to human populations. I think Caucasian/African/East Asian are the best choice for this article because, as you point out, they refer to biogeography.--Nectar 09:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have is that by revising the actual terms they use (White/Caucasoid, Black/Negroid, East Asian/Mongoloid), to Caucasian/African/East Asian, we're disrupting their terms - they just don't mean the same thing. Could we just italicize or quote the obsolete terms they use, and have notes regarding their "obsoleteness"? --JereKrischel 16:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Risch et al.'s 2002 "Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease"[15] defines African, Caucasian, and Asian in the same way Rushton defines Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid:

"The continental definitions of race and ancestry need some modification, because it is clear that migrations have blurred the strict continental boundaries. . . For our purposes here, on the basis of numerous population genetic surveys, we categorize Africans as those with primary ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa; this group includes African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans. Caucasians include those with ancestry in Europe and West Asia, including the Indian subcontinent and Middle East; North Africans typically also are included in this group as their ancestry derives largely from the Middle East rather than sub-Saharan Africa. 'Asians' are those from eastern Asia including China, Indochina, Japan, the Philippines and Siberia. By contrast, Pacific Islanders are those with indigenous ancestry from Australia, Papua New Guinea, Melanesia and Micronesia, as well as other Pacific Island groups further east. . . Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians [5]. The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level."

. . .

"With this [Human evolution section] as background, it is not surprising that numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion - that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis. The results are the same irrespective of the type of genetic markers employed, be they classical systems [5], restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) [6], microsatellites [7,8,9,10,11], or single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) [12]."

--Nectar 09:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It seemed more appropriate to use the specific MeSH terminology (2004), if the point is to end the use of "obsolete" terms. From the NLM site:

Ethnic Groups and Geographic Origins—Categories I and M: 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.

The use of "Africans/Caucasians/Asians" seems just as obsolete as "Negroid/Caucasoid/Mongoloid". --JereKrischel 18:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Those formal subject headings aren't used in the literature. A google scholar search limited to 2006 yields 15 hits for "european continental ancestry group" and 6000 hits for "caucasian." [16] --Nectar 19:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "obsolete" in this context meant something akin to "politically incorrect" or "offensive" (otherwise, why bother changing from the -oids?). Regardless of the search results (which include uses of the word "cacuasian" that do not directly correlate with the term "caucasoid"), it seems that if we're trying to be polite, academic and modern, we should use the NLM guide, don't you agree? --JereKrischel 19:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Our job is to use the language that's used by the scientific community. Caucasian etc. are the mainstream terms in terms of politesness, academics, and modernity. Obsolete here means replaced in mainstream usage by another term.--Nectar 19:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that absolute rate of results in Google Scholar is a poor metric for determining obsoleteness - it seems clear that the scientific community uses a plethora of terms, and I think we do a distinct disfavor to their intention and accuracy when we try to replace one with another, when both are visibly used. That being said, if we're going to follow best practices as defined by NLM guidelines, we should go ahead and do that.

I guess my question is this - do we continually monitor frequency of usage of terms and change the article as things are updated? Or do we find a best practice guideline (NLM), and hold to that as an acceptable academic alternative, even if it hasn't percolated into study abstracts yet?

I vote for either using the language that Rushton uses directly (and still does even in his later papers), or using the best practices as defined by NLM. --JereKrischel 19:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Search yields of the literature are the only way to quantify current usage of terminology. In this case, there aren't any competing terms for broad ancestry: 6000 is not comparable to 15. If terms change in the future, reference works must change their terms to reflect the field, and this applies to NLM as well. If usage of "European continental ancestry group" increases by 40,000% to equal usage of caucasian, we can compare the pros and cons of the two terms.

re I vote for either using the language that Rushton uses directly (and still does even in his later papers)

Rushton and Jensen 2005, the best publication to gauge Rushton's most recent usage, primarily uses whites/blacks, but since caucasian/african has comparable usage in the literature and specifically refers to ancestry (the topic of this article) instead of socially defined groups (the topic of Rushton and Jensen 2005), the latter seem to be the best choice.--Nectar 19:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like we're not clear on the reasons for using the terms...if the issue is to use what Rushton uses, then the "-oids" are accurate (even used in R&J2005 for their definitions), or white/black/east-asian is accurate - both can be considered "obsolete", by a number of measures. If we're going by best practices, I think the NLM site defines that quite clearly, and for the least "obsolete" terms, their definitive guidelines should be followed. To choose something that isn't a noted best practice (despite its measured frequency of use without regard to context), that also isn't directly used by Rushton (but is by others), seems a poor choice. --JereKrischel 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The answers to these points are all present above. The -oids each only appear once or twice in the 51 page 2005 article, so it can't be said those are Rushton's currently used terms. White/Caucasian etc., as the mainstream terms that appear throughout the scientific literature, cannot be considered obsolete by any commonly accepted measures. Since "European continental ancestry group" does not appear in the literature, it would be inappropriate to use that term. (NLM is just one body among many, and they all may use different terms.) Since Risch et al.'s description of caucasian is exactly the same as Rushton's description of caucasoid, it's quite a stretch of the imagination to say there are any problems with using the non-obsolete equivalent of the obsolete term. If you're arguing white/black should be used instead, it's clear that geographic ancestry terms are the more appropriate non-obsolete equivalent.--Nectar 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned in the discussion above, Rushton actually uses Mongoloid/Negroid/Caucasoid in most of his writing. If we'd like to move away from the NLM terminology, back to the "oids" that Rushton uses, we can move in that direction. --JereKrischel 04:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Race

Race in the study of human biodiversity has already been covered at race and intelligence and vetted by editors on both sides. The section here wasn't as concise or as accurate.--Nectar 10:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I still have major problems with how it has been covered at race and intelligence. In this section, the critical discussion is happening over the validity of Rushton's concept of race - which is not what is disucssed in the section you inserted. --JereKrischel

? Regarding the validity of race, Rushton, Cavalli-Sforza, and Risch et al. 2002 regard Asians, Caucasians, and Africans as being genetically non-identical populations due to their non-identical population histories. How is that different from the biological part of the discussion that occurs in race and intelligence?--Nectar 21:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The section was written over the course of a year by editors from both sides, but changes to the section can easily be proposed and discussed.--Nectar 03:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I still strongly disagree with replacing the section with that found Race and Intellience. The objections remain the same as stated above by JereKrischel. We need to focus on Rushton's concept of race, which isn't the same as Cavalli-Sforza's.--Ramdrake 11:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there any published reports that Rushton has a unique concept of race? --Rikurzhen 04:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't his work itself, asserting a 1-2-3 stepwise progression of "races" on a spectrum, particularly unique? One can clearly make a strong argument for biogeographical groups, but there isn't any way you can reasonably assert that these groups of cousins should lie on a spectrum as if they were ancestors (with some "older" races and some "younger" races) - each biogeographic group has continually been affected by natural selection - it does not just stop in place. I think this goes to the idea of immutable race, and both of you have agreed that such a concept isn't viable. --JereKrischel 04:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If that were true of Rushton, then it would be damning. But it's a violation of WP:NOR even to assemble published facts in a novel way. What's needed is a discussion of his views of race -- by him/others -- on which to base any material for the article. --Rikurzhen 04:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait a sec, I'm not doing any OR here - I'm just quoting Rushton: Modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Africans and non-Africans then split about 100,000 years ago. Orientals and Whites split about 40,000 years ago.. I agree, it's damning, but it's far from anything original - it's pure Rushton. --JereKrischel 04:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, actually that quote is just fine. This kind of text could be found in any textbooks on the subject. It was your characterization of Rushton which was damning. If this is all you were referring to, then it would definitely be OR to make the conclusions you were presenting above. --Rikurzhen 04:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this further quote will help you understand how he damns himself: This history of moving first out of Africa into Europe and then later into East Asia explains why Whites fall in between Orientals and Blacks on the life history variables. The split between Africans and non-Africans happened first, almost twice as early as the split between Orientals and Whites. Here he clearly identifies the "splits" as being into immutable groups - completely ignoring the continuing natural selection in both the "Blacks" and the "Whites". He treats his "races" as if they were in a grandparent-parent-child relationship, rather than a cousin relationship, which of course you understand as true. --JereKrischel 04:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, there's nothing wrong here wrt "immutable" races. The populations did in fact diverge (i.e., they were once one and then became many semi-isolated populations) with reduced interbreeding as evidenced by the variation in neutral allele frequencies (note: the frequencies of selected alleles can be maintained even against high geneflow). The part of this that seems more unique (but I don't know really) to Rushton is that age need not predict functional differences. He could be right or wrong on that point. --Rikurzhen 05:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake (above), can you illustrate how Rushton's concept of race is not addressed by this race section? --Nectar 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, the current section discusses more specifically Rushton's interpretation of other works on the significance (or the arbitrariness) of races. It takes less for granted that races do exist and correlate strongly with the social constructs we currently refer to as "races". In that sense, I feel the current section is less POV in trying to describe the controversy (as relates to Rushton's theories) rather than being a piece of apology for his views, which I feel the Race section from Race and Intelligence is.--Ramdrake 22:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, this race section is currently disorganized and confused regarding the field. Referencing Gil-White, who runs a vanity webpage but has never been published or cited in this area except for on Wikipedia, doesn't help. In contrast to the presentation in this WP article, here's Rushton's argument in the abridged version referencing Cavalli-Sforza. (Cavalli-Sforza would agree with these statements.)

How can we know if the Out of Africa theory is true? To answer that question, we have to look at the evidence from genetics, paleontology, and archaeology. The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues looks at thousands of genetic DNA comparisons of the races. Geneticists count the number of gene mutations in each group to measure which groups are most closely related and when the groups split from one another. These DNA studies support the Out of Africa theory that the split between Africans and all other groups was the first to take place... (p.40)

All that's needed for discussion to occur of the possibility of biological differences in the traits Rushton looks at is for socially defined races to be genetically non-identical. This is the reason why the race and intelligence race section and this race section have the same concerns.--Nectar 23:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, Gil-White is certainly more than a vanity web-page. A quick google search shows a number of citations in many books. If we were to eliminate citations to him, we might as well start eliminating all reference to anyone connected with the Pioneer Fund.

Insfoar as Rushton is concerned, his peculiar assertion that there is a 1-2-3 progression of his "races" because of their 1-2-3 "splitting" based on date, and the immutable race and ignorance of parallel natural selective pressure on what are cousins, not grandparent-parent-child relationships, is certainly nothing at all like any other biogeographic diversity research. Cavalli-Sforza specifically decries the use of his work to assert any classical races: "The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise." The fact that Rushton uses his work as support for his fringe theory is particularly interesting, given their complete disagreement on the issue. --JereKrischel 23:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Rushton make any of those statements on race? His abridged book seems to be dealing with races as statistical concepts, rather than essentialist concepts:

To a certain extent all the races blend into each other. That is true in any biological classification system. However, most people can be clearly identified with one race or another. . . True all humans are brothers (and sisters). But we all know that brothers and sisters can still be very different from one another. . . There is a lot of variation within each of the three races. The full range of variation will be found within any of the major racial groups. Still, group averages are important.

He's asserting there "most people can be clearly identified" in his 3-tier hierarchy - this is a social construct, not a genetic one. Taking a look at the genetic maps, such as Cavalli-Sforza, one clearly sees, contrary to Rushton's assertions, that the blending "to a certain extent" is a gross simplification, and completely arbitrary. --JereKrischel 02:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cavalli-Sforza didn't argue that regional genetic variation doesn't exist:

The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin. Human races are still extremely unstable entities in the hands of modern taxonomists, who define from 3 to 60 or more races. To some extent, this latitude depends on the personal preference of taxonomists, who may choose to be "lumpers" or "splitters." Although there is no doubt that there is only one human species, there are clearly no objective reasons for stopping at any particular level of taxonomic splitting (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 19).

There may or may not be objective reasons for stopping at any particular level of taxonomic splitting, but Rushton doesn't claim there are. He stops at 3 groups because of trait analysis, not genetic analysis:

...Nevertheless, my simplified three-way division serves a purpose. In science, a concept is useful if it groups facts so that general laws and conclusions can be drawn from them. The three-way classification is scientifically justified because it shows a consistent pattern for many different traits (p.43).

--Nectar 02:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

He stops at 3 groups in a completely arbitrary manner - and you're right, he does so based on stereotype and faulty data, not actual genetic data. His three-way classification is scientifically unjustified because it does not stand up to scrutiny on the genetic level. He could just as easily have divided the "races" into left-handers, right-handers, and people with straight hair, and asserted a three-way hierarchy. In this way, he is fairly unique - his concept of "race", as opposed to a geneticist's concept of "race", is completely different, although he claims to base his ideas on their work. We shouldn't conflate them, don't you think? --JereKrischel 02:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:His three-way classification is scientifically unjustified because it does not stand up to scrutiny on the genetic level. This is where your opinion departs from Cavalli-Sforza's. Cavalli-Sforza states clustering does exist (3-60+ clusters), but there's no statistical reason to prefer one level of detail (number of clusters) over another:

The successive levels of clustering follow each other in a regular sequence, and there is no discontinuity that might tempt us to consider a certain level as a reasonable, though arbitrary, threshold for racial distinction. Minor changes in the genes or methods used shift some populations from one cluster to the other. Only "core" populations, selected because they presumably underwent less admixture, confer greater compactness to the clusters and stability to the classification tree (p. 19).

Cavalli-Sforza argues there's no statistical reason to discuss "racial distinction" at the level of, say, 3 clusters (look at Image:Rosenberg_1048people_993markers.jpg for the 3 clusters identified in Rosenberg et al. 2002, 2005), but Rushton identifies a speculative phenotypic pattern at one of those levels, providing heuristic incentive that's absent from unanalyzed genetic data.--Nectar 08:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Nectar, could you please try to use a less hermetic language: but Rushton identifies a speculative phenotypic pattern at one of those levels, providing heuristic incentive that's absent from unanalyzed genetic data. I'm also a trained scientist (although I diverted from neuroscience to computer science nearly 20 years ago, thus my neuroscience is understandably rusty), and quite fluent in English, but the complete meaning of this sentence nevertheless escapes me. Using a plainer English would help the flow of ideas; using the kind of hermetic language noted above is, IMHO an impediment to the exchange of ideas.--Ramdrake 13:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine.. Cavalli-Sforza's statements mean the choice of what level of detail to look at the clusters at depends on the question being asked. If the question is simply 'how many clusters are there,' Cavalli-Sforza argues the question cannot be answered '9' or '60' on a purely statistical basis. If the question is 'are there clusters that correlate with an observed pattern,' then the question is indeed answerable. In this case, it can be answered by looking at Rosenberg et al. 2002, 2005.--Nectar 19:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Rushton doesn't look at clusters that correlate with an observed pattern - he starts off with the idea that there are three "races" based on "splits", and ignores evidence that contradicts his 1-2-3 spectrum based on the dates of the splits, including clusters. Were the research he cites to have been conducted based on genetic analysis (let's say, testing IQ of people, and matching it to their genetic information, so that he could genetically, rather than stereotypically, cluster people together), you may have a point there. Instead, he makes a huge, unjustifiable leap between the data based on social identification and constructs, and genetic clusters.

Again, I propose that you could find clusters that had a 1-2-3 pattern by choosing any arbitrary group (pisces, libra and gemini, as per astrology), and observe a correlation. Rushton makes the fatal error of asserting that the cause of such a pattern is due to "splits" tens of hundreds of thousands of years ago, and ignoring the continuing pressures of natural selection on all populations in all environments. Does that make sense to you Nectar, or am I not being clear? --JereKrischel 20:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, you are being clear. It can be speculated that Rushton started off at one point or another, but the published result looks at statistical correlations between two sets of measures (the identified traits on the one hand, and the biogeographic clusters on the other hand). Critics' argument that he ignores contrasting data should of course be covered in the article. Tang et al. 2005 found people's self-identification was an accurate predictor of continent of ancestry, so it's not an unjustifiable leap of faith to state self-identification as e.g. East Asian correlates highly with East Asian ancestry.

There are certainly group differences between many different kinds of groups, such as right- or left-handedness. In the case of Rushton's theory, he makes an evolutionary psychological argument for group differences deriving from climate and environment. I agree that the topic would benefit from discussion of recent selection, but Rushton doesn't make any denials that it could occur, and that general possibility has only recently been discussed more in the literature (evolutionary psych has generally denied that recent selection could have occured, as did e.g. Gould), partially due to continuing advances in genetics (e.g. Wang et al. 2006). --Nectar 23:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The unjustifiable leap of faith is when self-identification is 1) limited to preconceived social classifications, and 2) represents only fractional association, e.g., East Asian self-identification may correlate with having at least some East Asian ancestry, but it does not correlate with the exclusion of any other ancestry. I understand that making such a leap can be based on rational thought, but it seems fairly clear the rationale isn't very strong - YMMV, of course. --JereKrischel 01:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if Rushton were to have simply stated that his 1-2-3 pattern maps to latitude, he probably wouldn't have as much of a problem. I think the evidence, both within human groups and within biological species in general, show significant differences in rate of mutation (with more mutation happening in hotter latitudes), which could be seen as promoting r vs. K reproductive strategies. The problem, as I see it (and as I believe he is rightfully criticized by others for), is that he has chosen to map his pattern onto arbitrary social constructs, rather than what we know is the driver of natural selection - the specific environment. This, of course, is on top of his assertion that the three "splits" are still effective today - as the latest studies have shown, we continue, to this day, to be subject to selective pressures, and there is no reason to believe that the selective pressure stopped in mid-stream during his asserted "splits". Again, I think that there is real science happening here, and it is important, but unfortunately, Rushton does a poor job of summarizing, analyzing, and presenting it. --JereKrischel 01:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Rushton states that his 1-2-3 pattern maps to mean temperature, with the populations in the colder climes being "more evolved" than those in warmer climes. However, upon close examination, his hypothesis breaks down under several aspects. I can expound on this if you wish; I'm just not sure how familiar you are with his hypotheses, so I don't want to bore you with details on the first go. --Ramdrake 01:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) It doesn't matter if you think Rushton started with "preconceived" ideas. The end result is he looks at statistical correlations between two sets of measures, one of them being the genetic clusters Cavalli-Sforza identifies. (2) People who identify as being East Asian indeed have on average substantially more East Asian background than other backgrounds. (3) Identified genetic clusters aren't "arbitrary social constructs". Populations that have breed more within themselves then with other populations indeed have different histories and are genetically non-identical. (4)Global human populations have certainly not interbred to the point that human population history no longer matters. (5) Re Ramdrake, the question in this section is confined to what role does the validity or non-validity of the racial groups Rushton looks at play in his work.--Nectar 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Nectar, but Rushton looks at correlations, and then asserts causality. And in regards to Cavalli-Sforza's clusters, he doesn't map his data to the four clusters asserted, nor has he gone back and analyzed his other dubious citations in light of there being four, rather than three major biogeographic groups.

In regards to "substantially more East Asian background", you've hit the nail on the head - these people are *not* monolithically one thing or another, and any analysis which hangs its hat on "substantially more", when there is no analysis of what particular *qualities* that may yield in expression, is weak at best.

At what point would you admit that global human populations have interbred to a point where classical "races" no longer matter? Seeing as Cavalli-Sforza found several dozen groups, spread throughout the world, continuing to "split" even into recent history, don't you think we've already established that the complexity of biogeographic diversity already doesn't map to these preconcieved ideas? When 20% of the global population is "mixed", will that be enough interbreeding? 30%? 70%? Can you even show me a "pure" white, black, or east asian person anymore? --JereKrischel 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) Rushton's looking at 3 groups that contain the majority of but not all humans. When asking if these groups can be validly considered to represent different genetic averages, the relevant information is that they do conform to non-identical genetic clusters. (2) Re "not monolithically one thing or another" This is converting statistical statements into simple dichotomies. East Asians are predominately of East Asian genetic background, meaning genetic influence in that group will be predominately East Asian. (3) The 3 clusters under discussion that Cavalli-Sforza identified correlate with the total genetic variation within those groups. Interracial marriage rates are quite low in most of the world. Nearly all native Japanese and Nigerians in their countries, for example, are entirely of those backgrounds. At current rates, the North American or global populations wouldn't become genetically homogeneous any time in the next couple hundreds of years. All populations need in order to vary in genetic traits is to represent different genetic averages.--Nectar 18:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The main problem Rushton's theory has is not that he's looking at an arbitrary three groups, but that he's asserting causality based on when each group "split" - 200,000, 110,000, 50,000 years ago. Remember, his definition of "race" is based on these "splits", and is in fact, contradicted by the research he cites. Perhaps he could be correct, if these splits completely genetically isolated each "race" into completely different environments, and no interbreeding occured, but as you admit, such monolithic purity is unheard of. Not a single person alive today can assert that all of their ancestors have isolated themselves for 50,000, 110,000, or 200,000 years - AFAIK, the most recent common ancestor is actually closer to 2 or 3 thousand years ago.

Cavalli-Sforza did not find 3 clusters. The PC analysis found four clusters.

And where does this idea of "genetic average" come from? I think you're taking a valid idea (genetic variation), and conflating it with an invalid one (taking social categories of "race", and asserting they represent "average" populations). For example, you could just as well divide the world into 6' and above, and 5'11" and below. Each of these "races" generally breed only within their group, and can be seen as genetically "distinct" in the same way any other arbitrary division can. The problem I see with Rushton in particular is that he asserts causality that just doesn't pass muster. As I've said before, he might have had a good point if he had limited his analysis to latitude, but to assert that ancient splits have anything to do with genetic diversity today (especially since during that entire time, natural selection was still in effect), is odd, don't you think? --JereKrischel 19:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Athletic???

Ok, first of all, Just look at the Olymbic metal, China usually ranked second. Tell the rest African nation that they are athletic. American wins most of their metal by track & field, swimming, basketball...etc(Because they have both black and white races) Korean ranked 4th in 2002 world cup.No African or American team ever reached All this sports competition tells how athletic a nation can be. I have some African American friend and they are some of the nicest kid in the school. Does that make this theory wrong? It's not the gene that influence the action, it's the enviroment!!!!

Imagine if born in a poor African american neighboorhood, and you don't even know who your father is. You are surround by violence, drugs and sexes related crime. Tell me, unless you have a good influence by your mentor, you are never getting out the circle, the only way out for these black are either dealing drug, working at a low paying wage job or get a decent education(which in most cases are low).

In most white district, since the highier paying jobs generates more funds for school. They are less likely to have drug related violence or drugs. I won't say there is no drug, cuz you all know it ain't true, there's drug everywhere, it's only the matter of how much. Kids in this enviroment focus more about what sport to play or what college goes to. The poor keeps getting poorer, the rich gets richer because of education difference.

-- Above comment was posted by 70.171.166.136 on July 20, 2006 -- Writtenonsand 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] testosterone?

Rushton has written on putative variation in testosterone levels, but there currently isn't mention in the article. I have a study here that should probably be added.[17] Did that topic get moved out in the recent reorganizations of the article?--Nectar 01:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with intelligence, only with certain diseases, and it's connection to certain diseases is only speculation. I'm honestly amazed people still take Rushton's penis size theories seriously- they're complete bunk, along with most of the other garbage he pumps out.

Most scientists would be surprised at your implied claim that varying levels of testosterone have no effect on brain development and individual differences (e.g. sensation seeking, psychoticism and neuroticism[18]).--Nectar 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but penis formation happens later in development than the testosterone surge associated with behavioural variation, boys and girls don't have much, if any, difference in circulating testosterone during penis formation. Unlike the literature on behaviour, I know of no data demonstrating an organizational effect of androgen exposure on penis length (see Bogaert & Hershberger, 1999 The relation between sexual orientation and penile size. Arch. Sex. Behav. 28, 213–221, for a review of the lack of evidence) Pete.Hurd 22:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The connection between testosterone and penis length is made by the anon above, but not by Rushton. Here's Rushton's summary of his argument about testosterone from the abridged version of his book: "Testosterone acts as a "master switch." It affects things like self-concept, aggression, altruism, crime, and sexuality, not just in men, but in women too. Testosterone also controls things like muscle mass and the deepening of the voice in the teenage years."[19] (Bogaert & Hershberger 1999 is an interesting article, BTW, thanks.)--Nectar 03:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If penis size is such a big factor, explain why China has the highest rate of prostitution out of anywhere else in the world. Explain why Japan has a massive pornography industry with some of the most bizzare sexual fetishizations to come out of it. Explain why Thailand has massive child pornography, child prostitution, and child sex slavery rings. Explain why China had extremely high poverty and crime levels up until the victory of the Communist party. Explain why many studies have shown white penis sizes and black penis sizes to be very close in size in many cases. Explain why Scotland has the highest murder rate out of anywhere else in the developed world yet the smallest non-white population in the UK. Explain why there aren't any white gangs in LA yet there are a number of fillipino, vietnamese, and other asian gangs. Whites are the only race to lack gangs predominantly made up of white members in LA, unless you count neo-nazi gangs, which, at the most, might spray-paint a swastika on a jewish synagogue or something. Not to mention that the Japanese are extremely impulsive people. Surely this isn't heavily reinforcd by Eastern Thought and Bushido?

What I'm getting at is that many, many of Rushton's theories and ideas are directly contradicted by real-world instances. You also do realize that most chinese and japanese who came to the US were rich to begin with, right?

Once again I wanted to point a few other things out. The aborigines of Papau New Guinea, the Papuans, score in the 85-90 range on IQ tests, despite how people of Australoid descent usually have the smallet and least convoulted, although by a very small amount, brains out of any human ethnic group. This is an interesting contrast to Australian Aborigine IQs, who score extremely low on IQ tests and score low even on IQ tests designed specially for them, albeit rather higher than standard ones. Surely there must be something else at work, considering how closely related the two peoples are? The Inuits, who have the largest recorded cranial capacities out of any human ethnic group, only score 91 on their IQ tests and Inuit communities have extremely high crime rates, higher than even US aboriginal communities. Second of all, the racial bell curve people usually quote is from the time the original Bell Curve book came out. Which was 12 years ago. Surely the average black IQ, along with all the other races, hasn't gone up?

And another thing on penis sizes, something Rushton ignores. I've seen a number of studies that show white and black penises to be very close in size, in fact I saw one Canadian Science Journal study that showed white penises to be larger, although by a small amount, than black penises. I've heard one of the reasons why most people think black men's penises are larger is because they look larger when unerect, while white penises look smaller when unerect. In reality, white penises and black penises differ very little in size. Second of all, hispanic penis size is actually very similar to east asian penis size, sometimes slightly larger, sometimes the same. Yet hispanics commit the second most amount of crimes out of any other ethnic group in the US, and the vast majority of mestizo nations are crime-ridden and poor, bordering on third-world level.