Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:58, 1 February 2011

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (July 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective is a controversial evolutionary psychology book written by J. Philippe Rushton, a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, and the current head of the Pioneer Fund.

Rushton argues that race is a valid biological concept and that racial differences frequently arrange in a continuum across 60 different behavioral and anatomical variables, with Mongoloids (Orientals, East Asians) at one end of the continuum, Negroids (blacks, Africans) at the opposite extreme, and Caucasoids (whites, Europeans) in the middle.

Rushton's book is focused on what he considers the three broadest racial groups, and does not address other populations such as South East Asians or Australian aboriginals. The book grew out of his earlier paper, "Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits (With Reference to Oriental-White-Black Difference)".

The 1st unabridged edition was published in 1995 and the 2nd unabridged edition was published in 1997.

The 1st abridged edition published under the Transaction Press name in 1999 caused considerable controversy. The 2nd abridged edition was published under the name of The Charles Darwin Research Institute in 2000, and contained some response to the criticism of the 1st abridged edition. (see mailing controversy below)

A number of responses have criticized the book, its selection of data, its methodology, and its conclusions.

Summary

Rushton argues that Mongoloids, Caucasoids, and Negroids fall consistently into the same one-two-three pattern when compared on a list of 60 different behavioral and anatomical variables. (Rushton's 2000 book, like other population history works, e.g. Cavalli-Sforza 1994, uses the terms Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid to describe these groups broadly conceived, but these terms have since been replaced in the scientific literature—the MeSH terminology as of 2004 is Asian Continental Ancestry Group, African Continental Ancestry Group and European Continental Ancestry Group.) Rushton uses averages of hundreds of studies, modern and historical, to assert the existence of this pattern.

The book argues that Mongoloids, on average, are at one end of a continuum, that Negroids, on average, are at the opposite end of that continuum, and that Caucasoids rank in between Mongoloids and Negroids, but closer to Mongoloids. His continuum includes both external physical characteristics and personality traits.

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), arguing that throughout all of evolution, more ancient forms of life (i.e. plants, bacteria, reptiles) are less evolved than more recent forms of life (i.e. mammals, primates, humans) and that the much smaller variation in the races is consistent with this trend. "One theoretical possibility," said Rushton "is that evolution is progressive and that some populations are more advanced than others". Rushton argues that this first, second, and third chronological sequence perfectly correlates with, and is responsible for, a consistent global multi-dimensional racial pattern on everything from worldwide crime statistics, the global distribution of AIDS, to personality.

r/K selection theory

Rushton says that his collection of 60 different variables can be unified by a single evolutionary dimension known as the r and K scale. His theory attempts to apply the inter-species r/K selection theory to the much 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.

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 argues 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.

Rushton invokes genetics to explain his data arguing that purely environmental theories fail to elegantly explain what he sees as such a consistent pattern of both behavioral and physiological differences, but instead just provide a long list of ad hoc explanations. Rushton argues that science strives to organize and simplify data, and seeks the simplest explanation possible, and claims that r/K selection theory explains all his data quite parsimoniously.

Critical responses

Professional opinions

Favorable

Arthur Jensen, an eminent psychologist and Professor Emeritus of educational psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, has said:

This brilliant book is the most impressive theory-based study...of the psychological and behavioral differences between the major racial groups that I have encountered in the world literature on this subject.

Hans Eysenck, the most cited psychologist in the world, of the University of London, has said:

Professor Rushton is widely known and respected for the unusual combination of rigour and originality in his work....Few concerned with understanding the problems associated with race can afford to disregard this storehouse of well-integrated information which gives rise to a remarkable synthesis.

In Contemporary Psychology, Glayde Whitney wrote:

Serious scientific considerations of similarities and differences among the living races of humankind have been in eclipse for most of a century. With Race, Evolution and Behavior author Rushton goes a good distance toward reinstating objective scientific rationality to this important and sensitive area of investigation.

Jensen, Eysenck and Whitney have been grantees of the Pioneer Fund, which has also funded some of Rushton’s research.

In Evolutionary Anthropology, Henry Harpending wrote:

I believe that this is very important and pioneering work and that Rushton deserves congratulations for bringing it together and, most of all, for trying to understand it within the framework of modern science. Perhaps there will ultimately be some serious contribution from the traditional smoke-and-mirrors social science treatment of IQ, but for now Rushton’s framework is essentially the only game in town.

Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson, one of the two co-founders of r/K selection theory, stated (in 1991, prior to the appearance of the book) that "I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher ... The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is it's logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species - a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk, for example - no one would have batted an eye."

Irving Louis Horowitz, the director of the book’s publisher Transaction Press, wrote that although he was unconvinced of Rushton’s conclusions, the book was still an important contribution to the field of social science:

It may well turn out that this sort of analysis is a crock. Indeed, not a few psychologists have heatedly claimed just that. By the same token, we are publishers of a wide ranging series of books on the African presence in Asia and Egypt, with claims of African origins in science and culture. These too have had their detractors (not a few of which have been published in Society by the way). Scholarship is an uneven and rocky road. While for the most part, issues of such fundamental antipathies do not occur, it is precisely the safeguarding of just those works which dare to tread on dangerous ground that need the most protection.

Horowitz concludes that “For these reasons, Professor Rushton is and must be considered a valued member of both the academic and scientific communities to which he contributes.”

Unfavorable

Validity of the methodology of aggregation

In Race, Evolution and Behavior, Rushton uses a methodology he calls "aggregation" of evidence, in which he averages hundreds of studies, modern and historical, with equal weight regardless of the quality of the data to demonstrate the racial patterns he asserts. He says that by averaging many studies the results one gets can be very accurate.

A number of scientists however find sufficient problems with his methodology to completely dismiss his conclusions. Douglas Wahlsten, a biologist, criticized Rushton's book in a review writing:

averaging does nothing to reduce bias in sampling and measurement, and such flaws are abundant in the cited literature. For example, among the 38 reports on brain weight, all but two gave figures for only one group, with most cases being people living in the nation of their ancestors, such as an article on Japanese living in Japan and another on Kenyans living in Kenya. The obvious differences in environment make all of these data of dubious worth for testing hypotheses about genetic causes of group differences.

In a review of Rushton's book, anthropologist C. Loring Brace wrote:

"Race, Evolution, and Behavior is an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy of 'racialism'"

Brace argues that Rushton assumes the existence of three biological races with no evidence except Rushton's speculation as to what an extraterrestrial visitor to Earth would think. Brace also disagrees with Rushton applying the concept of heritability (normally applied in the context of individuals) to groups. Finally, Brace claims Rushton makes unsupported claims about sub-Saharan African societies.

Validity of the concept of race

In a review of Rushton's book, Richard Lewontin wrote:

The first problem for his theory is that there need to be major races. That is, the differences between "Oriental," "Black," and "White" need to be more than skin deep. In claiming that these old racial categories correspond to large biological differences, Rushton moves in the opposite direction from the entire development of physical anthropology and human genetics for the last thirty years. Anthropologists no longer regard "race" as a useful concept in understanding human evolution and variation.

Failure of predictions

In a response to Rushton's book, Peregrine found, even though using "three versions of the ‘race’ variable, each representing one of the apparent definitions that Rushton used", that "Rushton’s predictions do not find much support, regardless of how ‘race’ is operationalized."

Gil-White, writing in regards to Peregrine's work, states:

The authors are not doing justice to their own findings. It is not true that "Rushton’s predictions do not find much support"; what is true is that Rushton’s predictions are completely contradicted.

Inappropriate application of r/K

Rushton's application of r/K theory has been severely criticized: for example, by noting that many animal species do not follow the predictions of r/K theory.

Psychologist Zack Cernovsky offers criticism of Rushton's application of r/K dimensions:

The r/K dimension is derived from an extremely wide range of species. Its dogmatic application to the drastically reduced variance within contemporary Homo sapiens is statistically naive (for more detailed explanations, see Cernovsky, at 1992). It is not even necessary to be a competent statistician to avoid similar errors. If Rushton (1988, 1990a) could heed Jerison's (1973) warning that racial differences in brain size are at most minor and "probably of no significance for intellectual differences," he would not attempt to extend Jerison' s findings across species to subgroups within modern mankind. Instead, Rushton (1991) misleadingly refers to Jerison in a manner that implies an expert support from this famous comparative neuropsychologist, without mentioning their disagreement on the most central issue.

Evolutionary Biologist Joseph L. Graves criticizes Rushton's application of r/K selection and Life History theories arguing that Rushton doesn't understand the concepts:

I ran a search on BIOSIS using r- and K-selection as keywords for the period of 1995 to 2001, and found only one article. This appeared in the Journal of Environmental Biology, rather ironically concerning algal diversity in treated versus untreated sewage. Stearns (1992) and Roff (1992) presented r- and K-theory as a once useful heuristic that no longer serves any purpose in the discussion of life history theory. It should be noted that their conclusions appeared three years before Rushton published his analysis of human 'racial' variation, with r- and K-selection as its cornerstone. It is hard to understand how any serious student of life history evolution could have missed these developments in the theory. In fact, I had the opportunity to present these same observations to J.P. Rushton personally. This occurred at a panel discussion held at the John Jay College of Criminal Law, City University of New York, 20 March 1997. Yet his newly released abridged version of Race, Evolution and Behavior would still claim that r- and K-life history theory was 'a basic principle of modern evolutionary theory'. This would indicate that either Rushton does not agree with the theoretical and experimental work invalidating r- and K-theory, does not understand the argument, or has consciously chosen to ignore it. If the first possibility were true, then we would expect some theoretical justification to appear in his work that addresses these specific criticisms. Yet absence of such a response only supports my view that Rushton does not understand life history theory. Thus he employs it incorrectly and through this error his work serves racist ideological agendas.

Psychologist and Peace Studies Researcher David P. Barash wrote in a scholarly review:

I don't know which is worse, Rushton's scientific failings or his blatant racism. At least Rushton has a theory, namely, r- and K-selection. In brief, he argues that `Negroids' are relatively r-selected, `Mongoloids' K-selected, and `Caucasoids' in between. All racial distinctions are then seen to derive from this grand pattern, from differences in genital anatomy, to reproductive regimes, to IQ, etc. He even points to the higher frequency of low birth weight babies among black Americans, data that are undeniably consistent with an r-selection regime, but which might also be attributed to poor nutrition and insufficient prenatal care, and which, not coincidentally, have other implications for behaviour, IQ not the least. I suspect that r- and K-selection does in fact have some relevance to variations in human behaviour, notably the so-called demographic transition, whereby economic development characteristically leads to reduced family size, and, moreover, a greater reliance on a variety of `K-type' traits. But this is a pan-human phenomenon, a flexible, adaptive response to changed environmental conditions of lowered mortality and greater pay-off attendant upon concentrating parental investment in a smaller number of offspring Rushton wields r- and K-selection as a Procrustean bed, doing what he can to make the available data fit. Bad science and virulent racial prejudice drip like pus from nearly every page of this despicable book"

Other

Scott MacEachern suggests that through the study of archaeology one may test Rushton's assertions that African populations suffer severe cognitive deficits when compared to other modern humans. Rushton wrote that mental deficits are visible in an evolutionary context, advancing environmental explanations for such deficits, and asserting that such cognitive differences existed prehistorically as well. Scott MacEachern writes that examination of the archaeological record does not support the claims made by these researchers; rather, it suggests that regional differences in IQ test score results should not be ascribed to variations in human evolutionary development.

A scholarly article reviewing Rushton's claims regarding twinning makes various criticisms and concludes: "Moreover, Rushton misinterprets a number of relevant aspects related to the biology of twinning. The claim that ethnic differences in twinning rates provide evidence for an r/K typology in human populations with respect to reproductive strategies does not appear to be warranted."

Rushton's sources, such as a "semi-pornographic book" and Penthouse magazine, have been dismissed by other researchers, criticized as extremely biased with inadequate reviews of the literature, as misreporting the results, or as simply false.

Rushton is accused by critics of advocating a new eugenics movement. Francisco Gil-White wrote disparagingly of Race, Evolution and Behavior, stating, "Race, Evolution, and Behavior is a tiny, self-published book (a pamphlet, really), that Rushton takes the trouble to mail to people who never requested a copy, such as myself."

Mailing controversy

The 1st special abridged edition published under the Transaction Press name in 1999 caused considerable controversy when 40,000 copies were "mailed, unsolicited, to psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists, many of whom were angered when they discovered that their identities and addresses had been obtained from their respective professional associations' mailing lists.""  The director of Transaction Press Irving Louis Horowitz, although he had defended the original edition of the book, "condemned the abridged edition as a 'pamphlet' that he had never seen or approved prior to its publication." A subsequent 2nd special abridged edition was published in 2000 with a rejoinder to Horowitz's criticisms under a new entity called The Charles Darwin Research Institute. After the mass mailing, Hermann Helmuth, a professor of anthropology at Trent University, said, "It is in a way personal and political propaganda.  There is no basis to his scientific research."

Reviews

• What is Intelligence and Who has it?, The New York Times’ review of Race, Evolution, and Behavior, The Decline of Intelligence in America, and The Bell Curve.
• The Return of Racial Science, by Glayde Whitney, published in Contemporary Psychology, December 1996, pp. 1189–1191.
• Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior, by Henry Harpending, published in Evolutionary Anthropology, 1995.
• The Race-Research Funder, discussing the links of the Pioneer Fund to the distribution and positive reviews for Race, Evolution and Behavior.
• Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior, by Irving Louis Horowitz in Society, Jan-Feb 1995 v32 n2.

See also

• Behavioural genetics
• Behavioral neuroscience
• Evolutionary developmental psychology
• Evolutionary neuroscience
• Human behavioral ecology
• Race and intelligence
• Life history theory
• Psychiatric genetics
• Neuroculture

Related:

• Gene–environment interaction
• Genetics of aggression
• Human genetic variation
• Human genetic clustering
• Trait theory

References

1. Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (PDF) (2nd special abridged ed.). Port Huron, MI: Charles Darwin Research Institute. ISBN 1560003200.
2. Presented at the Symposium on Evolutionary Theory, Economics and Political Science, AAAS Annual Meeting (San Francisco, CA, January 19, 1989)
3. The decline in usage of these terms can be seen year by year in a Google Scholar search, and the change of terms can be seen in, for example, the US National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), which in deleted the -oids (as well as terms such as Black and White) in favor of terms such as African Continental Ancestry Group:

   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.

4. Jensen is listed in a study by Haggblom et al. (2002), of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the twentieth century, at number 47.
5. http://www.edb.utexas.edu/robinson/danr/JEBS%2031(3)%20-06_Jensen%20profile.pdf
6. RACE, EVOLUTION, and BEHAVIOR: A Life History Perspective
7. Review by American Renaissance Store of J. Philippe Rushton, (archived from the original on 2007-10-15)
8. Whitney, Glayde (December 1996). Contemporary Psychology. 41 (12): 1189–91. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
9. The Race-Research Funder. Institute for the Study of Academic Racism, April 17, 2000.
10. Harpending, Henry. Evolutionary Anthropology, 1995.
11. from Knudson P. (1991), A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society; Rushton on Race, Stoddart Publishing (ISBN 0773724672)
12. Horowitz, Irving Louis. Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior in Society, Jan-Feb 1995 v32 n2.
13. Book Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior
14. ^ "Review: Racialism and Racist Agendas". American Anthropologist, New Series. 98 (1): 176–7. March 1996.
15. "Review: Of Genes and Genitals". Transition. 0 (69): 178–193. 1996.
16. Peregrine, Peter N.; Ember, Carol R.; Ember, Melvin (September 2003). "Cross-cultural evaluation of predicted associations between race and behavior". Evolution and Human Behavior. 24 (5): 357–364. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00040-0.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
17. Resurrecting Racism, Chapter 10
18. Graves, J. L. (2002). "What a tangled web he weaves Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory". Anthropological Theory. 2 (2): 131–154. doi:10.1177/1469962002002002627.
19. Lieberman L (2001). "How "Caucasoids" got such big crania and why they shrank. From Morton to Rushton". Curr. Anthropol. 42 (1): 69–95. doi:10.1086/318434. PMID 14992214. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
20. ^ Cernovsky, Zack (1995). "On the similarities of American blacks and whites: A reply to J.P. Rushton". Journal of Black Studies. 25: 672. doi:10.1177/002193479502500602.
21. Graves, J. L. (2002). "What a tangled web he weaves Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory". Anthropological Theory. 2: 2 131–154. doi:10.1177/1469962002002002627.
22. Barash D.P (1995) Book review: Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Animal Behaviour 49:1131-1133.
23. Africanist archaeology and ancient IQ: racial science and cultural evolution in the twenty-first century World Archaeology Volume 38, Number 1 / March 2006
24. Twinning and the r/K reproductive strategy: a critique of Rushton's theory. Allen G, Eriksson AW, Fellman J, Parisi P, Vandenberg SG. Acta Genet Med Gemellol (Roma). 1992;41(1):73-83.
25. On the similarities of American blacks and whites: A reply to J.P. Rushton. Zack Cernovsky. Vol. 25, Journal of Black Studies, 07-01-1995, pp 672.
26. Institute for the Study of Academic Racism Archives (archived from the original on 2006-09-13)
27. Resurrecting Racism, Chapter 10, Francisco Gil-White.
28. ^ Weizmann, Fredric (November 2001). "Race, Evolution, and Behaviour: A Life History Perspective (Review)". Canadian Psychology.
29. UWO Gazette Volume 93, Issue 68 Tuesday, February 1, 2000 Psych prof accused of racism

External links

• Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective; 2nd Special Abridged Edition

• Misplaced Pages neutral point of view disputes from July 2010
• 1995 books
• Race and intelligence controversy
• Evolutionary psychology
• Social psychology
• Human behavior
• Personality
• Human evolution
• Behavioural sciences
• Forensic psychology