Rating: 
Summary: Race, Behavior and Genes
Review: Mr. Rushton, a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, has endured excoriation because he has dared to posit an evolutionary/genetic explanation for racial differences in a wide variety of physical and behavioral characteristics. Philippe Rushton is willing to accept the results of his science. He describes hundreds of studies worldwide that show a consistent pattern of human racial differences. The three primary human racial groups--Mongoloids (Orientals), Negroids (blacks), and Caucasoids (Caucasians)--show significant average differences in such characteristics as intelligence, brain size, genital size, strength of sex drive, reproductive potency, industriousness, sociability, and rule following. There is, of course, tremendous variation within each group on each of these variables, and a great degree of overlap between groups. The group differences Mr. Rushton reports are not large, but they are demonstrable. Underlying Mr. Rushton's thesis is the contention that there is a genetic basis for much of the observed between-race variation he reports. Here is where he will meet the most resistance. Behavioral genetic studies of between-race differences are notoriously difficult, as Mr. Rushton admits. Nonetheless he strongly argues for a genetic component to average between-race differences. He presents much behavioral genetic evidence on the question, but his most compelling argument is intuitive. What possible environmental variables could account for the systematic alignment of the races on such a wide variety of characteristics, including behavioral traits evident soon after birth, "the speed of dental and other maturational variables, the size of the brain, the number of gametes produced, [and] the physiological differences in testosterone"? The strictly environmental hypothesis also is undermined by the various studies that demonstrate a significant genetic component to within-race individual differences on each of the behavioral and physical characteristics and the fact that these racial differences are consistent across cultures. Mr. Rushton contends that only an evolutionary/genetic explanation makes sense of these disparate data. Mr. Rushton is not naive. He begins his book with a discussion of the difficulties of the scientific study of race: "The propensity to defend one's own group, to see it as special, and not to be susceptible to the laws of evolutionary biology makes the scientific study of ethnicity and race differences problematic. Theories and facts generated in race research may be used by ethnic nationalists to propagate political positions. Antiracists may also engage in rhetoric to deny differences and suppress discoveries. Findings based on the study of race can be threatening. Ideological mine fields abound in ways that do not pertain in other areas of inquiry" It should be clear to everyone that Philippe Rushton has written his own epitaph. Any genetic predisposition toward the defense of one's race only adds to the near impossibility of rational response to the scientific study of race in a world that has seen the Holocaust and racial subjugation. As he explains, "The evolutionary psychology of race differences has become the most politically incorrect topic in the world today." Mr. Rushton's work may be ignored by the fearful, damned by the liberals, and misused by the racists. It is unlikely to be truly understood by anyone.
Rating: 
Summary: Using stats rather than reason, heck, it's convenient!
Review: Number are the Truth! Oh .... sure..averages are SOOOOO important for describing our world! What a joke. This book is full of outdated "research" and doesn't begin to consider all the psychological research regarding ethnicity. But then why should we expect a comprehensive scholarly effort, this isn't a book for professionals or scholars, it's for fuzzy thinkers who see things in terms of the Right versus Left, Conservative versus Liberal, Politically Correct (whatever that means) versus Who-knows-what. It's a book for lazy, dichotimizing minds. Claiming evidence from psychology, anthropology, sociology and other scientific disciplines, this book argues that there are at least three biological races (subspecies) of man Orientals (i.e., Mongoloids or Asians), Blacks (i.e., Negroids or Africans), and Whites (i.e., Caucasoids or Europeans). There are supposedly recognizable profiles for the three major racial groups on brain size, intelligence, personality and temperament, sexual behavior, and rates of fertility, maturation and longevity. The profiles reveal that, ON AVERAGE, Orientals and their descendants around the world fall at one end of the continuum, Blacks and their descendants around the world fall at the other end of the continuum, Europeans regularly fall in between. This "worldwide pattern"is supposed to implie evolutionary and genetic, rather than purely social, political, economic, or cultural causes. So there it is, easy to explain humanity isn't it? If you want sloppy thinking couched in science-babble to support your pet theories about race, this is the book for you.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent book that conflicts with liberal "logic"
Review: This book represents outstanding research and the deployment of both the scientific method, supported by sound statistical analysis. I am a scientist myself. I use statistics contantly. I can also assure you that statistics do not lie. People do. When the foundational data is known, one can reconstruct the analysis and examine it for errors. There are none here. Sorry, lefties, there are none. As to suido-science, it is the egalitarians and environmentalists who have no leg to stand on other than wishful thinking. What has prompted me most to write this review is to respond to Rushton's detractors, listed below. Not one can defend his or her position with anything close to definitive logic. In each case, we see only blatant emotionalism, superficial appearance cited as "conclusive," and a mind set that is trapped and muddled by egalitarian-Marxist nonsense...their arguments are most certainly not based upon science!
Rating:
Summary: A definitive, scholarly work by a top scientist
Review: This is a controversial book. It is fair, I think, to say that it was not written for popular consumption, but rather as a treatise aimed at the author's colleagues. The evidence is clear: in order to understand the bulk of the book, one must be conversant with statistical formulae and procedures, and have more than average knowledge of evolutionary anthropology, psychometrics, and psychology. The book is replete with graphs and formulae, and much of the language is technical. It has been called "incendiary," "racist," and the publisher of the first edition "caved in to [the] pressure" and withdrew from publishing the book and apologized for having distributed it. (See the Preface to this , the third edition.) "Why this attempt to trash or suppress this book?" asks the author in the Preface, "Because there is no stronger taboo today than talking about race. In many cases, just being accused of 'racism' can get you fired. Some vocal groups in academia and the media simply forbid an open discussion of race." But, J. Phillipe Rushton is no racist. He is a scholar, and an extremely well-qualified scholar at that. Despite the efforts of left-wing egalitarian social scientists to discredit his work because of the inescapable conclusions it presents, it is clear that his approach to his subject is neutral and clinical. Like Charles Murray's The Bell Curve, he is being attacked because he is the messenger, and the presents he brings are antithetical to their cherished belief that nurture (environmental effects), not nature (genetic evolution) is the reason for the divergence in SAT scores between the races. His worst sin is that he makes an excellent case, and is very persuasive. This book is about genetic factors and their differential effect on the three main racial branches of the human species; the Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid. It is heavily researched, footnoted, attributed and extremely scholarly. What the author found, after twenty years of studying the three major races, is that in the brain size, intelligence, sexual behavior, fertility, personality, maturation, life span, and crime and family stability rates, Orientals fall at one end of the spectrum, and Blacks at the other, with Whites in between. Orientals are slower to mature, less fertile, less sexually active, have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are opposite in those characteristics. And he has much evidence--hundreds of studies--to show that the reason is genetic, and that there are good, solid natural reasons for the variations. The chicken is an egg's way of producing another egg. The organism is the gene's way of producing more genes. Whether the methodology chosen for the organism's success is production of more offspring, as in a relatively benign climate like Africa, or in a harsher environ like Siberia, to develop better tools, shelter, domestic animals, and depend upon the careful nurture of fewer young, the problem is still successful procreation of the organism's genes. Over time, the human body responds to the demands made on it. When wit is required, it develops. This is an extraordinary volume. For those interested in such subject matter, I highly recommend it. Ignore the altruistic "all men are created equal" fanatics who would suppress and censor it in the name of Political Correctness. Joseph H Pierre
Rating:
Summary: Provocative to say the least
Review: In this era of heightened attention to political correctness, Rushton addresses the unaddressable: racial differentiation. But rather than bore us with a harangue of ideological mumbo-jumbo, the author presents a well-researched scientific treatise for the case that, inasmuch as there are differences between individuals, there are differences between "families of individuals". For the open-minded, the book is provocative to say the least. The style, though, can be somewhat arcane and tedious, and one can be left with a "so what do I do with this information" kind of feeling. But all in all, the instrinsic appeal of this rarely-discussed subject, coupled with revealing theories of recent human evolution, make this good reading for the intellectually curious.
Rating:
Summary: I Suspect that Rushton is Right
Review: For about thirty years now its been taboo to say that persons whose ancestors are from Sub-Saharan Africa are more athletic and less intelligent than those of European and Asian descent. The premise that all racial differences are exclusively environmental has been a fiction with a useful purpose---to lessen tension between the races and provide hope to disadvantaged blacks. The question which some are now asking is whether that useful purpose outweighs the principle that truth and honesty are virtues to be cherished.
If you believe in perpetuating a useful fiction, feel free to berate this book, burn it, suppress all discussion of it, and label all those who accept its basic premise with all sorts of ugly descriptions. However, you should read it first.
Rating:
Summary: Frightening
Review: I am not sure which is more frightening - this book, or people who buy into it. His pseudoscience shows how statistics can be misused, and he consistently breaks the research mandate "correlation is not causation".
Rating:
Summary: Gene Jewett
Review: How do we improve society if we can't agree on a starting point? Many racial differences are apparent to all of us on a daily basis. Thomas Sowell has explored this fact exhaustively yet screaming arguments from the Left continue. One of the most ridiculous ones is how we define Race. The U.S. Government, in addition to most of our institutions, uses Race as a catagory for dispensing goods and services to those in need from those who have the capacity to contribute, if taxes can be called a contribution. Jobs are awarded and university admission slots are filled, often based on quotas. Affirmative action has created these policies to the point that renunciation of them is a national cause thru ballot initiatives. One might aver by any means necessary. The only reason I can see why people of the Leftist faith attempt to refute reality is that by losing the moral high ground, thru acceptance of the findings, they would be forced to re-examine the way they view themselves within the context of their world view. Seeing yourself differently is often the hardest thing a person can endure hence the Left's staunch refusal to accept the fact that the "emperor is nude." For anecdotal evidence of this premise think of how it feels to see a friend get rich. The problem with logic in this argument is that political beliefs are often touched by the same animating impulse that influences religious belief. For example, isn't Marxism a religion without a plan for the after life? In fact its goal is heaven on earth. Rushton, my good man, you are up against it. No wonder religious wars are still with us throughout the world.
Rating:
Summary: wonderful proof of social policies impacts
Review: Dr.Rushton does a wonderful study and has the detailed research to accompany it. But what he has documented is what is at the root of our problems - the awful discrepancies our social policies produce psychologically which eventually manifests physically. It is of course easier to blame the victims than to face up to the truth of our society. Dr. Rushton facilitates this. America does not have the social programmes Canada has Dr. Rushton. Come see the living conditions here. It is a well known fact most diseases though influenced by genes are more controlled by environment (physical and social practices). White collar crimes were not studied, would this study prove that whites are genetically more predisposed to white collar crimes? No. They commit crimes but because of their social standing, it is 'white collared'. The emphasis here on 'social'. It is interesting that once the Irish and Italians had a very high rate of criminals until they were 'upgraded' to 'white', they IQ skyrocketed and their imprisonment dropped because they were part of the crowd. Dr. Rushton makes errors along the same lines as 'The Bell Curve'. He has the effect but mistakes the cause. In the case of the Bell Curve cause and effect are reversed. This book can not tell the truth since it starts off with the premise that the system is perfect, or as near to it as possible. As a guest on WBAI, August 30, 2:30pm, he admits the genes do show all humans originated from Africa, but races developed after he says. Once again, no one talks about how Africa came to be in the state it is now, the link between the rich colonizers and the colonized...things are looked on in a vacuum; this is very irresponsible. That being said, excellent study of social policies impacts.
Rating:
Summary: Totally Incorrect!
Review: Rushton can't even explain how he defines who qualifies as black for this study, or white, or Asian, because there is no biological cutoff point. Most blacks have european ancestry and about 20% of whites have black ancestry...unless one can precisely define who is what, these kinds of comparisons are only based on self-definition , which has no necessary relationship to biology. Rushton also claims that: " Finally, there is historical evidence from cultural achievements like inventing numbering systems, alphabets, calendars, paper money, clothing, two-story dwellings, wheels, etc. China>Europe>Africa." This is just plain wrong. All of these things--ALL Of them existed in Africa before.Europe (except paper money perhaps, but who cares about that?) This is Eurocentric and false history being peddled here.
|
