Rating: 
Summary: The epitomy of bad science
Review: If you aren't interested in good science or well thought out prose this is the book for you. Garbage like this is hard to find just anywhere. If this book was being given away at a grocery store I wouldn't take it. Rushton is by far one of our greatest racists alive today and clearly doesn't understand the basics of modern science and has certainly ignored more than three centuries of research on this topic.
Rating: 
Summary: Intentional misrepresentation of evolutionary psychology
Review: The caveat of evolutionary psychology and individual differences research is that genes do not determine our behavior. It may direct us to certain behaviors, but we are still constrained by the social norms. Mr. Rushton purposefully misrepresented the entire evolutionary theory simply for the shock value. It is unimaginable that anyone would praise this book.Leaving the theory aside, the most howling error was his intentional use of fuzzy math. His methodology in comparing the skull size of corpses from different era and race were not fairly representated. In fact, other scientists have found that if African Americans were given the same number of subject size, and not being purposefully excluded from the study, the correlation in his research would amount to no more than 0.1(meaning that no attributes can be pinned down to racial differences because no connections could be found). Lastly, the APA has published a book called "The Rising Curve" to explain, in great detail, that main cause for racial differences was socioeconomical, but not racial . By parading this shoddy research as a heoric result of David versus Goliath attitude, Mr. Rushton only weakens the value of his work as he clearly showed that the intellectual honesty was second only to the retail values.
Rating:
Summary: Hitler would not do a better book!
Review: This book is not just scientifically incorrect, but scientifically wrong! The Race/IQ relation and his implications are more ideological than scientific.
Hitler would not do a better book!
Rating: 
Summary: The truth isn't always pretty
Review: Force=mass x acceleration; Voltage=Current x resistance; E=MC2; from these formulae in physics, you can describe how things happen in the Universe and make pretty good predictions on things which will happen. This book is along those same lines. Different groups have different strengths, weaknesses, and behavior, and our world supports this. From his theses, I have been able to explain many things which I had wondered about before. Why most black med students had so much trouble getting through my Medical School? Why did Asian students seem to have consistently better grades? Now I know. Why did OJ get away with murder? Now I know. Why is crime such a problem with blacks? Why do blacks dominate Boxing? Now I know.
The truth sometimes hurts, but it is better to know it than to live in a delusion. The egalitarian policies of the last 30yrs in the US have produced nothing of value, and the attitude prevails along some ethnic groups that the "Man is keeping us down" leading to calls for more money to those groups. The truth is that the capability for success, to a very large extent is something that you are born with, and wealth distribution will not change this...
Rating:
Summary: buy this only if you have a strong stomach
Review: Despite the claim of a modern perspective, this is no more than a redressing of the 'scientific' examination of race produced by the Nazis. Not what I expected. I wrapped it with strapping tape and used it as a doorstop.
Rating: 
Summary: Frightened of blacks
Review: To summarize Rushton's main ideas: 1) Negroids (Black-African) employ reproductive strategy of many offsprings and low parental care; Mongoloids (Asian-Oriental) produce fewer offsprings and expend more energy in parental care; Caucasoids (White-European) fall in-between the other groups; 2) Data on various physical and mental profiles support the above contention. For example, Negroids: shortest gestation period, high testosterone level, earliest onset of menarche, highest twinning rate, shortest life-span, etc.; Mongoloids: longest gestation period, smallest genetalia, longest period of development, etc. In all these categories, Caucasoids fall between the other groups; for example, the Caucasoid twinning rate is higher than that of Mongolids but lower than that of Negroids. 3) In addition, profiles on mental characteristics, show similar alignment of the three groups. For example, Negroids show highest criminality and violence, lowest intelligence and mental stability, etc. 4) The group alignment on so many variables suggests genetic origin to account for these difference. 5) The "single-origin hypothesis" or "out-of-Africa" theory of hominid evolution is advanced to accout for the group alignment and genetic origin thereof. According to this theory, an anotomically complete Homo Sapiens arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago. About 110,000 years ago, the ancestors of moden Caucasoids and Mongoloids left Africa, making the split with the Negroids. Mongoloids emerged about 40,000 years ago from Caucasoids. The order of human evolution explains the alignment of group characteristics on various physical/mental variables, with Negroids at one end of the continuum and Mongoloids on the other, with Caucasoids falling in-between. 6) Caucasoids and Mongoloids suffered from Ice Age after they left Africa, and came under selection pressure to develop cognitive ability, altruism, complex social organization, etc., which were necessary for survival in the harsh glacial environment. Negroids did not experience the glacial hardship as the African continent was not covered with ice like the rest of the earth. The benign African environment did not exert cognitive selective pressure on Negroids. Rushton presents substantial data and cross-references to support his ideas. The end result? I am scared of blacks. Even before reading this book, I had low opinions of blacks because of my negative experiences with them. The notion that "black crime" and other anti-social behavior by blacks is genetically based, leads me to fear for the future of the United States whose government keeps pursuing policies based on egalitarian views of the racial groups.
Rating:
Summary: Very relevant book for South Africa
Review: The scale of recent social problems in South Africa needs another explanation than the glib "nurture" argument with which we have been fed ever since World War II. This makes Rushton's book so relevant to understanding our situation. Despite huge efforts and money spent on black education, not only in separate schools under apartheid, but now, less than 50% of black children obtain the most basic school-leaving qualification. In fact, Rushton refers to some IQ testing done in conjunction with psychologists at the local liberal University of the Witwatersrand which shows that the mean IQ of first-year black university students is 84, conistent with the mean for the population at large of 75. All of Rushton's theory can be corroborated by everyday experience in South Africa: extreme violence and aggression displayed by young black males of low intelligence and high sex drives. This country has the highest rate for murder and rape in the world, 50 per 1000 members of the population, as against 8 per 1000 in the US, and about 4 for Britain. Also differential levels of demographic expansion predicted by his theory fits the SA case perfectly: over the past century blacks multiplied by 20, whereas whites only trebled (with the help of outside immigration of Europeans). Despite a high degree of initial scepticism (I have also been trained in the liberal, politically correct mode of thought), I found all of Rushton's arguments very convincing, as well as the theory of the evolutionary split 110 000 years ago between Africans and the rest, and 40 000 years ago between Caucasians and Mongoloids. With my current knowledge of evolution, the latter was both fascinating and highly plausible. Holding views like Rushton's in contemporary South Africa under black rule will probably land one in prison or at least make one liable for a large fine. And yet, given the level of violence experienced by whites who are being killed by the thousands in so-called "criminal" attacks, the tendency of different races towards aggression needs to be held up in broad daylight. The issues addressed by Rushton - he does not at all come across as a right-wing fanatic, rather more like a cool scientific mind - are of such relevance for South Africa and the rest of the world that it reminds one of Galileo confronting the Catholic Church to say that the earth revolves around the sun and being damned for it. Despite the fundamentalist outrage at this kind of reasoning, courageous people everywhere need to get a serious, scientific debate about race going. Rushton has already made a significant contribution.
Rating:
Summary: R E B E L
Review: The scientific evidence marshaled forth in this book is not only a scathing attack on the pseudo-scientific ramblings of Stephen Gould, Jared Diamond, Leon Kamin and the like, but an implicit denunciation of the political tendencies of the past thirty years that have elevated race-centric policies to a national obsession. Like all great scientific works of unimpeachable integrity, this book is apolitical, but it would be naive and simplistic to presume that this work carries no social or political implications. Rushton makes this point in the introduction of the book when he quotes a famous sociologist who openly admits sociology does not exist as a value-free science, but to push an agenda. Rushton's book is "controversial" and "incendiary" only because it conflicts with the aims of leftist politics. The science itself is solid and indisputable. Underlying Rushton's explication of empirical race differences is what population geneticists refer to as the r-K continuum. Without going into too much detail, the idea is that in order to cope with different environments species adapt specific reproductive strategies to maximize gene-flow into the next generation. K-selected species devote more energy to nurturing and less to reproduction, while r-selected species tradeoff parental support in favor of reproducing. While humans are at the K end of the spectrum, it is possible to differentiate among separate human populations (races). Rushton provides an overwhelming amount of empirical support -- everything from brain size, maturation rates, dizygotic twinning, age of menarche, gestation periods, frequency of sexual intercourse -- that shows the races consistently lining-up in the following order: Africans, Europeans, and East Asians, with East Asians being the most K-selected and Africans the least. The data ably refutes the two theological premises of egalitarianism: 1) race is not a valid scientific category and 2) races differences are due to environmental factors, not nature. Let's push the argument some more and think about it this way: either the races are equal or they are not. Now, what evidence can an egalitarian put forth that makes racial equality more plausible than racial inequality? Since the world conforms quite perfectly to the theory of raical inequality -- compare and contrast the history of the European race with the African race -- from what evidence does it make sense to infer that the races are equal? Since the facts directly contradict the theory of race equality the burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of egalitarians. To those who still shutter at the prospect however, I pose a simple question: If race equality is true, then why don't we observe it? Many critics here and elsewhere seemed upset that Rushton did not provide a stark and clear dividing line between the races. This however confuses the scientific concept of race. Is there a Siberian Husky gene that differentiates it from a Pit Bull gene? Is there a lion gene that differentiates it from a tiger gene? Of course not, yet no one has any intellectual confusion when thinking of dogs in terms of breeds, so why can't they think of human in terms of race? (Politics). Additionally, the critics bring up the fact the many Europeans have some African blood in them, and many Africans have European blood. Entirely true, but this in no way nullifies the concept of race -- in fact it strengthens it. The fact that black-white hybrids have on average higher intelligence than full-blooded Africans proves that race is real, and not a social construction. The critics suffer from the misnomer that race is an essentialist definition and are therefore only successful in shooting down their own strawmen. Rushton's work is remarkable and the attempt to try to silence him only reflects the fact that academia no longer embraces the unfettered pursuit of science, but wishes to restrict whatever conflicts with their (leftist) political aims. The growth of political liberalism over the last thirty years has been tied in some form or another to racial egalitarianism -- civil-rights law, voting rights, school integration, affirmative action, massive immigration, diversity is a strength, reparations -- and could not exist without it. The false doctrine of egalitarianism is the oxygen that keeps liberalism pushing forward and advancing. While conservatives might make legitimate arguments against affirmative action or uncontrolled immigration, they are conceding too much ground to liberalism. Rushton's work shows definitively that equality is a lie and (hence) liberalism a fraud.
Rating:
Summary: So, it turns out size does matter
Review: According to J. Philippe Rushton, empirical data have demonstrated there is a small but robust correlation between brain size and intelligence. Thus, logically based on his tables, charts, and inferences, although there will be intra-group variations and inter-group overlaps, *on average* females, irrespective of population group, are less intelligent than males. Rushton, who is perturbed but undeterred by accusations of racism, apparently views potential allegations of misogynistic thought a greater liability since he fails to address the implicit gender based differences reflected by his theories in meaningful terms. Perfunctory treatment of anomalies like the preceding are what most trouble me with his theories. In RACE, EVOLUTION AND BEHAVIOR, Rushton sets out to prove, relying on past anthropological, psychometric, and psychological studies, substantial biological differences exist between the three major racial groups: Mongoloids(Asians, Orientals); Caucasoids (Europeans or whites); and Negroids (Africans or Blacks). Through analysis of extant data on more than 60 variables, he purports evolutionary adaptation has resulted in genotype differentiation where *on average* Mongoloids and Negroids generally fall at opposite ends of a continuum in the areas of brain size, intelligence, personality traits, marital relations, law abidingness, and reproductive behaviors, with Caucasoids typically residing midrange for any pertinent category. Acceptance or rejection of his thesis invariably hinges on a decidedly complex genetic premise, but reasonably succinct socio-political consideration. Is "race" a valid division at the sub-species level? For the individual who considers race a social construct, very little of the data offered by Rushton and even less of his theoretical synthesis will ever be viewed as anything more than subjective pontification. Personally, I wanted to find the book to be deplorable, however, it turned out to be a compelling, albeit tendentious work of sociobiological investigation. My disdain for the message does not justify the inclination to shoot the messenger (for THIS indiscretion, anyway). The polarity of views on the book are clearly evident in prior reviews, I have no intention of reiteration ad infinitum. In practicality, the overwhelming majority of dissenting reviews focus on one or two aspects of his compiled data or postulations, similar to my introductory paragraph; still others who find intuitive concordance but are subsumed to politically correct denial, wish to implement the ostrich syndome. If one accepts the "Out of Africa" hypothesis as the most plausible explanation of the Hominid diaspora, genetic manifestations, though not necessarily exactly as elucidated by Professor Rushton's version of r-K reproductive strategy have to be evaluated as reasonable evolutionary patterns for *Homo. sapiens* whether the prevailing identification is Race, Population group, or ethnic group. Rushton acknowledges a likelihood of 50% environmental influence to the phenotypic characteristics he highlights. But that point is obviated for most readers by the incendiary implications of any acknowledgement of genotypic difference. The true significance of the book may be in the realm of the philosophical which Rushton addresses in the section of chapter 12, entitled, " Is Race Science Immoral?" History has offered a pretty concise answer, and if vitriolic books like Levin's WHY RACE MATTERS (unqualifiably endorsed by Rushton, NOW we shoot the messenger) are any indication, we are no more presently prepared to accept genetic diversity than at any other juncture in history. Repetition of past atrocities is not mere speculation.
Rating:
Summary: Iceberg Ahoy!
Review: For those wondering what it must have been like to live in Galileo's world, where the scientific truth was inconvenient to the prevailing orthodoxy and who may be thinking that in our age of enlightenment, such times are long since over, read this book and realise that you are living in such a world. For those intelligent enough to understand the evidence, this book puts you on the prow of the floundering ship of current Caucasian-based civilisation. If you choose to do nothing, console yourself with the fact that you will at least have seen one of the icebergs. For the rest, keep on dancing.
| 
