Rating: 
Summary: Some comments
Review: Many things mentioned in this book may or may not be correct but some of the ideas do seem to fit in. Many Chinese people ponder about the reason for China to fall behind the West. An increasing number of people believe that this is due to China's lack of "martial spirit". Because of this, the Chinese invented gunpower but did not use it in weapons but in firework displays. The Chinese built the Great Wall, the most impressive engineering masterpiece of the ancient world, but could not keep out the barbarian hordes. The ancient Chinese had the most technologically advanced, efficiently organised, and tactically developed army in the world but was beaten by disorganised nomadic barbarians on unsaddled horseback. If this book is correct than it's all because of the lack of testosterone.
Rating:
Summary: Some answers for Eric Lee
Review: 1. why the standard of living of Mongoloids in general is so much lower than that of Caucasoids, despite the alleged superior intelligence of the former.One must not only look at the present time but also at history in general. For most of its history, for example, China was the wealthiest nation on Earth. As late as the late 18th century the Chinese empire had 40% of the world's GDP, an economical monopoly that exceeds today's America. China's rapid decline in the previous two or three centuries is an exception rather than the rule if one looks at the larger historical perspective. Many parts of today's Asia are certainly the economic equal, if not more than an equal, of Europe and North America. It is true that large parts of mainland China are still in poverty, but even there economic progress is quite fast. Other parts of Asia, such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong enjoy at least the same level of living standards as Western Europe or North America. Another thing to take into consideration is that "living standard" or "economic success" is not only correlated with intelligence. Intelligence is not everything. There are other factors at work. I guess a "politically incorrect" thing to say, based on the hypotheses of this book, is that perhaps Mongoloids "lack the balls". 2. why brain size and weight are a good measure of intellect - neither Einstein nor Mozart had an unusally large brain, which one would expect given his arguments. Brain size and weight are a good measure of AVERAGE intellect that only becomes signficant statistically. It is not always the case that on an individual basis, high intelligence is always associated with a larger brain. At any rate, brain size is not the only factor in an individual's intelligence. It must be noted, however, that while Einstein did not have an unusally large brain, his brain size is larger than the human average. 3. why there are clearly far more Mongoloids in the world than Caucasoids, given his argument that the latter are far more sexually active than the former. A larger population is not necessarily due to a higher reproductive rate. It also depends on how successfully individuals of a certain race can survive. In fact, this is the central point of the r-K reproductive strategy theory the book proposes. The point is that by being better at survival, so that the chance of an offspring's survival to reproductive age is significantly increased, (i.e. by adopting the K strategy) a population can win in terms of numbers despite a low reproductive rate. Perhaps the large number of Chinese people today (as the vast majority of Mongoloids belong to a single nation, the Chinese) is evidence for China's historical success, especially relative to other much smaller Mongoloid nations.
Rating: 
Summary: PBS Film Examines Myth, Reality of Race
Review: Look at your skin color. Now try to see its significance as a mere pigment of our collective imagination.
PBS' ``Race: The Power of an Illusion'' asks viewers to reconsider our widely shared belief in race as a legitimate means of sorting the human species. Using science and an examination of the political and social development of America, the documentary makes the case for accepting race as an artificial distinction. Biological anthropologist Alan Goodman says in the film that seeing people understand race as a ``biological myth'' is like ``seeing what it must have been like to understand that the world isn't flat.'' He's among the distinguished voices - including paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, in one of his last interviews before his death in 2002 - who provide a chorus of support and scientific explanation for dismissing race as a genetic reality. But the three-part documentary is even more demanding: While ``race'' represents nothing more than skin-deep characteristics, it argues, it's impossible to ignore because of our protracted, insistent emphasis on it and the result. ``We wanted to give people something to chew on,'' Larry Adelman, the film's creator and executive producer, said in an interview. ``We thought our job was to shake people up, to get them to think twice about that which they've long taken for granted.'' CCH Pounder (``The Shield'') is the effective narrator of the film, which airs on three consecutive Thursdays at 10 p.m. EDT beginning April 24 (check local listings). It was produced by California Newsreel, a nonprofit documentary production and distribution center. The 35-year-old organization, with a comprehensive collection of films on black life, was in a unique position to see which topics had gone unaddressed, said Adelman, its co-director. ``What we realized is that for all this country's concern about race, nobody could agree on what it was,'' he said. ``We thought it was important to go back to first principles, to ask that question that is so basic, so fundamental, 'What is this thing called race?' ``That's the real subject of the film, to address the often unspoken assumptions that all of us carry about race.'' Assumptions that survive, Adelman said, despite the fact that the American Anthropological Association, the New England Journal of Medicine and other groups have taken explicit policy positions that race has no basis in biology: There are no genes that distinguish all members of one race from all members of another race. There is a minority opinion which continues to describe race as genetic but which disregards science, Adelman said. He said did not feel compelled to turn the film into a ``survey course'' including those dissenters. The film's first hour, ``The Difference Between Us,'' addresses commonly held attitudes and their roots. We watch as a group of high school students test their DNA and their expectation that they will prove similar to students with shared ancestry. The documentary recounts the longtime search for racial differences in a bid to prove that one group is superior to another, along with the warp and woof of racial stereotypes. As poverty and social neglect contributed to high infant mortality rates and illness for some black Americans in the 19th century, for example, it was concluded that blacks were physically inferior to whites - a startling contrast to later assertions that blacks were stronger and more athletically advanced than whites. Attempts to codify racial differences carried a false patina of science, the film says. ``Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro,'' a paper by Prudential Insurance statistician Frederick L. Hoffman, found that programs to improve the health and welfare of blacks were futile because they were an inherently weak people. He predicted their eventual extinction. The highly influential paper was published in 1896, the same year the Supreme Court legalized segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson), the film notes, drawing a critical connection between social dogma and policy. In the documentary's second hour, ``The Story We Tell,'' the establishment of slavery in the Americas and a new and growing assertion of white supremacy is traced. Thomas Jefferson was among the first prominent Americans to publicly offer such a view, writing in 1781 of ``a suspicion only'' that blacks are inferior in body and mind. The position was intertwined with the need to reconcile a democratic society with an economic reliance on slavery, the film says. ``And the way you do that is to say, 'Yeah, but you know, there is something different about these people. This whole business of inalienable rights, ah, that's fine, but it only applies to certain people,''' historian James Horton says. The final chapter, ``The House We Live In,'' covers more familiar ground as it casts a sharp eye on how public policies and institutions have reinforced racial distinctions. Employment, housing and education for nonwhite Americans has been influenced throughout the 20th century - and, most importantly, into the 21st, the documentary argues. The average black family today has one-eighth the net worth or assets of the average white family, according to sociologist Dalton Conley. The advantage of whiteness remains potent in American society and cannot be ignored, the documentary argues. It's an argument that, even now, is being confronted at the highest level: The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing a pair of cases that will govern how or whether universities may consider an applicant's race, and the ruling is expected to have a broad impact. But when it comes to the quest for equality, everyone has the opportunity to weigh in, according to at least one hopeful voice. ``Race is a human invention,'' science historian Evelynn Hammonds says in the film. ``We created it, we have used in it ways that have been, in many, many respects, quite negative and quite harmful. And we can think ourselves out of it. We made it; we can unmake it.''
Rating:
Summary: Race Not Reflected in Genes Study Finds
Review: The idea of race is not reflected in a person's genes, said Brazilian researchers, confirming what scientists have long said -- that race has no meaning genetically. The Brazilian researchers looked at one of the most racially mixed populations in the world for their study, which found there is no way to look at someone's genes and determine his or her race. Brazilians include people of European, African and Indian, or Amerindian, descent. "There is wide agreement among anthropologists and human geneticists that, from a biological standpoint, human races do not exist," Sergio Pena and colleagues at the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerias in Brazil and the University of Porto in Portugal wrote in their report, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "Yet races do exist as social constructs," they said. They found 10 gene variations that could reliably tell apart, genetically, 20 men from northern Portugal and 20 men from Sao Tome island on the west coast of Africa. But the genetic differences did not have anything to do with physical characteristics such as skin or hair color, the researchers found. They next tested two groups -- 173 Brazilians classified as white, black, or intermediate based on arm skin color, hair color, and nose and lip shape, and 200 men living in major metropolitan areas who classified themselves as white. They used the 10 genetic markers that differed between people from Portugal and Africa, but found little difference among anyone in their study. To their surprise, they found maternal DNA suggested that even the "white" people had, on average, 33 percent of genes that were of Amerindian ancestry and 28 percent African. This suggested European men often fathered children with black and Indian women. "It is interesting to note that the group of individuals classified as blacks had a very high proportion of non-African ancestry (48 percent)," they wrote.
"In essence our data indicate that, in Brazil as a whole, color is a weak predictor of African ancestry," they concluded.
"Our study makes clear the hazards of equating color or race with geographical ancestry and using interchangeably terms such as white, Caucasian and European on one hand, and black, Negro or African on the other, as is often done in scientific and medical literature."
Rating:
Summary: You Have To Be Kidding?
Review: I just finished reading Mr. Rushton's book on Race, Evolution & Behavior and I am of the following opinion: This book is void of any real science or logic. Not because I am "PC" or choose to ignore the "Truth" due to my belief in Multiculturalism. It is because I unlike Mr. Rushton am well read and versed in world history and its effects on human evolution. I recommend that Mr. Rushton and anyone else who buy into this drab, read some books on Ancient African History (i.e., The original Egyptians, the Nubian Empires and the Moors) by Professors Cheikh Anta Diop or George G.M. James that factually illustrates Black African contributions of math, science, astronomy, astrology to modern day world societies. It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant the general public truly is. Perhaps his ignorant book helps explains how people can watch a movie on biblical figures such as Moses, Ramses II and other Ancient Egyptians and actually believe they were white people because the producer of a film decided in spite of anthropological, historical, geographical and sociological evidence to cast white people like Charlton Heston and Yul Brenner in the key roles. That would almost be as bad as making a movie about "Attila The Hun" and casting a blue eyed white man in the role. Oops, I'm sorry CBS already did that last summer! Were it not for the Ancient Egyptians (not the modern day arab tomb robbers that call themselves Egyptian) thru it's teachings of science, philosophy and mysticism to plagiarist like Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, etc., Europeans would still be hiding from the sun and believing that the world was flat or better yet they would be extinct from plague born diseases due to not knowing what a sewage system is (thanks to the Moors). Remember this Mr. Rushton, African civilizations were building monotheistic churches while the caucasians were still living in caves and dabbling in paganism. If anyone interested would like to read more current information on the contributions from the "small brained" and "oversexed" lower class of people, I would recommend visiting About.com and taking a look at black inventors (incl. US Patents) and see how people would not be able to stop at a traffic light, refrigerate food, comb their hair, blood plasma, use a cell phone, etc. without these inept people. I won't even get into the thousands of practical day to day inventions by black men and women that whites take for granted and automatically assume were created by white hands. It takes more intelligence to create something useful for mankind than it does to create something that only destroys (i.e., bombs, biological weapons, etc.) of which caucasians seem to be so adapt. In conclusion, I can't believe how most readers neglect to notice the glaring error in Chapter 1 of Mr. Rushton's theory that Asians have less sex than other races of humans. So I guess that's why the Chinese outnumber everyone and China has mandatory population control laws and indulge in the practice of aborting female babies. This book is beyond stupid... But it is good reading for minorities to let them know how most whites truly feel and how base their knowledge can be. The Original Man
Rating:
Summary: Not a bad book, but not all-encompassing
Review:
To make definite statements on the ability of a certain race, you must first identify that particular race, and then do massive number crunching. This book does not do that to a great degree.
The fact that humans undergo genetic evolution due to climate and geography is undeniable. The results are as clear as day. What is not as clear is day is the fact that an IQ test, no matter how well-designed, is unable to account for the individual interpretation to questions by test takers.
Also, there are innumerable genetic types and sub-types of humans. The term African-American is somewhat of a mysnomer, since there is a huge variety of genotypes in the continent itself. Most of the slaves that came to the US were from the West Coast, but they don't exactly resemble the people from that area. Any black in America who's had ancestors here for more than three generations is most likely a genetic mixing pot, and are likely to have at least some white ancenstry.
If you look in areas of Europe that were traditionally economic and social underdogs, you will see high rates of disease, crime, and poverty. This is true whether you're talking about Ireland or Albania. When the Irish immigrated to America en masse in the 19th century, they were heavily discriminated against because they brought crime and poverty with them. This is well-documented and plenty of proof is left in the form of anti-Irish signs and warnings, and anti-Irish essays by distinguished scholars. However, the Irish interbred with other whites and within a few generations Irish discrimination was forgotten. The same thing will happen in this country with blacks, hispanics, etc., once people evolve mentally to the point that they realize race doesn't matter.
From my own observations in life, there is no difference in human intelligence between the races. There are superior ideas, and from these ideas, superior cultures and philosophies, but there are no superior races. Each race in one way or another has added greatly to the sum of human advancement. How long would it have taken Europeans to develop their own writing and mathematical systems? If they hadn't been developed by other races that are argued in this book as being intellectually inferior in the modern day, we might still be living by the sun during the day and by fire at night. Considering the length of human history, another 5,000 years in the dark before someone figures out how to write symbols would be a drop in the bucket.
You can argue with numbers and testing all day to determine which races are capable where, but this doesn't replace the invaluable insight given by actually meeting the people you're describing, and assessing through your own experiences who has what strengths. So far in my life I can't honestly say I recognize race-specific abilities. Even the argument that blacks dominate professional sports doesn't fly, because guess where the whites that play basketball are coming from? They're coming from impoverished parts of Europe, namely the Balkans. It could be that sports is a traditional way for blacks to advance in society, and that life under stressful social conditions is a good forge for developing the drive and ability to succeed in those arenas.
A study to discover how genetics determine your physical and mental abilities probably cannot take place on the natural world, since the subjects' nurture will always taint the results. An important part of the scientific method is to isolate the study to an environment in which the subject is self-contained. The only way to do this would be to conduct the study in a laboratory-like setting, like a deserted island on which the inhabitants can grow from infants to adults in a setting void of economic and social variables, supervised by scientists who apply quality control to the upbringing of the subjects. The results of this study would be quite interesting, and probably a lot more accurate than any using data from real life.
-- JJ Timmins
Rating: 
Summary: This is more tricky
Review: Nurture can take many generations. In Poland (from where I come)
there is a striking difference between rural areas which were under serfdom and which were under the royal or Church adminstration. The last two were much more humane and benevolent.
The former serfdom areas have much more problems with crime, poverty and broken familes. The race in all areas is identical.
Second issue is the genetic dynamic of population, withing one racial group the differences are larger than averages between different races. In a relatively short time (maybe few generations) different reporoduction rate can lead to significant shift. BTW, at present more academically gifted people have much fewer children so the natural selection pressure can end in leveling IQ down :).
Rating: 
Summary: Scientific & Cool-headed
Review: Psychology is not an exact science; not even evolutionary psychology. But that doesn't mean an inexact science cannot find truths - or at least facts. For even inexact but more or less correct facts are better than no facts at all or facts that are totally wrong. To quote Warren Buffett, it's better to be approximately right than precisely wrong. In psychology, unlike in astrophysics or molecular genetics, for example, it's never possible to be precisely right, not only because everything comes down to simple observation, but also because very sophisticated equipment or complex but precise calculations are rarely applicable. But even in this inexact science it certainly is possible to be approximately right. I think this book is scientific in this sense. But this is in the nature of the subject itself. Rushton has done his best in finding out the facts using methods he understands well - those of the social sciences - and his best seems to me to be very good. His standards are rigorous, his methods sound, his interpretations level-headed and even-tempered, and his style is professional. There are many inexact sciences that are nonetheless real sciences. Take Darwin's evolution. This may be understood without the knowledge of all but the most elementary arithmetic, but this is still real science. His arguments are bolstered and confirmed by careful observation and clear thinking. To think that "soft" sciences (i.e., those that require little math) do not command general consensus among the best minds is wrong. There's a good deal of agreement among the best biologists that evolution is correct; they disagree on the fineprint only. On the other hand, there's no universal agreement among quantum physicists (who are usually expert mathematicians) on the most fundamental issues of quantum theory. My point is this: it IS possible to arrive at certain objective facts, and from these facts certain objective truths, even in the social sciences. It is not just a matter of opinion, as in art, but a matter of correct or incorrect observation and thinking. And I feel Rushton had done a good job for his chosen subject. I have read this book many times and I don't feel the need to summarize it here. Others have done this well enough. I would dare anyone to see for himself or herself whether Rushton is right or not. We can't all observe the heavens and talk intelligently about black holes. We can't all understand electronics. But we can observe the social world and make our own judgement. Why not put Rushton's interpretations to the test of our own eyes and then and only then say he's right or wrong? I think Rushton is in a good position to find more and more supporters in the future. Things are happening in the world which clearly support his thesis. Perhaps one or two centuries from now Rushton will be seen as telling what is already obvious to everyone then but not so obvious when he wrote this book. As a student of history I think his interpretations are also a good "fit" with historical facts as I understand them. So from both the journalist's and the historian's point of view, and not just in its own context, Rushton's social science makes sense also. The key paradox (the Needham paradox, if you like) needs to be dealt with. I'm not sure if Rushton has done that here. It is this: why did Mongoloids fall behind? Well, the answer is they lacked the scientific method. But why did they lack the scientific method, especially mathematics, having been ahead of Caucasoids for centuries in practical technology? Well, Rushton needs to address this question. Personally, I suspect - though I can't say why - that the scientific method can only be born in a mindset obsessed with religion, and East Asians historically have been less obsessed with religion. I cannot say exactly why I think there was a connection (although today this connection is no longer necessary), but I do feel that science and religion somehow have something to do with each other, and that to be scientifically curious in the way Europeans were you have to have been first of all religiously minded as well. And East Asians were neither, relative to Europeans. (Again, I can't prove my suspcions - I leave it to others more brilliant to find the answer.) To accuse Rushton of being a racist even in disguise is absurd. How does a white racist put his own race down? And he does not intend to put any race down, only to present facts as he finds them. I think this book is one of the best books I've ever read, in any subject. And because its subject-matter is so important I attach special value to it. There really are few similar books out there that are truly sound in ways I've just described, and of those few that can compare (like the one by P. E. Vernon, in the early 80's), this is the most up to date. It deserves 6 stars out of 5.
Rating:
Summary: Landmark Science. Seeking Truth Wherever it Leads.
Review: "Know the Truth, the Truth will set you Free". The Truth is not pretty nor what we hope, wish or expect.
I had many skepticism for Professor Rushton's ideas and book. How can any of if be true. This is too general. No scientific data can back any of this up on race and behavior. However, before commenting on the book, one should read the book from cover to cover, as I did. Professor Rushton is not a "polemnic" "commentator" but a "scientist" Scientist debate from facts, data and evidence. Needless to say, this book has lots of data. It is not written in flowery commentary, but in dry academic prose and lots of footnotes. Professor Rushton reviews the history, empirical data, and experts from both side of the debate. Needless to say, Professor is a thorough and meticulous scholar. All arguments are supported by footnotes and reference to expert authority. After reading the book, I am still skeptical. However, it's ignorance to say it completely environmental or genetic. The answer is probably 50-50, 60-40, or 75-25 between genes and evironment. As for any scholarly debate, what is needed is addtional research and data gathering. More scientist need to do basic research so more data will come out for analysis. Can one book determine the answer to the genes-environment debate. Probably not, but Professor Rushton does a thorough and scholarly job for his point of view. Needless to say, it is Landmark science and will color all future research and debate on nature-nurture. Professor Rushton has the last word for now.
Rating:
Summary: Do we really Want to Find Out the Truth?
Review: This is an interesting but dangerous area to tread. However, we need to differentiate between dispassionately finding out the 'absolute truth' and trying to fit our findings to our beliefs (But can we really?). Also, it would be easy to say that 'If the truth is ugly, so be it'. But what would the social implications be? Native American peoples (in both North & South America) seems not to have been included in this comparison. It would be interesting to see how they score versus East Asians, with whom they were said by some authors to share the same roots, but yet seemed in many ways to have lagged behind. It is possible that the theory of relative intelligence is true. However, at the same time cultural factors and shared values of the respective individual societies such as religion and work ethics should not be overlooked as contributors to measured IQ (test which one can only hope to be objectively set). These performances would also have been shaped by different experiences resulting from various climatic influences e.g. winters inthe North, and deserts in the Middle East, and by diet, just to name some. If a Japanese couple were to adopt several African babies, and if the children were brought up in the most advantageous manner in Japan with the best diet and education available, how would it affect their measured IQ? Could relative brain sizes of different groups also be due to nutritional differences? At a glance, there seems to be more factors that we need to take into consideration to complete the picture. In the event that this theory proves to be the unpleasant 'truth', what should we do? Sad to say, perhaps we should forgo the truth because of the effects it would have on everyone. Would the people disadvantaged by this study get a fair chance in life? As it is they are already suffering from various discriminations. Yet political correctness is undesirable because it can, and sometimes, deny the truth if this be the truth.
| 
