Rushton, why?

J. Philippe Rushton (RUSHTON@SSCL.UWO.CA)
Sun, 30 Oct 1994 14:27:04 -0500

Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, even Vietnam and Thailand are econonmically
outperforming African and Caribbean countries by leaps and bounds, not
just economically and scientifically, but socially and culturally as well.
Crimes like rape hardly exist nor do teenage pregnancies and AIDS.
Most places in the African Caribbean, African-Africa, and African Amereica
are very dangerous places, especially for whites.

Now, why should this be? Is it entirely due to white racism and
the legacy of slavery and colonialism or are other factors involved?

When it comes to black/white IQ test scores in the United States the
data show a clear 15 point difference for 80 years. There is a vast
technical literature trying to disentangle the genes and environments
involved. Surveys show that experts in psychometrics and behavioral
genetics believe that SOME of the black/white difference is genetic.
However the technical aspects are arcane and difficult to follow for
most people not specializing.

I set myself the task of seeing whether I could resolve the issue
using a different approach. So I extended the debate by asking (a)
whether the differences to be found within the USA were to be found
in Africa and the Caribbean, in the United Kingdom, in Canada (my home
country), and in the Pacific Rim, (b) whether the differences went beyond
IQ test scores and so examined 150 years of data on brain size, testosterone,
sexual behavior, family structure, temperament, longevity, two-egg
twinning rates (egg production), crimes of violence and impulsivity, etc.
and (c) whether there was other genetic or evolutionary evidence that
could be brought to bear.

In Race, Evolution, and Behavior (Transaction, New Jersey) I review
all of that data. East Asians are at one end of a continuum and Africans
are at the other with Europeans scoring CONSISTENTLY in between the other
two groups. These are average differences and there is much overlap
in distributions. Only evolutionary theorizing based on life history
tradeoffs can explain why East Asians average a 5 to 6 cubic inch brain
size advantage over Africans and why African women double ovulate 4 times
as frequently as East Asians.


So, why study race? To explain the obvious differences that exist.
Why do people not ask this question when a social scientist tries to
explain Korean/African-American discrepancies in Los Angeles schools
via the tight knittedness of Korean families, a phenomenon itself
requiring explanation. (Proximally, Koreans have less testosterone and
are less inclined to have disruptive personalities. Evolutionarilly,
this is due to greater selection against fighting and mating in the colder
arctic environments where Koreans evolved relative to Africans.

It is all discussed more thoroughly in my book. It is a shame that
so far my opponents, as the opponents of Charles Murray, can do no better
than pout and rage. Where is the intellectual discussion. If not
on Eye to Eye and other programs on which I appeared, then at least
among PH.D. scholars as, I supposed, existed on this net?