Rating: 
Summary: Inaccurate & Fallacious
Review: Rushton claims that AIDS is directly linked to the oversexed nature of Blacks.There is nothing about being "oversexed" that is directly related to the disease. One could have sex with thousands of people and as long as they were not infected, one would not catch the disease...conversely, one could have sex with one infected person and contract the disease. Secondly, it is not true that Africans engage in disproportionately more sex than those elsewhere. Thirdly, the diseae is worse in certain parts of Africa than in others, despite the fact there is not much difference in sex rates between different continental Africans. Fourth, the key explanation for the AIDS crisis in Africa is the lack of protection from infection (less access to barrier protection), and the fact that inadequate health care on the continent (due to poverty conditions largely caused by IMF/World Bank "structural adjustment" and "first world" economic exploitation) tends to result in weakened immune systems, which in turn, are then easy targets for the virus... And "procreation" levels are not that different between blacks and whites, especially in the U.S....the average number of children per family is slightly higher in black communities, but not dramatically so: about one-fourth of a person more per family, as an average. In Africa, the larger families are directly related to something that anthropologists have long recognized as a "replacement effect:" because death rates are higher (due to inadequate health care, poverty, occasional famine, etc), families will seek to have more live births to compensate for the likelihood that more of their offspring will die young...it has nothing to do with uncontrolled sexuality!
Rating:
Summary: Not Racist , Just Plain Wrong
Review: First, it should be noted that the concept of distinct biological "races" is a misnomer. The term race, in biology, properly refers to subspecies (i.e. subpopulations that are sufficiently different in genetic terms to be on the verge of "speciation," or splitting into entirely new species). So, those who defend the notion of scientific "racial" differences must be able to demonstrate that human subpopulations diverge in such a manner and to such a degree.But such "proof" is impossible to come by, because, in fact, science disproves it conclusively. The entire enterprise of books like the Bell Curve is suspect, when one considers some of the group differences it DOESN'T consider, in favor of those it does think relevant (namely those between whites, blacks and Asians). For example, as Hacker has pointed out (1994), while Murray and Herrnstein argue that IQ is a key factor in determining educational success and attainment, and that low black IQ is what explains the generally lower academic achievement among African Americans, they conveniently avoid mentioning or explaining the large gaps between various "white" ethnic/national groups, and what those gaps must (by their own logic) say about THEIR relative IQ's. For example, according to the Census Bureau: 51% of Americans with Russian descent have a college degree, compared to only: 33.4% of Scots 28.6% of English 27.5% of Swedes 23.4% of Poles 22.1% of Germans 21.9% of Italians, and 21.3% of Irish Does this mean that Russian-descended "whites" are much smarter than all other whites, and that Irish whites are the least intelligent? And why has there been no study to explain these differences?
Rating: 
Summary: A Shocker for America, A Well-written Book
Review: If Professor Rushton were living in America when this book came out, the odds are better than average that he would have been murdered by now. It is fortunate that he lives in Canada, where there are far fewer guns. Professor Rushton does not make any policy recommendations in his book. He confines himself to academic facts and analysis. The readers are left to draw their own conclusions. This is sensible. Professor Rushton would do well to explain: 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; 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; 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. Despite Professor Rushton's credentials, he is not well-known in America. One wonders if the media finds him too controversial and politically incorrect to be worth covering. This is a mistake. In the interests of science and the advancement of knowledge, debate should not be suppressed, consciously or unconsciously, by those who are entrusted to shape public opinion.
Rating:
Summary: A Powerful but Potentially Poisonous Book
Review: Rushton is completely convincing in this book, if one is willing to listen and think honestly about the evidence he presents. There are genetically-caused difference in average intelligence across races (at least African and non-African), as well as possibly other differences in behaviour and physiology. But Rushton leaves it unclear about how we should deal with these findings. I suppose that he views that as someone else's research problem rather than his. The book is factually correct, but could be poisonous to social intercourse if we do not figure out how to deal with these differences. In his defense, Rushton makes the valid point that scientific dishonesty does not seem the best answer. He provides scientific honesty and a comprehensive review of the evidence, but no social answers.
Rating:
Summary: In a word -- Pseudoscientific
Review: Science demands that one must define variables before they can be tested. Rushton does not provide a clear definition of race, he simply writes as though it is common knowledge and that everyone just naturally understands what the term means. His "statistics" are irrelevant and their validity cannot be judged against his hypothesis due to the fact that he does not precisely define his variables. Before he or someone else can rectify this matter, all interpretations included in this book are invalid. The one star I have given this book is for the fact that it is a good example of pseudoscience.
Rating:
Summary: Where to begin, where to begin
Review: What's the point? Either you understand why the premises are flawed, or you don't. Either you understand why Rushton is a racist, or you don't. But to dismiss objections to this book as mere political correctness is to blind oneself to the truly ugly undertones at work here. There is much in this book that many people--white and asian, mostly--would just love to believe. It seems to "prove" that black people are best thought of as a lower form of human, or a higher form of animal. This book does, however, prove something else: That science is very, very subjective. One can twist science to justify almost anything--look at creation "science." With this book, Rushton frames his questions, gathers his data, and writes up his results ("just reporting the facts") in such a way as to justify the bigotry of every racist out there--be he Klan, militia, skinhead, or Neo-Nazi--all in the name of science. Nice work, professor. Nice work. Those of us who are hoping for and working toward the day our species evolves beyond the need to draw lines based on race will toil on despite you and your ilk. We can only pray that one day, Dr. Rushton, you will come around...
Rating:
Summary: Remarkable achievement
Review: By aggregating data on some sixty behavioral and physical traits, Rushton shows that they cluster on a racial continuum comprised of Negroid, Caucasian, and Mongoloid. This is an amazing result, because it shows in the clearest manner that racial differences are robust (a biological reality, not a social construct). Amazing too is the fact that the data used derive from quite varied sources over an extended period of time. One just does not expect such a beautiful result. Seems too tidy to be true. Critics have disputed his results, and to his credit, Rushton usually responds. Rushton explains his results in evolutionary terms, using the life history (r/K theory) approach. The differences between the three races derives from the adaptations each human population made as it encountered new environments on migrating out of Africa. His key point is that the sixty traits associate with a particular ecology AND that the racial variation of these traits correlates with the adaptive demands made on the populations that became Caucasians and Mongoloids. This part of the argument depends on the Out-of-Africa view of human phylogeny (populations that became Caucasian and Mongoloid migrated out of Africa about 110,000 years ago). But Multiregionalists propose a different interpretation. So there is no consensus on human phylogeny, and new evidence is constantly coming to hand that troubles both interpretations. For example, Chinese archaeologists recently reported fossil human remains dating to 200,000 BP. If this and other startling new findings hold up, the phylogenetic tree must be redrawn in its entirety! So it's premature to claim closure on this debate (not that Rushton DOES claim closure). Since Galton's pioneering work, psychologists have devised many methods for estimating trait heritability in the absence of direct genetic evidence. Such is Rushton's procedure. However, as human genetics becomes ever more refined, direct evidence about the genetics of traits will come to light and thus provide a set of tests for Rushton's theory. He underscores this fact and welcomes the tests. This is a robust, empirical theory of race that makes many testable predictions. Well done!
Rating:
Summary: Caucasoids are Neandertal spume, Jimmy
Review: As an anthropologist I'm all for science, but the problem with this sort of thing is that, since we have no empirical way of knowing what results from nature and what from nurture in human behavior (humans are real complex, as B.F. Skinner found out), the hysteron proteron logic inevitably relied upon in such 'studies', and noted by my fellow one star reviewer below, helps to promulgate self-fullfilling prophecies and artificial social discursive limitations, and the sort of thing that existentialists refer to as the confusion of the in-itself with the for-itself. This, of course, results in hopelessness and crime and anger and all that jive. Even if there were any science here this kind of project would be a bad thing to spend one's time on, but as simple off-the-cuff refutations of the notions expressed in the liner notes, for example, I would point out that: a) Regarding fertility, in my genealogical studies I have noted that my lily-white British and German ancestors rather consistently had a child pretty much every year throughout the childbearing years up through the 1920s, which, when not countered by disease or other mishap, often resulted in broods of 15 or 20. Birth control, which the Pope still doesn't like, is a recent innovation of industrial societies, which for reasons addressed by people like Paul Kennedy and Jared Diamond, happen to have arisen in Northern Europe first, even though through the vast bulk of history these same were the sort of barbarians Caesar and Tacitus warned you about. And, wait a minute, the CHINESE infertile? b) Regarding intelligence, I can personally testify to the sad fact that I myself was Really Stupid for quite a number of years, and then as a result of an utterly happenstance shift in self-esteem, suddenly became Really Smart, with the corresponding radical shift in school grades, etc. that implies. Thus, Virginia, I can tell you that there really is such a thing as an inferiority complex, and furthermore that MOST of the people in the world are suffering from one to some degree or other, which is why they have such an interest in oppressing other 'races' in the first place, not to mention drinking too much and beating their wives. c) Anyone who would maintain that Orientals are not total sex maniacs have not been seeing the Hong Kong films and Japanese bondage that I have recently. Get a so-called life.
Rating:
Summary: Racist Science has no place in this century.
Review: This book should begin, "I'm no Pat Buchanon, but my science says..." The view of intelligence in this book may sell because of shock value or the need for people to justify racism through biased science, but it is easy to find a more eloquently written version of the same type data from the 1800s or early settlers.
Rating:
Summary: Best book ever written about race(differences)!
Review: Race, evolution and behavior is a brilliant and well-written book who refutes the nonsense of racial egalitarianism. Rushton shows here that racial egalitarianism is about as valid as flat-earth theory,geocentrism and creationism. Egalitarians can't explain why race differences consistently fits with the predictions of Rushtons r-K Theory. Their mysticist, ad-hoc and untestable cries of "racism" being the cause of racedifferences in for exampel intelligence could hardly explain why for example two-egg twin births are 4 per 1000 births among asians, 8 per 1000 among whites and 16 per 1000 among blacks.Or why gestation period is shortest among blacks and longest among asians( with whites intermediate).And there are many more examples in the book which all consistently indicate that Rushtons r-K Theory is true. Rushton clearly proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the politically correct nonsense about race being a arbitrary social construct is false. Those who believe that race don't matters should read this book.
|
