by J. Philippe Rushton
|
| List Price: | $5.95 |
| Amazon Price: | $5.95 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. |
| Average Rating: |  |
| Lowest New Price: | $4.31 |
| Availablitiy: | Usually ships in 24 hours |
|
 |
|
Product Description
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.
Customers who bought this item also bought
Average Customer Review:
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
 An Academic Study on an Explosive Issue, 2008-09-23
Despite what is lukewarmly told to us, the question of race and IQ is not controversial, neither in the scientific sense nor in any other academic interpretation. What should be hotly debated especially is a society that claims to prize reason and knowledge, is ethics of an unrelenting politically correct Stazi, who seem determined to pervert, gloss over and blatantly ignore scientific fact for the sake of political trump-cards.
Firmly in line with neo-Darwinist thought, J. Philippe Rushton, in this short abridged edition of `Race, Evolution, and Behaviour', unemotionally lays out the abundance of physical evidence clearly refuting the lie that race is `only skin deep'. While most fair-minded individuals will be willing to grant that there are marked hereditary physical differences, apart from skin colour, between those of difference races, few are willing to admit that these differences, such as testosterone level, brain size, and the age of sexual maturation, will have any impact upon behaviour. Ever fewer are willing to admit that past selection pressures will have any impact racial IQ averages. And yet, as Rushton establishes, that is exactly what the studies indicate. The claim that race is an invented concept, or that distinctions between races are based on environmental or cultural factors, are simply unsubstantiated.
Rushdon cannot be considered a `racist' in the pejorative sense. White Nationalists will not like this book, as Rushton claims Orientals to have an average intelligence level higher than Caucasians. Politics is not mentioned. Of course, it is true that emotions run high when dealing with the subject of race. However, perhaps it is now time to draw practical and positive conclusions from the evidence, rather than seeking to build utopia on a myth.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
 Reality versus, 2008-07-20
PC garbage and politics . I don't know if every fact in this book is true (although it is well referenced), but Prof. Rushton certainly looks hard at the issues of race, IQ, behavior, etc., and thus offers a not unreasonable explanation of why things are the way they are in society today. I echo another reviewer here by stating that Prof. Rushton is a brave guy to look at the studies (numerous and well documented), draw his conclusions, and "stick to his guns" in the face of fanatical and irrational people who are locked into their own tight little worlds - or political agenda.
This book also offers hope in an indirect way, b/c by arguing that IQ and other negative behaviors are half genetics and half nurture, we are given possibilities to improve not just ourselves, but our entire species - and God knows it needs it.
3 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
 Pseudo-science indeed, 2008-07-09
The march of time and advances made in genetics, biology, medicine, and the social sciences haven't been kind to Rushton's doctrine of racial hierarchy.
The glaring problem begins with the use of "race" is a valid taxonomic concept when this has been abandoned by genetics, biology, and anthropology. This was already true at the time this book was written. It seems that Rushton wants to capitalize on America's preoccupation with recent social notions of "race", specifically within America. As late as the 20th century, social definitions of race pitted the Anglo-Saxon "race" above to all others - slavics, Irish, Meditteranean (Italian, Greek), and all ethnicities from Africa and Asia. More recently, the 'mongrelizaton' of European ethnicities in America led to a change in definition of race into broader, and thus even more inaccurate categories - white, black, and Asian. Human populations aren't distinct enough to classify as different races because the commonalities overlap to such a great degree that any distinction is arbitrary (eg. East Africans and populations in Sub-saharran Africa, for example, have dark skin but what Americans consider to be "White" or "Caucasoid" facial features). For example, a forensic anthropologist working outside of America wouldn't be able to classify many craniums found in African populations properly. She would classify a signficant number of "black Africans" as "White Europeans" based on their skulls.
Additionally this should put to rest the idea that racial groups differ in innate brain capacity. "Tobias (1970) confirmed in his summary that out of the world population samples, African-Americans had larger cranial capacity than did any White groups, with the exception of Swedes. He also reports African-Americans as having an excess of 200 Million more neurons than American whites. Weizmann et al. (1990) confirmed these, detecting selection bias in former studies."
Do a Google search for How "Caucasoids" Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank - From Morton to Rushton which addresses these points more fully and is a response to Rushton's rhetoric with science and historical fact (to which Rushton has been unable to respond).
Likewise advances in biomedicine have shown us that race is virtually always a weak if not a completely inaccurate correlate to test for and predict genetic diseases. The "fuzzy categories" of race which is a term used by Rushton et al. has shown to be extremely hazy and lacks significant scientific rigor and utility.
A second problem is the biased presentation of data, specifically on IQ data. We can accept that IQ is a measure of intelligence in Western English societies, but the book downplays that IQ is influenced by culture (and sub-culture), education. Rushton ignores this outright and does so by presenting only those studies that support his theory. There are studies that show IQ being the same across the racial constructs that Rushton uses in his book but none are investigated. For example, a German military adoption study after WWII showed children of all races having the same IQ (with black children slightly higher); another study by Moore (1986) showed the same results (mean IQ of 117). The conclusion: "White adoptive mothers were more likely than Black adoptive mothers to provide positive evaluations of their children's problem solving efforts. It is concluded that the ethnicity of the rearing environment exerts a significant influence on children's styles of responding to standardized intelligence tests and on their test achievement."
Moreover Flynn's work on IQ and g show that both IQ and g loaded intelligence testing is influenced by culture and that both have risen in the past 30 years such that the IQ gap has shrunk. Fact is, the soft science of psychology hasn't pinned down to what extent external factors influence IQ. To illustrate the point, a paper by Willerman (1974), found that "black/white" mixed children with White mothers and Black fathers had an IQ 9 points higher than mixed children with Black mothers and White fathers. That's a significant IQ differentiation with the only known significant variable difference being the gender of each parent.
Do a Google search for Common ground and differences by William T. Dickens and James R. Flynn (2006) for their response to Rushton's assertion that IQ and g have not changed. Since Flynn and Dicken's paper, Rushton has had no response forthcoming.
In contrast, Rushton exaggerates the predictive value of IQ scores. IQ correlates with social outcomes such as highschool degree attainment, incarceration rates, and so forth, yet this correlation is extremely weak. In other words. knowing an individual's IQ won't allow you predict any such outcome about that individual's life history or future. The correlations get stronger for some factors specifically on the tail-ends of the Bell Curve, yet these too can be modified socially and more importantly, most people do not fall on either end of the Bell Curve but reside comfortably in the middle of it.
Social realities such as the hidden African Model Minority (African immigrants to American and England obtain higher rates of university degrees than all other ethnicities) indicate that culture and environment (diet, access, opportunity, perception is reality) plays the central role in social outcome. Rushton's focus on the loaded notion of "race" rather than class, culture, and opportunity is a misinformed approach that draws heavily from learned social constructs rather than science.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Yellow supremacism?, 2008-01-13
Three different thoughts on this book:
1. The abridged edition does an excellent job summarizing Dr. Rushton's scientific conclusions. Even if you don't agree with his basic thesis, you have to admit that producing an abridged edition summarizing all the basic elements of his research is an excellent idea. The unabridged edition is 388 pages; the abridged edition gives us a nice synopsis of that work, with other scientific research suggested in each subject chapter for further reading.
2. In a short book, Dr. Rushton presents scientific data to show that the differences among the 3 major racial groups, Blacks, Whites, and Asians, are primarily genetic in origin. On the vast majority of tests, from cranium size to hormone levels, Blacks fall at one end of the spectrum, Asians at the other, and Whites fall somewhere in between. And why would we expect any other result? Researching your own experience, can't you see physical differences among people? Are we to believe that these outward physical differences, such as hair texture or eye color, are caused by environmental upbringing? Professor Rushton demonstrates that tens of thousands of years of human evolution occurring in different climates is responsible for the genetic differences among the races. After Darwin, we should already know this anyway.
3. In response to a pro-Rushton review that labeled anti-racists as liberals and supporters of race science as conservatives, I would like to point out that Galileo was a liberal and the old Catholic Church clergy that opposed his science were the conservatives. It is true that a word means whatever you define it to mean; but the most consistent definition of a liberal, at least in my mind, is someone who looks at scientific evidence and draws a conclusion, rather than holding to tradition or the status quo. In this sense, Galileo, Darwin, and Rushton should be considered as liberals, in my opinion, and not the other way around. In any case, thank God for them.
10 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
Oh, I finally get it now...Rushton isn't being serious and is just joking, 2007-11-17
Here are the main premises of the book...
Page 19 then shows a chart he made comparing traits like aggressiveness, consciousness, sexual intercourse frequencies, mental stability, etc. His source? Himself; how objective. Many aspects of that self-styled chart were subjective.
Page 24 is hilarious, as he begins to talk about he r-K scale. For Rushton's own r/K theory to be tenable, you'd have to be a polygenist, since the traditional r/K theory explained the difference one sees in cockroaches, on one hand, and human beings, on the other. The notion that humans differ in r/K selection strategies based on "racial groupings" is completely foreign in biology or genetics. Regarding Rushton's r/k theories, Dr. Mark Feldman (an actual biologist from Stanford University), stated they were "absolutely inapplicable" to human differences, and that it "doesn't really classify as science, as it has no content, it is laughable". So yes; let's just accept the brilliant theory that Blacks are dumber since they have bigger d*cks, shall we? It makes so much sense, especially when he's a leading anthropologist, biologist and geneticist. Oh wait...he's not. Nevermind.
Rushton certainly did make genital size a central point in making a correlation between intelligence, as anyone familiar with his work knows that he was quite obsessed with Black sexual behavior. Since he was, as I stated, not a biologist, anthropologist or geneticist, how can he claim to make any "scientific conclusions"? Answer = he can't. If you wish to think there is a connection, by all means, lol, go ahead. If you read the Flynn articles like Race, IQ and Jensen, and Measurement, Realism and Objectivity, as well as sources even the Murray and Herrnstein direct us too, you'll notice the relevance of the Flynn Effect. Read page 308 of the Bell Curve. This explains why IQ average to upward since standardization, and analyzes the fact the a generation and a half ago, there was as much difference in score between whites as there exists now between Blacks and whites. Studies also showed that, back in the 1920s, northern, more industrial Blacks scored higher than southern whites on "intelligence tests". Also, David Moore's adoption study illustrated that children raised in white households end up with the same IQs whether they were Black or white. Then the Eyefurth study done in Germany, which page 310 of the Bell Curve mentions - where mixed-race German children on Black GI fathers. The result: they had the same IQs as the white German kids.
The brain/cranial size refuted-to-death "argument" (if you can even call it that) he spews is also refuted by the SAME GUY HE SUPPOSEDLY GOT HIS "INFORMATION" FROM! His name is Dr. Allen Wilson, at the University of California. Dr. Wilson evaluated Rushton's "work", and claimed that any attempt to utilize his work in search for evidence of racial inferiority "totally misrepresented" his findings that "shocks and amazes" him. Anthropologist Christopher Springer at the British Museum also dismissed Rushton's manufactured correlation. The difference in brain sizes among the different races is 1/5 that of the difference between men and women, yet the IQ cleavage between men and women are roughly 3 points. Neanderthals also had massive skulls. Were they smarter, Phil? Oh, that's right, as you said (in a contradictory manner); "head size is a weak predictor of intelligence" and that "race is only a weak predictor of cranial capacity" (Race in Mind, page 168 and Evidence for Race and Sex Differences in Cranial Capacity)
I read this book in about an hour or two. There are lots more aspects of his book that can be refuted faily easily, but I don't want to make this review too long. I have difficulty taking his "work" seriously. He reminds me so much of the Young Earth Creationist, Kent Hovind - who is an absolute joke in the scientific community. That's essentially what Philly is, a joke.
Price is accurate as of the date/time indicated. Prices and product availability are subject to change. Any price displayed on the Amazon website at the time of purchase will govern the sale of this product.
|
Store Categories
|