In 1989, J. Philippe Rushton threw a grenade into the world of human biology. Rushton argued that the ‘three big races’ – Black, Caucasian, and East Asian – consistently differed in ‘Life History Strategy.’ Blacks had the fastest strategy. Adapted to unstable environments, they live fast and die young. East Asians had the slowest, investing in nurture; living for the future. Caucasians were intermediate. This grenade exploded into everything from a criminal investigation to a campaign to get Rushton fired.
What kind of person could conceive of and publicize such an original yet incendiary theory? Analyzing Rushton’s research and, for the first time, his life and ancestry, Dutton argues that Rushton himself – like many scientific geniuses - was a highly intelligent fast Life History Strategist. But Rushton’s Life History strategy was simply too fast for him to be the Galileo-figure that some scientists have portrayed him as. An archetypal Narcissist, Rushton attempted to manipulate people into supporting his model and cherry picked and dishonestly presented his findings. And among many other fast Life History strategy traits, Dutton explores Rushton’s dropping out of high school, his multiple divorces, his compulsive lying, his affairs, his two illegitimate children including one by a married black woman, and even his use of physical violence.
Praise for J. Philippe Rushton: A Life History Perspective
Dr Edward Dutton has written a brilliant ‘warts and all’ biography of John Philippe Rushton and a critical appraisal of his theory that the ‘three big races’ differ in Life History Strategy. Dr Dutton finds that there is some support for Rushton’s theory but also that it has too many flaws to be considered anything like a work of genius. A fascinating book.
Prof Richard Lynn
Formerly University of Ulster, UK.
Aristotle, in his Poetics, identified the salient characteristic of the tragic hero. He is an ‘intermediate kind of personage,’ ‘a man who is not eminently good or just - yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty.’ J. Philippe Rushton was just such a person. Intimidatingly intelligent and intellectually daring, this self-styled, latter day Galileo was also prone to hubris and evidently lacked a moral compass. Various unflattering alternative titles for Dr. Dutton’s compelling book, accordingly, spring to mind: ‘Keep it in the Family: The Curious Case of J. Philippe Rushton’; or, ‘Giving Charles Darwin a Bad Name: Nepotism in Theory and Practice’; or, more simply, ‘Revolution Betrayed.’ As Prof Rushton himself prophetically observed on page one of his magnum opus, Race, Evolution, and Behavior, ‘. . . people give preferential treatment to those who resemble themselves.’
Dr. Leslie Jones
Editor, The Quarterly Review
