Buy used: $46.14

FREE delivery Tuesday, May 30

Or fastest delivery Thursday, May 25. Order within 11 hrs 31 mins

Select delivery location

Used: Acceptable | Details

Sold by -OnTimeBooks-

Fulfilled by Amazon

Access codes and supplements are not guaranteed with used items.

Have one to sell?

Sell on Amazon

Flip to back Flip to front

Listen Playing... Paused You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more

See this image

Follow the Author

J. Philippe Rushton

Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective Mass Market Paperback – Abridged, July 1, 2000

by J. Philippe Rushton (Author)

4.6 97 ratings

See all formats and editions

Price

New from

Used from

Hardcover

"Please retry"

$88.40

—

$20.00

Paperback, Unabridged, Unknown format

"Please retry"

$322.50

$104.95

Mass Market Paperback, Abridged

"Please retry"

$46.14

—

$8.96

There is a newer edition of this item:

Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (3rd Edition)
$322.50
(97)
Only 1 left in stock - order soon.

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.

Print length

106 pages
Language

English
Publisher

Charles Darwin Research Institute
Publication date

July 1, 2000
ISBN-10

0965683621
ISBN-13

978-0965683623
See all details

Highest rated | Lowest Pricein this set of products
Stephen Sanderson
27
Paperback
$16.99
Most purchasedin this set of products
Richard J. Herrnstein
1,614
Paperback
$23.99
This item:
J. Philippe Rushton
97
Mass Market Paperback
11 offers from $8.96
75
Mass Market Paperback
13 offers from $14.93
Richard Lynn
124
Paperback
$29.99
Gregory Cochran
408
Paperback
$17.98

Editorial Reviews

Review

"(An) incendiary thesis....that separate races of human beings evolved different reproductive strategies to cope with different environments..." -- Malcolm W. Browne, New York Times Book Review

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

"Rushton is a serious scholar who has assembled serious data." -- Charles Murray, Afterword to The Bell Curve

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

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Charles Darwin Research Institute; Abridged 2nd edition (July 1, 2000)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Mass Market Paperback ‏ : ‎ 106 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0965683621
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0965683623
Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 2.56 ounces

Best Sellers Rank: #1,144,247 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #360 in Physical Anthropology (Books)
- #3,494 in Evolution (Books)

Customer Reviews:
4.6 97 ratings

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.

Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Videos

Help others learn more about this product by uploading a video!

Upload your video

About the author

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.

J. Philippe Rushton

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.

Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

4.6 out of 5

97 global ratings

5 star		84%
4 star		4%
3 star		6%
2 star		4%
1 star		2%

How customer reviews and ratings work

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Graham H. Seibert

The definitive book for scholars; a bit labored for the casual reader

Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on March 5, 2017

Verified Purchase

This book, which first appeared in 1995, is J Philippe Rushton's magnum opus. His introduction is an unusually personal story. Here is his biography in a nutshell.

He was born in England in 1943. He studied in England and Berkeley, coming up in what is called the London school of psychometricians, following in the steps of Francis Galton, Charles Spearman and Karl Pearson, who developed the science of statistics as much to research human intelligence as for any other reason. Working with Hans Eysenck and other scholars of the age, he embraced sociobiology from its inception with EO Wilson and Richard Dawkins in the 1970s.

Rushton's research into human differences brought him into conflict with the academic leftists who had ascended to leadership positions in the major universities. These included Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, and Steven Rose. The cultural Marxists pursued and persecuted him everywhere, preventing his work from getting published, having him banned from conferences, and physically attacking him. Google "Resolute Ignorance on Race and Rushton" for a well written account of the abuse that he took.

This is a long book, laden with tables and accounts of statistical studies. This is as it must be in order to present a convincing argument. The human being is inherently difficult to measure. It is literally impossible to get a representative sample for any statistical study. The truth must lie in the correlation of many, many studies. In this instance, the correlation of studies of populations in the United States, the Caribbean and Africa. The correlation of people who are black by genetic analysis, self report, and skin color. Factoring in the admixture of other races. Using school samples that knowingly omit, must omit children who are not capable of performing schoolwork and children who have dropped out. Rushton writes extensively about his methodology, and extensively once again on the large numbers of studies that more or less concur in order to support his theses.

I recommend that the reader Google "rushton-the-great-theoetician.pdf" (with the misspelling intact) for a 20-page paper that quite aptly and fully summarizes his work. Turn to this complete book for the thorough analysis necessary to support his conclusions.

All the previous researchers in the London school, in fact all psychometricians, have observed that there are racial differences in average intelligence. Although there are geniuses in every population, such as Thomas Sowell, Paul Robison and Clarence Thomas among modern Blacks, the average measured intelligence of African Blacks, American Blacks, American Indians, Hispanics, Caucasian Americans, North Asians and Ashkenazi Jews is spread out over a wide spectrum. At the extremes, less than a 10th of one percent of black Africans would be smarter than the average Ashkenazi Jew. Joseph Conrad's portrayal of the races in "The Heart of Darkness" rings true.

Rushton advocates what he calls the life history approach to racial differences. Succinctly put, there are two broad reproductive strategies among sexually reproducing organisms. Aspens and oysters produce a vast number of fertile seeds which they disseminate into the water in the air. Only a very few grow, but it is enough to perpetuate those species. Avocados and orangutans invest a great deal in protecting their progeny. The avocado fruit and seed are very rich, and the orangutan bears a child only every three or four years, investing a great deal of maternal attention in that child. Baby avocados and orangutans have a good chance of reaching adulthood.

These divergent reproductive strategies are called r/K selection: r for rate of reproduction, K for carrying capacity. Researchers have found a high degree of correlation among many traits associated with r/K selection.
-------- Family characteristics
Large litter size -------- Small litter size
Short birth spacing -------- Long birth spacing
Many offspring -------- Few offspring
High infant mortality -------- Low infant mortality
Little parental care -------- Much parental care
-------- Individual characteristics
Rapid maturation -------- Slow maturation
Early sexual reproduction -------- Delayed sexual reproduction
Short life -------- Long life
High reproductive effort -------- Low reproductive effort
High energy utilization -------- Efficient energy utilization
Low encephalization -------- High encephalization
-------- Population characteristics
Opportunistic exploiters -------- Consistent exploiters
Dispersing colonizers -------- Stable occupiers
Variable population size -------- Stable population size
Lax competition -------- Keen competition
-------- Social system characteristics
Low social organization -------- High social organization
Low altruism -------- High altruism

Rushton found that these apply as well to human populations. Though all humans are highly K specialized, Mongoloids are the most, and Africans the least. This is the source of the controversy.

In summary, I recommend that the curious reader first look at the two articles I cite above, and buy the book if you want more. Also see The Ulster Institute web site for related publications. A group of highly talented academics is continuing his work and making his writings available.

68 people found this helpful

Helpful

Chris

Differential K theory

Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on March 11, 2022

Verified Purchase

The author, a psychologist at the University of Western Ontario, argues that behavioral and physical differences between the human races can be explained through "differential k theory." According to this theory, all humans are k-selected-- that is, they have large brains, are monogamous, and invest in their offspring. But the author argues that the human races differ in how k-selected they are, with East Eurasians being the most, sub-Saharan Africans being the least, and West Eurasians fall in between. The author shows that this pattern of East Eurasians on one end of the spectrum, sub-Saharan Africans on the other, and West Eurasians in the middle, applies to a huge range of dissimilar traits: brain size, intelligence, promiscuity, aggression, onset of puberty, onset of teeth, premature birth, likelihood of dizygotic twins and triplets, and many others.

The author hypothesizes that the equatorial, sub-Saharan African environment was relatively easy going but unpredictable, with unexpected famines and other shocks occasionally ravaging the population. In contrast, the Eurasian environment was harsh but predictable. This harsh but predictable Eurasian environment selected for greater intelligence, group cohesion, monogamy, self-control, and investment in offspring (i.e., became more k-selected).

5 people found this helpful

Helpful

VEL – The Contemporary Heretic

Theoretically Flawed

Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on January 1, 2013

Verified Purchase

The claim that black people are, on average, less intelligent than other races has been described as the most controversial theory in psychology, if not in all of science.

However, this is no longer true. For Philippe Rushton has formulated an even more incendiary theory – namely, that black people are not only less intelligent but also innately more predisposed to criminality and promiscuity. A theory more likely to outrage the sensibilities of the contemporary academic establishment, and indeed Western society as a whole, could hardly be deliberately concocted for this very purpose.

It is perhaps then inevitable that most reviewers have evaluated Rushton's theory on political rather than scientific terms. The majority condemn the work as 'racist pseudo-science'. A minority (although a minority overrepresented among reviewers because it is those of a particular political persuasion who are drawn to such works) reach an opposite conclusion, hailing its author as a new Galileo.

Few reviewers seem able to treat Rushton's thesis with the disinterested detachment required when evaluating any scientific claim, howsoever incendiary.

Many of his opponents allege Rushton is motivated by racism or a desire to justify racial oppression. As I am not a mind-reader, I am unable to determine Rushton's motivations. However, both in his work and in person, Rushton does at least a passable imitation of a scientist striving disinterestedly towards truth. The same cannot be said for many of his critics, whose critiques often reek of what Bernard Davies termed the 'moralistic fallacy' (Davies 1978).

On the other hand, Rushton is surely someone who relishes controversy. It is surely no accident that the two theories which he claims fame for having originated, namely what he calls 'Differential K Theory' and 'Genetic Similarity Theory', are both capable of being used to justify racism – and, indeed, have been used in this manner (albeit not by Rushton himself).

At any rate, whatever Rushton’s motives, his views deserve to be assessed on their substantive merits rather than by reference to the nefarious ideological agenda in whose furtherance they were allegedly concocted.

In short, whether or not Rushton was motivated by racism in formulating his theories has no bearing whatever on whether those theories are true.

Genetic Similarity Theory
In Chapter Four of 'Race Evolution and Behavior', Rushton introduces the second most controversial theory which he is known for originating, namely 'Genetic Similarity Theory'. Most reviews ignore this theory, perhaps because its presentation is limited to a single chapter.

This theory is conceptually entirely separate from 'Differential K Theory', the theory with which most of the remainder of the book is concerned. It is perfectly consistent to accept one of these theories yet reject the other. Each must be assessed separately on its own merits.

In essence, Genetic Similarity Theory contends that the more genetically similar two individuals are, the more they are predisposed to preferentially associate and cooperate. The theory purports to be an extension of WD Hamilton's theory (1964a, b) of 'inclusive fitness', also referred to as 'kin selection'.

Unfortunately, as Linda Mealey points out in two critiques (Mealey 1985; 1989), it rests on a simplified misunderstanding of kin selection – at least according to the orthodox 'Dawkinsian' interpretation of this theory (Dawkins 1979; cf. On Genetic Interests ).

Inclusive fitness theory proposes that individuals behave altruistically towards biological relatives, even at a cost to themselves, because relatives are likely to share genes with one another, including the genes coding for the altruistic behaviour, by virtue of their common descent. Such behaviour therefore promotes the survival and spread of the genes coding for altruism.

More precisely, according to 'Hamilton's rule', an individual will behave altruistically by aiding the reproductive success of a third-party at a cost to his own reproductive success only where the cost is outweighed by the benefit to the third-party multiplied by the coefficient of relatedness between the two parties (i.e. how closely biologically related they are).

However, genes predisposing a person to behave altruistically towards genetically-similar individuals who are not kin would not evolve through kin selection. This is because, although a person judged to be genetically similar to oneself on the basis of externally detectable characteristics (e.g. hair or skin colour) may indeed share in common with oneself the genes coding for these traits, if these genes are not shared by virtue of common descent (i.e. biological relatedness or kinship), they are no more likely to share the separate genes coding for the altruistic behaviour itself. Therefore, the genes coding for altruism would not promote their own survival and propagation by coding for altruism towards genetically-similar but non-related others.

The only exception is what Dawkins refers to as the 'Green Beard Effect', whereby it is hypothetically postulated that a gene would be favoured by selection if it coded for both an externally observable trait (e.g. a 'green beard') and a tendency to behave altruistically towards other individuals sharing this trait.

However, it is regarded as implausible that a single gene would arise that coded for both these characteristics. Moreover, the population would be vulnerable to invasion by a gene coding for the 'green beard' but not for the altruism, which would benefit from the altruism without incurring the cost of reciprocation.

Assessing genetic similarity in others can, however, function as a mechanism for recognising kin . This is called 'phenotypic matching'. However, this idea is conceptually separate from, and predates, Rushton’s 'genetic similarity theory'.

Rushton also seemingly fails to grasp that kin selection selects only for altruism and says nothing about the preferential association per se.

For example, Rushton suggests that individuals prefer genetically similar others as mating partners (p75-80). However, taken to an extreme, this would result in inbreeding depression, with an accompanying diminution in the health and fitness of offspring.

Indeed, even Rushton's erstwhile collaborators and co-formulators of the theory (Rushton, Russell & Wells 1984) have subsequently had second thoughts regarding its utility, at least with regard to explaining mating patterns (Russell and Wells 1994).

As for Rushton's claim that 'genetic similarly theory' explains conflict between ethnic groups (p85-88; see also Rushton 2005), it is doubtful if the benefit conferred by altruistic acts would ever be sufficient to satisfy Hamilton's Rule given the only very distant biological relatedness of the large ethnic groups which characterize much of the modern world (Brigandt 2001).

Instead, ethnocentrism may reflect a misfiring of psychological mechanisms that evolved in the context of the small kin-based groups in which humans spent most of their evolutionary history (Tooby and Cosmides 1989). Alternatively, Richard Dawkins proposes that racism may reflect a misfiring of kin-recognition mechanisms which rely on physical resemblance to assess relatedness ( Selfish Gene : p100).

For an earlier but more sophisticated attempt to explain racial and ethnic conflict in terms of Hamiltonian inclusive fitness theory: see Pierre Van Den Berghe's The Ethnic Phenomenon .

r/K Selection Theory
I now turn to the theory which takes up of the bulk of Rushton’s book and which is chiefly responsible for the book and its author's infamy, namely what he refers to as 'Differential K Theory'. This is based on the ecological concept of r/K selection theory, whereby it is posited that species vary on a continuum focussing, at one end, on maximising the number of offspring produced, while investing little in each ('r-selection'), and, at the other, investing heavily in few offspring ('K-selection').

Rushton posits that, although all humans are at the extreme K end of the spectrum, individuals of sub-Saharan African ancestry are less so, whereas individuals of 'Mongoloid' extraction are more so, with Caucasians intermediate but closer to Mongoloids. He amasses a data on a whole suit of life-history traits on which the races appear to differ, superficially in accord with this theory.

There are three problems with Rushton's application of r/K selection theory:

1) Most ecologists have abandoned r/K selection theory as obsolete;

2) There is no theoretical ground for supposing African populations have been less subject to K-selection than other human groups but rather two separate reasons for predicting that, contrary to Rushton's theory, Africans would actually be more K-selected;

3) There is no obvious connection between many traits that Rushton describes (e.g. criminality, genital-size, intelligence) and r/K selection.
____________

The first thing that needs to be said regarding r/K selection theory is that modern ecology has generally, if not wholly abandoned the theory, at least moved beyond it to more sophisticated theories of life-history trade-offs.

However, Rushton's application of the theory is especially problematic. In fact, a mainstream interpretation of r/K selection theory would suggest that Europeans and Asians would be more r-selected and Africans more K-selected, the exact opposite what Rushton contends.

There are two reasons for this.

Firstly, K-selection is associated with stable environments, whereas r-selection is associated with variable environments. Whereas tropical climates such as are found in Africa have relatively stable climates all year round, climate in Eurasia, where Europeans and Asians evolved, varies seasonally.

Rushton responds to this objection by arguing that it is the predictability of variations rather than the variation itself that is the key factor and, although variable, Artic/temperate conditions vary in a predictable manner, with cold winters and warm summers occurring annually (p249). In contrast, variations in tropical zones are, he claims, less predictable.

However, this seems to be contrary to the orthodox interpretation of r/K selection theory. Moreover, it is not altogether clear that variability would produce r-selection in a non-hibernating species like humans (Miller 1993).

Finally, whether conditions are indeed less predictable in Africa is questionable. For example, famine and drought are no more common in Africa than in Eurasia (Miller 1993: p666-7).

Yet there is a second reason we might expect Africans to be more K-selected.

K selection is associated with populations that have already expanded to reach the carrying capacity of the environment, where heavy investment in each offspring is necessary to ensure that they are able to outcompete rivals for limited resources. In contrast, r-selection is associated the colonisation of new habitats, where fast reproductive rates are advantageous to enable to speedy colonization of large tracts of habitable but uninhabited land.

Yet, according to 'Out-of-Africa' theory (which Rushton accepts: p217-228), anatomically-modern humans first evolved in Africa, only later migrating elsewhere. This would suggest that r-selection would be stronger in more recently colonised areas (i.e. Eurasia – not to mention the Americas, Australia etc.), whereas K selection would be stronger in Africa, where humans had presumably long previously reached the carrying capacity of the continent, hence motivating the decision to migrate.

Specific Traits
The next problem is that it is not altogether clear how some of the traits which Rushton discusses relate to the r/K continuum.

Unfortunately, Rushton never explicitly addresses the issue of why these characteristics are related to r/K selection. Instead, he simply ploughs ahead with presenting his copious data on race differences with respect to the characteristic in question, apparently presupposing that the relationship between the characteristic and r/K selection is somehow self-evident.

Only in Chapter Ten, entitled 'Life History Theory', does he offer a rather generalized discussion of r/K selection theory, without bothering to relate it to all of the specific traits discussed in previous chapters.

Criminality
For example, there is no obvious reason to associate criminality with r-selection.

I am unaware of any studies suggesting an association between r-selection and criminal-like behaviour (e.g. aggression, intra-specific predation) in non-human species.

Perhaps high levels investment in offspring and care for dependent infants requires enhanced levels of empathy and conscientiousness, traits that also, as a by-product, reduce those criminal behaviours associated with limited empathy or impulse control.

However, Edward M Miller contends that it is K-selection that is associated with intra-specific aggression because individuals from K-selected species are competing with one another for limited resources in populations at or near the carrying capacity of their environment (Miller 1994: at p234). In contrast, he quotes ethologist James Gould as observing, "among r-selected species, on the other hand, fighting would be a waste of their most precious commodity: time" ( Ethology: The Mechanisms and Evolution of Behavior : p367).

Body-Size
Meanwhile, with respect to differences in overall body-size, even Rushton acknowledges that his theory fails to explain observed race differences (p215-6).

r/K selection theory anticipates that more K-selected organisms, benefiting from greater parental investment per offspring, would be larger, whereas r-selected organisms are smaller. Yet East Asians, the most K-selected population according to Rushton, are, on average, smaller in stature than Caucasians.

Meanwhile, black Africans, ostensibly the most r-selected group, are not obviously shorter than Caucasians. Of course, in Africa itself, malnutrition and disease probably depress stature. Yet sub-Saharan Africans range in height from Pygmies to the Tutsi and East African 'elongates' like the Dinka. Meanwhile, blacks resident in developed economies such as the US where undernourishment is hardly an issue have about the same average height as Caucasians – and, as fans of NBA basketball are well aware, are capable of growing just as tall as any Caucasoid.

Genital Size
Curiously, although Rushton passes over the disconfirmatory data regarding race differences in overall body-size in just a sentence, he devotes rather more discussion to race differences in the size of one particular class of body part, namely the genitals (166-9).

Rushton's pronouncements on this issue have aroused particular attention in the popular media where he is widely quoted as proposing a direct trade-off between brain and penis-size (“It’s a trade-off: more brains or more penis. You can’t have everything”).

Actually, the quote is probably apocryphal (or perhaps a misinterpreted joke). Certainly, there is nothing in Rushton’s theory suggesting a direct trade-off between penis-size and cranial capacity, an obviously preposterous proposition.

However, Rushton never does spell out precisely why genital-size is in any way related to r/K selection.

One suggestion developed by Richard Lynn is that racial differences in penis size reflect differences in levels of 'polyandry' or female promiscuity (Lynn, In Press). Differences in levels of polyandry may then themselves be explained by differences in levels of r and K selection.

This draws on the theory that the human penis evolved as a sperm displacement device ( Human Sperm Competition : 170-174). On this view, large penises evolved as a mechanism of 'sperm competition', designed to remove the sperm deposited by rival males, a theory that actually has some empirical support, not least from some delightful experiments involving sex toys of various shapes (Gallup et al 2003; Gallup and Burch 2004; Goetz et al 2005).

On this view, races characterised by higher levels of polyandry (i.e. female promiscuity) might be expected have evolved larger penises for this reason, as a consequence of what biologists refer to as 'sperm competition'.

However, with respect to penis size, a strong case can be made that brain-size and penis-size are actually positively rather than negatively correlated, the exact opposite of what Rushton is widely quoted as claiming.

In short, larger brains require larger heads which, in turn, require larger vaginas to enable women to give birth to larger-headed infants. This, in turn, selects for larger penises to fill the vagina.

In support of this theory, it is notable that humans have, among primates, both the largest brains and the largest penises ( Human Sperm Competition : p167).

Sex Hormones
Alternatively, Richard Lynn suggests that race differences in penis size could instead be by-product of differing levels of male sex hormones such as testosterone (Lynn 1990).

Indeed, race differences in levels of testosterone are capable of explaining several of the race differences discussed by Rushton elsewhere in his book, including differences in sexual behaviour, rates of violent crimes, age at onset of puberty, longevity, athletic performance and black males’ peculiar susceptibility to prostate cancer.

However, even if one accepted testosterone levels as a proximate explanation for these race differences, one would still have to identify the ultimate selective factors that led to the evolution of race differences in testosterone levels in the first place and Rushton sees differences in levels of sex hormones as themselves a product or r-K selection (169-170).

However, as Miller (1994) points out:
“A strong point of differential K theory is its apparent parsimony. A large number of seemingly unrelated differences can be explained by a single evolutionary theory. If many of the differences trace to a single direct cause, sex hormone levels, or other ultimate causes that act through the sex hormones, then other theories are equally parsimonious.”

Intelligence
Finally, although it is a major component of his theory, there is no obvious reason why intelligence is associated with K selection – although admittedly there does seem to be an association across taxa (p200-207) and some theorists have linked intelligence to K selection (p199).

Yet the question remains, why should investing heavily in a few offspring necessarily require more intelligence than producing lots of offspring?

Miller's Alternative Thoery
Even researchers who accept Rushton's claims regarding both the existence of, and innate basis for, the race differences he purports to uncover do not universally accept Rushton's explanation for these differences. Indeed, what is, in my view, the most comprehensive and persuasive theoretical critique of Rushton's theory is that of Edward M Miller (1993; 1994), an economist and fellow 'race realist' who accepts both the existence of and innate basis for most of the race differences discussed by Rushton.

According to Miller, most of the differences uncovered by Rushton can be explained more parsimoniously by reference to the higher levels of parental investment, especially male parental investment, required to successfully raise children in colder climates outside of Africa (Miller 1994). In Miller’s telling, this explanation accounts for most, if not all, the differences discussed by Rushton, plus a few more besides (e.g. why, in contrast to other races, black females seemingly have a greater 'work ethic' than do black males).

Rushton responds by arguing that the Miller's theory is not really an alternative but is rather incorporated into his own theory (Rushton and Ankney 1993). However, this merely begs the question of what relying on the concept of r/K selection theory really adds to the explanation provided by Miller, if the latter theory accounts adequately for all the data reported by Rushton himself, other than reliance on a problematic concept itself increasingly abandoned by modern ecologists. The principle of Occam's razor suggests that Miller's theory be preferred.

Climate and Intelligence
Drawing on the work of (among others) Richard Lynn (see Race Differences in Intelligence ), Rushton claims that, in contrast to tropical areas, "colonising temperate and cold environments leads to increased cognitive demands to solve the problems of gathering food and gaining shelter and general survival in cold winters" (p228) because plant food is available only seasonally, hunting is supposedly more difficult and individuals must develop technologies such as clothing, fire and shelter to keep warm.

This seems plausible but hardly compelling. The usual charge levelled at evolutionary explanations for behaviours – namely that they represent 'just-so stories' that are easy to formulate but difficult to test – for once seems to have merit. Surely it could be argued that protecting oneself from excessive heat and the damaging effect of excessive exposure to sunlight in tropical climes is no easier than surviving the cold in temperate zones.

For example, Rushton contends, "hunting in the open grasslands of northern Europe was more difficult than hunting in the woodlands of the tropics and subtropics where there is plenty of cover for hunters to hide in" (p228).

However, if hunting is indeed facilitated by greater availability of cover in Northern Europe, then this presumably assisted other predators in hunting humans just as much as it helped humans in hunting for themselves – and there is no obvious reason why avoiding the increased risk of being eaten by predators in tropical zones should not put just as much of a premium on intelligence as the greater in difficulty catching prey in temperate zones.

Moreover, if it were indeed the case that conditions in Africa and other tropical zones were more propitious given the year-round availability of plant foods (p228), then, according to basic Darwinian (and Malthusian) principles, the thriving population would multiply until it reaches the carrying capacity of this environment at which point the environment would no longer be so favourable given the excess of organisms now competing for the formerly abundant resources.

Therefore, given that populations expand to reach the carrying capacity of the environment, differences in the availability of resources such as food are unlikely be the driving factor behind the evolution of human intelligence. Thus, in recent decades, biologists have turned to social rather than ecological factors to explain the evolution of human intelligence (e.g. Macachiavellian Intelligence ).

At any rate, a critical test for this theory of the influence of climate on intelligence is provided by Eskimos and other so-called 'Arctic peoples'. These groups have surely been subjected to the harshest winters of any human population. However, according to the data presented by Richard Lynn (himself, incidentally, an enthusiastic supporter of Rushton's theory, and proponent of his own similar theory regarding the influence of climate on behaviour), their average IQ is only 91 ( Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis : p250-252, p212) – high for a foraging group, but well below that of Europeans and East Asians.

This is despite the fact that they are classified as 'Mongoloid' under Rushton's rather simplistic racial taxonomy and, moreover, according to further data cited by Lynn, have larger brains than any other racial group (Ibid.: p153, p212).

Rushton's Data
My discussion thus far has focussed on the theory with which Rushton attempts to explain the data he reports. A brief comment is in order regarding the data itself.

Race differences in IQ have been far more intensively studied than the other race differences which Rushton reports. The data on penis size is especially unreliable given the taboo status of the subject and the intimate nature of the measurements required.

Furthermore, even with regard to IQ differences, the difference between blacks and whites (especially blacks and whites in the US) has been far more intensively studied than that between whites and Asians. The latter disparity is both smaller in magnitude and less consistent.

Indeed, the higher IQ attributed to 'Mongoloids' is actually limited to East Asians. South-East Asians (e.g. Thais, Vietnamese), also 'Mongoloid' in Rushton's terminology, actually have rather lower IQs than Europeans, as do Native Americans, whom Rushton also classifies as 'Mongoloid' for some purposes, namely when the data is consistent with his theory (especially during Chapter Seven, when discussing race differences in personality and rates of maturation).

This again reflects the gross over-simplicity of Rushton's tripartite racial taxonomy.

Finally, it is only in respect the black-white IQ gap that there is substantial evidence bearing on the issue of whether these differences are mediated by environment or genetics, such as trans-racial adoption studies and studies of racial admixture. Even here the findings conflict and are open to interpretation (contrast: Rushton & Jensen 2005; Nisbett 2005).

In short, not only is the theoretical framework by which Rushton seeks to explain the race differences he claims to document flawed, but also the race differences themselves are often far from conclusively established, and, where they are established, are not conclusively established as being genetic rather than environmental in origin.

Conclusion
Research on potentially inflammatory topics such as the possible innate basis for group differences in psychology and behaviour must not be suppressed or deemed outside the bounds of acceptable scholarly discussion. Such research is both a legitimate scientific endeavour and potentially socially valuable given the social consequences (at the aggregate statistical level) of the differences uncovered.

Unfortunately, Rushton's work fails to provide a plausible theoretical explanation for the race differences he purports to uncover. It is, however, a legitimate, if flawed, scientific work and deserves scholarly critique rather than persecution or suppression. It is only by allowing the free discussion of ideas, even ideas currently perceived as controversial and offensive (and even ideas that turn out to be wrong) that knowledge and science – and by extension humanity – can progress.

In short, even if Galileo had turned out to be wrong about the earth rotating around the sun rather than vice versa, burning him at the stake would have remained more wrong still.
________
References
Brigandt (2001). The homeopathy of kin selection: an evaluation of van den Berghe's sociobiological approach to ethnicity. Politics and the Life Sciences 20:203-215.
Davis (1978). "The moralistic fallacy". Nature 272(5652):390
Dawkins (1979) `Twelve misunderstandings of kin selection' Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 51(2): 184-200
Gallup & Burch (2004). Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy in humans. Evolutionary Psychology 2:12-23.
Goetz, Shackelford, Weekes-Shackelford, Euler, Hoier, Schmitt, & LaMunyon (2005) Mate retention, semen displacement, and human sperm competition: A preliminary investigation of tactics to prevent and correct female infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences 38:749-763
Goetz, Shackelford, Platek, Starratt, & McKibbin (2007) Sperm Competition in Humans: Implications for Male Sexual Psychology, Physiology, Anatomy, and Behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research 18:1
Hamilton, (1964a). "The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I". Journal of Theoretical Biology 7(1):1-16.
Hamilton, (1964b). "The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II". Journal of Theoretical Biology 7(1):17-52
Lynn (1990) `Testosterone and gonadotropin levels and r/K reproductive strategies' Psychological Reports 67(3):1203-1206
Lynn (In Press) `Rushton's r-K life history theory of race differences in penis length and circumference examined in 113 populations' Personality and Individual Differences
Mealey (1985). Letter to the Editor: Comment on Rushton, Russell, and Wells' "Genetic Similarity Theory". Behavior Genetics 15(6):571-574.
Mealey (1989). Letter to the Editor: A Comment on Rushton and Nicholson. Ethology and Sociobiology 10(4):309-310.
Miller (1993) Could r selection account for the African personality and life-cycle? Personality and Individual Differences 15(6):665
Miller (1994). Paternal provisioning versus mate seeking in human populations, Personality and Individual Differences, 17:227-255.
Nisbett (2005). Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ: A commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11:302-310.
Rushton (2005). Ethnic nationalism, evolutionary psychology, and genetic similarity theory. Nations and Nationalism, 11:489-507.
Rushton & Ankney (1993). The evolutionary selection of human races: A response to Miller. Personality and Individual Differences, 15:677-680.
Rushton & Jensen (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11:235-294.
Rushton, Russell, & Wells (1984) Genetic similarity theory: Beyond kin selection Behavior Genetics 14(3):179-193
Russell & Wells (1994) `Human assortative mating: Questions concerning genetic similarity theory' Animal Behavior 47:463-4
Tooby & Cosmides (1989) Kin selection, genic selection and information dependent strategies. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 12(3):542-544.

28 people found this helpful

Helpful

Top reviews from other countries

Joe Soo

the book ties up and completes a lot of past "loss ends" of understanding

Reviewed in Australia 🇦🇺 on October 30, 2022

Verified Purchase

I understand the research (genetics) and that we are all different no matter what the elite or EU media and WEF wants people of the world to think. Certainly, their believe may differ from the public believe and public real-life experience and reality. Well written and understood.

See all reviews

Amazon Music Stream millions of songs	Amazon Advertising Find, attract, and engage customers	6pm Score deals on fashion brands	AbeBooks Books, art & collectibles	ACX Audiobook Publishing Made Easy	Sell on Amazon Start a Selling Account

Amazon Business Everything For Your Business	Amazon Fresh Groceries & More Right To Your Door	AmazonGlobal Ship Orders Internationally	Home Services Experienced Pros Happiness Guarantee	Amazon Ignite Sell your original Digital Educational Resources	Amazon Web Services Scalable Cloud Computing Services

Audible Listen to Books & Original Audio Performances	Book Depository Books With Free Delivery Worldwide	Box Office Mojo Find Movie Box Office Data	ComiXology Thousands of Digital Comics	DPReview Digital Photography	Fabric Sewing, Quilting & Knitting

Goodreads Book reviews & recommendations	IMDb Movies, TV & Celebrities	IMDbPro Get Info Entertainment Professionals Need	Kindle Direct Publishing Indie Digital & Print Publishing Made Easy	Amazon Photos Unlimited Photo Storage Free With Prime	Prime Video Direct Video Distribution Made Easy

Shopbop Designer Fashion Brands	Amazon Warehouse Great Deals on Quality Used Products	Whole Foods Market America’s Healthiest Grocery Store	Woot! Deals and Shenanigans	Zappos Shoes & Clothing	Ring Smart Home Security Systems

eero WiFi Stream 4K Video in Every Room	Blink Smart Security for Every Home	Neighbors App Real-Time Crime & Safety Alerts	Amazon Subscription Boxes Top subscription boxes – right to your door	PillPack Pharmacy Simplified	Amazon Renewed Like-new products you can trust

Follow the Author

Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective Mass Market Paperback – Abridged, July 1, 2000

There is a newer edition of this item:

What do customers buy after viewing this item?

Editorial Reviews

Review

About the Author

Product details

Videos

About the author

J. Philippe Rushton

Customer reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Top reviews from other countries