Without seeing the article (which I haven't) one can be certain this result of Peregrine's will immediately fall. How can that be said before one sees the article? The same way the following can be said before seeing an article that claims to demonstrate a perpetual motion machine: "Sorry, but you're wrong."

To someone who purports to prove that the sky isn't blue, or that the sun will not rise tomorrow, or that two plus two doesn't equal four we must say, "Sorry -- but I'm afraid there's no hope." We don't need to see the article.

Notice how the word race is put in quote marks, done either by the study's author or, more likely, by the journal's editor -- a sure sign the thing's an unreliable, unscientific, untruthful rag. Talk about feel-good science! Talk about the intrusion of radical left-wing politics into research! What's next -- Lysenkoism?

To the editorial staff of this so-called "journal": Race exists, guys. HELLOOOOO? ANYBODY HOOOOOOOME? You can lose the quote marks now.

To someone who purports to prove that the sky isn't blue, or that the sun will not rise tomorrow, or that two plus two doesn't equal four we must say, "Sorry -- but I'm afraid there's no hope." We don't need to see the article.

Unadorned, you're not doing yourself any favors.

"Unadorned, you're not doing yourself any favors."

Right -- we'll see how long it takes for this tripe of Peregrine's to be debunked -- as in, "totally blown out of the water." (I'd give you odds, Jason, but my watch doesn't measure time in nanoseconds...)

While we're on the subject, anyone wanna give me odds on when these yo-yos take the quote marks off race in their rag?

Have you even read Rushton?? Where is this impregnable cross-cultural data of yours? Where does an attitude come from that sees fit to reflexively wave new data away?

That isn't science, that's religion.

>> Without seeing the article (which I haven't) one can be certain this result of Peregrine's will immediately fall.

It might or it might not, but it's up to the proponents of the r/K selection theory in humans to come to its defense. So far, that theory is backed only by peripheral evidence glued together with a lot of rhetoric. There may very well be racial differences in behavior but these don't necessarily have to be those proposed by Rushton and company.

One way the r/K theory doesn't work in the human context is that in the animal world r-selected organisms are smaller, but Africans have a larger average body size than Asians. Why would this aspect be inverted?

Does r/K even apply in sub-species contexts? Anybody? If it doesn't in other animals it's unlikely to be different for humans.

I have just finished reading Rushton's brilliant masterpiece. (Lynn is right, he should indeed get the Nobel prize for his work.) One of the most fascinating sections in Race, Evolutuion, and Behaviour addresses the issue of genotypes and culture creation.

If genotypes create various, specific cultures, it seems likely that there *is* a relationship between a people’s genetic makeup and their respective social arrangements. Cultures didn't just fall from the sky, liek Manna for the wandering Jewish tribe. For e.g., the differences in genotype between Northern Europeans and the Australian aborigines would account for the divergent socio-political arrangements that these racial groups have constructed for themselves throughout the ages.

Chimpanzees and humans share 99 % percent of their genes; yet, no one in their right mind will argue that they’re (almost) identical.

That abstract does not bode well, it seems to be another exercise in what Murray calls worthless "junk science". When it comes to race, lies, propaganda, and dishonesty are to be expected. Again, to paraphrase Murray: on the topic of race science is corrupt.

>> That abstract does not bode well, it seems to be another exercise in what Murray calls worthless "junk science". When it comes to race, lies, propaganda, and dishonesty are to be expected. Again, to paraphrase Murray: on the topic of race science is corrupt.

You should read the full paper. Passing judgmement on a piece of work without reading it is not fit for thinking men. If after reading it you find fault with it you should criticize it on a factual basis. Calling something that you haven't read "junk science" speaks more about you than it does about the piece you are referring to.

"Calling something that you haven't read "junk science" speaks more about you than it does about the piece you are referring to."

I was obviously making a general point (and quoting Murray).

The abstract does not bode well.

There's no need to get personal.

Friedrich Braun's statement of 10:51 PM cannot be improved upon. Of COURSE the article will be read (and of COURSE it will go down in flames). By all means read it, those with lots of time to waste, and point out why it is wrong. But frankly, after you've seen the same tripe dished up and trotted out time and again by the same bunch of way-out extreme wacko-fringe radical leftist el-sicko loony-toons for decades -- at least since the turn of the previous century, before the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, when such flakes as Franz Boas started falsifying science -- you start to lose interest: "Ohhhh, THAT again?? Oh, GAWD, when will these leftists tire of their infantile games!!" I mean, there IS such a thing as academically "crying wolf" -- people take it seriously the first few times but, hey -- after the Nth time, guys, they're sort of onto it and begin to lose interest. I mean, REALLY... Sorry, but I personally don't have lots of time to waste examining every piece of radical leftist crap that comes down the pike for its myriad flaws that put so many holes in the fabric of truth it starts to look like a piece of swiss cheese -- I really don't, guys. I'll leave that busy-work to graduate students with time on their hands while I check out something actually interesting, or maybe catch up on a few Z's (lotsa late nights browsing actual research, not chaff). Again: the editors of that journal have deeply and indelibly embarrassed themselves and their publication already from the get-go by insisting on putting race in quote marks. I shall, in their case, put "editors," "journal," "research," and "scholarship" in quote marks. (The difference is, the quote marks I put are legitimately placed.)

1) i have read rushton's book-i found in fascinating, and it impelled me to consider the reality of human biodiversity. rushton bring's together a lot of data which can't all be wrong-and some of it (twinning rates) really tilted me toward acknowledge average differences between races on things "more than skin deep".

2) i am finishing up the book race & intelligence, which is a jeremiad against jensen & co. the articles in the anthology fall into 3 categories: moronic, misleading and credible. there is a chapter detailing the problems with rushton's r/K hypothesis & his use of life history theory-and it is a credible one. frankly, i have always found his theoretical paradigm a bit sketchy, speaking as someone that has taken some ecology and evolution courses and is pretty familiar with the material-but the most interesting point is that r/K theory is considered to be of little explanatory utility since the mid 90s in animal studies. jason's points are pretty spot on and are just scratching the surface in terms of rushtonian difficulties in the context of r/K theory.

3) the article did not address many of rushton's empirical findings. on those grounds, i think he brings up some interesting points and combined with jensen's system building + some common sense understanding of population genetics, the hypothesis that there are average differences between human populations seems plausible, and likely.

for the benefit of those of us who don't have time to run out and read the article, are cultural and social factors distinguished from genotypes and/or phenotypes here? Or does the author simply assume that cultural factors are part of an extended genotype? Are matters of climate and natural resources discussed? And do the data contain information gleaned from multi-racial but culturally homogenized societies such as the United States?
I'd be much obliged if someone could briefly cue me in. Sometimes it seems like genetics oriented researchers are tradgically alienated from fellow investigators in fields of anthropology, sociology, and psychology.

Two comments:

1. Rushton's r-K theory is logically additional to and detachable from his empirical observations of a tendency for an Northeast Asian - European - West African continuum to be evident on a wide variety of measures. I noticed the same general pattern while socializing and dating interracially at UCLA in 1980-1982. At the time I had never heard of r-K, and I'm still highly uncertain whether it provides a reasonable causal explanation for this pattern. But, something is causing the pattern.

This study doesn't sound particularly useful because the pattern is highly evident _within_ cultures. Cross-cultural patterns are much messier. It's in a homogenous environment like a North American university where the pattern is most evident.

>> This study doesn't sound particularly useful because the pattern is highly evident _within_ cultures. Cross-cultural patterns are much messier.

I don't believe that Rushton has proposed his theory to describe patterns _within_ cultures. He proposed it to explain patterns both within and across cultures. In any case, any patterns of racial differences that emerge within e.g., North American culture suffers from the fact that the Mongoloids, Caucasoids, Negroids inhabiting North America are not representative of their respective races.

"North American culture suffers from the fact that the Mongoloids, Caucasoids, Negroids inhabiting North America are not representative of their respective races
."

I've never heard anyone make that claim before.

In what way NA "Mongoloids, Caucasoids, Negroids inhabiting North America are not representative of their respective races"?

>> In what way NA "Mongoloids, Caucasoids, Negroids inhabiting North America are not representative of their respective races"?

Since these arrived via immigration or slavery, both of which involve selection, it is inaccurate to generalize from them to the major races. E.g., the North American blacks were selected when they were enslaved in Africa and many of them died in the voyage to the Americas. Slavery would also have a selective effect favoring certain temperaments over others. Hybridization with whites would also play a role. Additionally, the regions of origin are only a small part of the territorial range of the Negroid race. Similar factors apply to the entire population of the Americas.

Race,

what i found even more fascinating is Rushton's data on the racial differences in brain size. Murray believes that this is of extreme importance in explaining Africans extremely low IQs (in effect, the average African IQ corresponds to European retardation -- Rushton thinks that this fact alone clarifies why Africa is such a backward, violent, anarchic, choatic, disease-ridden hell-hole. see the link for his latest statement on Africans' low IQs).

here's data on brain seize

See http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no1/jpr-taxonomic.html

"I published several other studies during the 1990s, also in Intelligence, confirming the racial differences in brain size. In one study, I (1991) analyzed data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and found the mean cranial capacity for East Asians was 1,460 cm3, and for Europeans it was 1,446 cm3. From a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel, I (1992) calculated average cranial capacities for Asians, Whites, and Blacks, respectively, of 1,416 cm3, 1,380 cm3, and 1,359 cm3. (I also found that officers averaged 1,393 cm3 while enlisted personnel averaged 1,375 cm3.) From a compilation made by the International Labour Office in Geneva of tens of thousands of people from around the world, I (1994) found that samples from the Pacific Rim, Europe, and Africa averaged cranial capacities, respectively, of 1,308 cm3, 1,297 cm3, and 1,241 cm3. Travis Osborne and I (1995) published a paper showing that brain size was about 50% heritable for both Blacks and Whites using data from the Georgia Twin Study based on 236 pairs of Black and White adolescent twins. And once again we found Whites averaged greater cranial capacity than Blacks.

Since one cubic inch of brain matter contains millions of brain cells and hundreds of millions of nerve connections, brain size helps to explain why the races differ in IQ. On standardized IQ tests, hundreds of studies show the three-way pattern. Orientals average slightly ahead of Whites on such tests and Whites average substantially ahead of Blacks. Most IQ tests have an average score of 100, with a “normal” range from 85 to 115. Around the world, Whites average an IQ of about 100, Orientals an IQ of about 104, and Blacks in Britain, the Caribbean, and the U.S. average lower IQs -- about 85. The lowest average IQs are found for sub-Saharan Africans – around 70 (see Chart 4). Like the other data sets in this essay, these are reviewed in my book Race, Evolution, and Behavior. An even more recent book on the topic is by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, IQ and the Wealth of Nations."

There are two big problems with this paper. First, many of the variables are not really related to Rushton's thesis at all. For example a measure of how much males play with babies is far from a measure of male parental investment. Talk is cheap, food isn't.

Second a lot of the data are from the Pacific and from south and southeast Asia. Rushton has nothing much at all to say about those parts of the world. The authors, I believe, call these areas "Mongoloid" but why?

>>>I noticed the same general pattern while socializing and dating interracially at UCLA in 1980-1982.

Wow, that's, like, really compelling data right there, dude! A totally random, statistically significant study! Color me impressed ... NOT. As the saying goes, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote," even if the anecdotes in question confirm your prejudices.

In what way NA "Mongoloids, Caucasoids, Negroids inhabiting North America are not representative of their respective races"?

Just compare some "blacks" of US with real pure Negroids of West-and Central Africa and you certainly see the difference.
There are so called blacks which are more white in some respect than Ethiopians.
And even Ethiopian are in no respect typical Negroids.
Most "blacks" and colored persons in the US have made a big step in the Caucasoid direction.
Really pure Negroids which live especially in the cities are quite rare.
And in the media you see almost no pure blacks.

Chris,

Yes, I know that NA Negroes are about 25 % White; I was referring to White-Euro Americans and Mongoloids.

FB: " I was referring to White-Euro Americans and Mongoloids. "

On Euro-Americans not being typical Europeans, I take the liberty of pasting a previous post of mine, with minor corrections:

"Several factors could be involved:

a) The Europeans who migrated to the USA were a self-selected group (migrant effect: individuals who migrate usually deviate from the mean in many respects).

b) Again, newcomers were a sub-set of the European population. They were bound to show a different distribution of traits.

c) levelling of the settlers by intermarriage between the various european groups in the USA

d) Admixture with Blacks and Amerindians (5%).

e) Natural selection (¿?)

I stand by points a) to d). Item e) is just a guess.

Posted by eufrenio at September 18, 2003 05:42 AM "

As for Mongoloids, the same reasoning can be applied to Amerindians, who are obviously marginal mongoloids.

Rushton's Rule works best for North America, where the various races were traditionally drawn from more distant parts of their original ranges -- Negroids from West Africa, Mongoloids from Northeast Asia, and Caucasoids from Europe. It doesn't work as well for border regions like Abyssynians vs. Yemenis or Burmese vs. Bengalis, but they aren't heavily represented in the U.S. and Canada. Is this a fatal weakness in Rushton's Rule? As a North American urbanite, it doesn't bother me particularly. It just seems more like something you simply have to keep in mind.

Keeping that in mind, it's easy to see a major weakness in this paper attacking Rushton's rule -- it appears to give equal weight to all sorts of minor cultures of the backwoods of Asia, whereas Rushton's Rule applies best to three gigantic Northeast Asian populations: Han Chinese, Korean, and Japanese.

If Rushton's rule applies to subsets of the Mongoloid/Caucasoid/Negroid races, then this paper may serve as an impetus to Rushton to better identify which populations it applies to. Small populations may not be as important in the global scheme of things, but if Rushton's theory about differences of evolutionary nature between the 3 major races is correct, then we would expect these differences to be true in small as well as in large populations.

The ball is in Rushton's side of the field now.

QUOTE: ">>>I noticed the same general pattern while socializing and dating interracially at UCLA in 1980-1982.

Wow, that's, like, really compelling data right there, dude! A totally random, statistically significant study! Color me impressed ... NOT. As the saying goes, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote," even if the anecdotes in question confirm your prejudices. UNQUOTE

Well, he is not the only one who sees that. Really not.
My only problem with Rushton thesis is that he doesnt think to much about environmental factors.
Maybe they are not important for the things he said, but he didnt prove it.
But I would say its difficult to say something about small groups of the Mongoloids, because the most "real" Mongoloids live in East Asia were are not to much minor groups which have a completely different culture.

But I would say something else about Rushtons theory, just a suggestion, I dont know, maybe he even wrote it in his book I just read what Friedrich posted:
My point is that not only r/K selection is important, maybe its secondary, but the real important thing is the social organization.
If you live in the cold or in just an harsh environment, you need to work more together.
And if you live in narrow social structures and maybe even houses its a problem for the community if you are more aggressive.
So if there are humans with more sexual hormons they are just not as able to concentrate and live peacufully under this situation.
They are not as able to form an effective narrow social organization as people with lower hormon rates or receptivity.
So Mongoloids are more able to adapt themselves to new social situation and react not as aggressive as the Negroids do.
But thats nothing true for every individual, just on average.
Just think about the social organizations which were developed under circumstences in which this ability was forced to a maximum.
So its both Genotype and culture which formed this major differences.
But interesting the mixed people seems to be over the average of what you would estimate as an intermediate position.

I've been told that Rushtom has been made aware of this; hopefully he'll refute it himself.