Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (3rd Edition) [Unabridged, Unknown format] [Hardcover]

J. Philippe Rushton (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: May 2000

Using evidence from psychology, anthropology, sociology and other scientific disciplines, this book shows 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 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 implies evolutionary and genetic, rather than purely social, political, economic, or cultural causes.

Editorial Reviews

Review

(An) incendiary thesis....that separate races of human beings evolved different reproductive strategies... -- New York Times Book Review

Describes hundreds of studies worldwide that show a consistent pattern of human racial differences... -- National Review

The remarkable resistance to racial science in our times has led to comparisons with the inquisition of Rome, active during the Renaissance.... -- Contemporary Psychology

About the Author

J. Philippe Rushton is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. He is also a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience. Rushton has published six books and nearly 200 articles. In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 22nd most published psychologist and the 11th most cited. Professor Rushton is listed in Who's Who in Science and Technology, Who's Who in International Authors, and Who's Who in Canada.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 388 pages
• Publisher: Charles Darwin Research Institute; 3rd edition (May 2000)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0965683605
• ISBN-13: 978-0965683609
• Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.3 x 1.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.7 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (106 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,431,102 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

125 of 138 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Very relevant book for South Africa, July 25, 2001

By A Customer

This review is from: Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (3rd Edition) (Hardcover)

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.

85 of 99 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Remarkable achievement, December 17, 1999

By 

Hiram Caton (Griffith University, Australia) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (Paperback)

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!

65 of 75 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Created unequal?, August 21, 2007

By 

Antonio (Bogotá, Colombia) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (3rd Edition) (Paperback)

What if we've been misled and humans really are unequal from birth, in ways that may not be solved by social policies? In this interesting, but flawed book, Rushton finds, from extensive research, that this is precisely the case. He concludes that there are certain attributes (starting with intelligence, but including sexual activities, extraversion and self-control) that are largely inheritable, and that the three main races in the world (negroid, caucasoid and mongoloid) are not equally blessed: negroids are less intelligent, more impulsive and therefore more promiscuous and criminal than caucasoids, who in turn are also less intelligent and more impulsive than mongoloids. This is not very suprising, we've all seen this sort of data before and it is consistent with stereotypes and everyday experiences. What is interesting is that the author attempts to show that these differences are genetic in origin, and that they correspond with various reproductive strategies which in turn were dictated by various environmental stimuli as mediated by genes. All reproductive strategies may be placed within the r-K continuum. "r"-selected species go for big numbers when they attempt to reproduce. They don't provide much support for their spawn, but this is compensated by the number of these. "K"-selected species go for low numbers of children, but they invest significant effort to make sure these will survive. "r"-selected species compared to the "K"-selected sort will normally achieve reproductive capability at an earlier age, will be more promiscuous, more competitive and less cooperative. They will also die earlier.

Rushton postulates that although humans originated in Africa (thus supporting the "Out-of-Africa" thesis), the divergent strands (those remaining in Africa v. those that move into Eurasia) are really subspecies of humanity that evolved in different ways concerning reproductive strategies. Those that stayed in Africa continued to be more "r" selected, whereas those that moved into Eurasia were subject to "K" selection to a greater degree. This would have been due to divergent climatic situations: in Africa the weather is predictable (there are mostly no seasons), there is much plant food, but there abound all sorts of viruses and parasites and droughts often annihilate large portions of the population. In Eurasia (where until 10.000 years ago there was still the Ice Age) the weather is predictable (there are seasons), there are not so many diseases but it is difficult to survive the winter months, and hunting of large prey is required. Hence, humans became more "K" selected. They developed larger brains (which are essential for higher intelligence) and they opted for stronger coupling and higher investment in a lower number of descendants (less number of sexual partners, but better selection thereof). These factors were even stronger in Asia than in Europe, because most mongoloids developed in the northern part of the continent, where it was even colder. Rushton shows much data that supports his analysis, and some evidence in favor of his r-K reproductive differentiation strategies as the source of the various outcomes.

The contentiousness of this analysis may not be overstated. Rushton believes that the average IQ in Africa is about 2 standard deviations below that in the US, which would mean that more than 3/4 of Africans are less intelligent than the average American, and about half the population of the black continent is feeble-minded. He believes that American blacks are smarter than African ones because they have mixed themselves with Europeans and Asians. If this were true, then many of the greatest issues of our time become suddendly clearer (but not more manageable). The main reason why sub-Saharan Africa is now poorer than it was under European rule would not be racism, or negative terms of trade, or the poisoned inheritance of colonialism but rather a population that is dumber, less self-controled and more risk-taking than others. As access to education and health becomes generalized and the labor markets more transparent, a greater part of social differentiation (at least in developed countries) will be due to differential individual abilities (mostly related to IQ) rather than unfair social systems. If the differential abilities are really not invidual, but racial, then divergence between races will not narrow, but widen, the fairer the system is: only through restrictions on invidual actions will equality be viable. So liberty and fairness really turn out to be incompatible.

The implications of this worldview are extreme, and would affect many fields of legislation, including policies toward less developed countries in matters from free trade to Aids, as well as criminal laws, educational curricula and immigration laws. It is not an exageration to state that if Rushton is right, many changes in policies, such as the elimination of the "separate but equal doctrine" in US education in the famous Brown v. Board of Education ruling, decolonization and even Apartheid would have to be rethought.

This makes it easy to see why proponents of equality of races would disagree with Rushton: if he is right, then there would be no reason for respecting self-determination in countries where the majority of the population are borderline morons, nor would there be any reason for lavishing significant funds for education of a local minority that is really incapable of much improvement. Since social deviance is easy to predict from IQ tests, it probably would make sense to subject those of low intelligence (and large portions of these would come from the negroid race) to repressive police action even in absence of actual crimes. And it wouldn't be desirable to allow continued immigration by peoples who will surely drag down a country's average IQ, commit more crimes than others and generally make a nuisance of themselves by becoming dependent on the state. Rushton doesn't enunciate these conclusions, of course, but they may be easily inferred from his analysis. People have been expelled from universities just for wearing t-shirts that hint that they might hold this type of view.

I agree with the author that one shouldn't fear the truth, and that poorly constructed bromides are no substitutes for real understanding. We need less "feel-good" opinions and more realistic explanations of reality. So I would have expected Rushton to construct his arguments in a more thoughtful fashion than he has. Very clearly there is a genetic element in intelligence measured as IQ (the so-called "Spearman's g"), and it is surely true that IQ is an excellent predictor of success for both workers and executives, and of sexual behavior or law-abidingness for everyone. While it is nonsensical to assume these factors away and just attribute all differential results to environmental circumstances (as many do), it is also incoherent to state, as Rushton does, that in these factors there are both genetic and environmental influences, while at the same time saying virtually nothing about their respective weights, and empahisizing the former much more than the latter. Rushton clearly believes that most of the differential performance of various groups is genetic in origin. One guesses this not just from this book but from many of the reviews he has published on Amazon. This does not seem to be, for him, a scientific argument of theoretic interest, but a personal conviction with some emotional involvement. Normally, that doesn't make for good science. For example, even though he goes as far enough as to estimate that negroids are dumber because they have less brain tissue than caucasoids or mongoloids, he doesn't really give any reason why such comparatively small differences in brain weight generate such enormous variations in intelligence as he finds. The assumption that beyond a certain minimal weight required to run the body's processes, a small percentage of brain tissue has a disproportionate impact on total IQ may be correct, but it demands some factual support. If it doesn't exist, Rushton should have called this a working hypothesis and left it at that.

There are other, interesting, questions that he doesn't answer. While I agree with him that Jared Diamond's explanation of Eurasian success and African and Native American and Australian failure by way of geography is not satisfactory (because it doesn't even consider the possibility that genetics might be involved), I can see that Rushton doesn't attempt to explain the enviromental impact on inferior performances by the various races, or even quantify it. He then leaves himself open to accusations that he is just tidying up, in the language of sociobiology, very traditional racist beliefs. While he concedes that there are some anomalies implicit in his worldview (i.e., as the most "K"-selected race, mongoloids should be bigger than Causasians, who in turn should be bigger than Africans, whereas the reverse is the case), there are many he doesn't even consider, and obvious ones at that. If a harsh but predictable enviroment is a condition for "K"-selection, then Eskimos (or Inuit) should be most "K"-selected and therefore the most intelligent. Is this the case? And surely Mongolians are even more "K"-selected than Han Chinese (because they live further north). Then, why didn't the Chinese empire center in Mongolia, or Manchuria, rather than further south, as was the case? Also, wouldn't it make sense to suppose that North American Natives would be more "K"-selected than Central and South American ones? Yet the great pre-Columbian civilizations were in Central America (Aztecs and Mayas) and South America (Incas) rather than in North America, where the natives never evolved beyond the hunter-gatherer phase. This is not to refer to the obvious point, that the... Read more ›