Talk:J. Philippe Rushton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

J. Philippe Rushton or Philippe Rushton?

I've changed the name of the page from J. Philippe Rushton to Philippe Rushton since that is how I've usually seen his name written (in the Canadian press, anyway). --Saforrest 18:29, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

His official faculty page gives J. Philippe Rushton; so do his books, I believe. Dd2 23:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Nice article

I thought it was really well written, good job all. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT SOUTH AFRICA?

I find it humorous that u chose to ommit his boyhood days in apartheid era south africa,. I find it more suspicious that u copied his bio word for word except his time for his time in south africa .Check the link people youll see what i mean @www.Rushton rushton@uwo.ca maybe theres more to this "serious scholar" than meets the eye.And dont try and say oh! that wasnt intentional! DPJ (p.s. sorry im new to this site havent learned to use the link option yet,dont let that dicourage u type it in your browser lazy!)

Hi DPJ, if that's true it should be included in the article. Remember to assume good faith ;) --Nectar ^T 20:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

A few minutes ago I watched a tape of that infamous debate between Rushton & Suzuki and the first thing Suzuki did when he spoke was thank the audience for maintaining their peacefulness, stating that he could tell by the politeness in the room that he was "in Canada, instead of South Africa". He then went on the, rather than point by point denoucing Ruston's theories, simply denouce Rushton himself for promoting unscientific work, and then criticizing the University of Western Ontario "for not having a single Professor willing to debate this man", - pointing out that aa psychologist should debate another psychologist, and that its people like Rushton who are the reason that psychology has a bad reputation in academic circles. He also said that Rushton shouldn't be able to hide behind academic freedom for unscientific work and cricized the media frenzy surounding him which has allowed him to gain this status. Dowew 23:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

Like in the cases of Lynn(even worst in Rushtons cases), the controversial nature of his stdies and his character is not given as much spaces as it is given in the Academia. Rushtons theories like correlations between penile sizes and intelligence, from the years he has actually asked vollonteers to measures their peniles.

Here, a bit of the controversy.

Here, more, the meta-analysis results published in the abstracts titled: "Lack of racial differences in behavior: A quantitative replication of Rushton's (1988) review and an independent meta-analysis." Kevin M. Goreya, and Arthur G. Crynsb

a School of Social Work, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P4 b School of Social Work, State University of New York at Buffalo, 359 Baldy Hall P.O. Box 601050, Buffalo, NY 14260-1050, U.S.A.

Rushton r/K selection theory application on human was rejected by a very serious Cross-cultural evaluation research. Cross-cultural evaluation of predicted associations between race and behavior

Peter N. Peregrinea, , , Carol R. Emberb and Melvin Emberb

a Department of Anthropology, Lawrence University, 515 E. College Avenue, Appleton, WI 54911, USA b Human Relations Area Files, New Haven, CT, USA

I have the study in question, if anyone want it, I will email it.

Another abstract, while a critic of Lynn unscientific simplifcation, cover Rushtons "methodology" Are there racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic personality? A critique of Lynn's (2002) racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic personality

Marvin Zuckerman,

Department of Psychology, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA

I also, can email the full abstract for those that want it.

Tha fact of the matter is that every bit of Rushton simplistic analysis have been answered by serious critics, even the methodology of measuring brain size used were questioned. But when someone read the article, it is as if the critics are averages for someone advanturing in a controversial subject, when it is a lot more than this. And in my opinion, for this article to be neutral this should be clear when someone read, that the controversy around the man and his research is just more than caused by the controversial nature of the subject he treats. Fadix 02:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

link

Found an article originally published in the UWO student paper The Gazette [1]

Off Topic: Why Hasn't This Man Been Sued?

It seems to me that his assertions, based on pseudo-science, that some ethnic groups have, on average, a lower genetic IQ than others, is damaging to the lifetime earning potential of members of those groups which are low in the league table (but personally financially rewarding to himself). Since hard-science doesn't support the notion that average IQ differences are mainly caused by nature, not nurture, there must be scope for a class-action law-suit against this man.--New Thought 14:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the difficulty might come in demonstrating that earning potential is actually damaged by his work. Unless there's an employer out there who explicitly bases employee pay/prospects on Rushton's "work", I think it would be difficult to demonstrate any harm (which is not to say that there aren't people out there who cement their backward views with his pseudoscience). The idea of a class action is a very interesting one though. Cheers, --Plumbago 15:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on the damage to his career he's experienced and the death threats he receives, he might disagree with you that he's chosen a personally rewarding field. If you'd like to see expert opinion on the subject of nature, nurture, and IQ variation among ethnic groups, the race and intelligence article is a comprehensive review.--Nectar 15:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

J. Philippe Rushton - Controversial But Commendable

Although his studies are highly controversial, it is accurate and supported by mainstream science.

No. If he was doing science, he would have to admit that a high proportion of his doctrine is unproven--New Thought 13:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps being more specific. Exactly which conclusion are you stating is unproven?

1. Whites and Blacks having different median levels of testosterone? http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/11/10/1041

2. Whites, Blacks, East Asians having different IQ levels? http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/bell-curve/support-bell-curve.html

"The Bell Curve" has been thoroughly discredited. In this book, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray advocate that a "cognitive elite" will and should "run a custodial state" for an "underclass" of people with lower intelligence that is "disproportionately black." They advocate that because "people in the underclass are in that condition through no fault of their own but because of inherent shortcomings about which little can be done...." and "a significant part of the population must be made permanent wards of the state." To me, it looks like social engineering thinly disguised as science--New Thought 21:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to quote someone, it's kosher to actually name the source.

"The first reactions to The Bell Curve were expressions of public outrage. In the second round of reaction, some commentators suggested that Herrnstein and Murray were merely bringing up facts that were well known in the scientific community, but perhaps best not discussed in public. A Papua New Guinea language has a term for this, Mokita. It means 'truth that we all know, but agree not to talk about.'---Professor Earl Hunt MuseBell10 02:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Different races having different median cranial sizes? http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Chart_02.jpg

4. Link between cranial size and intelligence? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051223123116.htm

5. Fact that IQ is primarily genetic? http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/MEDIA/NN/ns.html MuseBell10 20:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The above links come nowhere near to demonstrating the claims that you're making for them--New Thought 21:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh is that right? Check following post then. MuseBell10 02:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(spam article removed): <polite request>MuseBell - intelligent people like to be allowed to make up their own mind about things - not have just one side of an argument enforced upon them (attempting, in this case, to silence the other side by drowning them out). Please remember that this page is for discussion about an encyclopedia article - it's not a debating forum. In order to enable us to collectively produce the most informative article possible, it would be helpful if you could show respect towards other users of this resource.</polite request>--Peter Heyes 06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

His comparison of cranial size gaps between races is reported in the peer review journal of Intelligence. Likewise studies involving the link between cranial size and intelligence of a .40 pearson correlation is widely held among psychologists and reported in the journal Intelligence. His work is affirmed by other highly prominent psychologists such as Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn, Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, etc. Those who attack the facts drawn, rarely seem to go after the science but tout the "it's racist. it's racist" line. Never able to come up with any peer reviewed studies that results in different conclusions.

"Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman, a psychologist and a political scientist, respectively, sent a questionnaire to a broad sample of 1,020 scholars, mostly academicians, whose specialties give them reason to be knowledgeable about IQ.

Among the other questions, they asked "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of the black-white difference in IQ?" This survey showed that the majority of academics believe the White-Black IQ gap is caused in part by genetics. In fact there was a 3 to 1 ratio among academics who felt the White-Black IQ gap is caused by genetics compared to those who felt the difference was entirely environmental.

Human races have been separated for 110,000 years in drastically different environments? Are we to believe that this will cause no differences mentally, physically, and in behavior in our genes? If such is so, that would certainly be a strong case against the existence of evolution.

Science should never adher to political correctness but strive for scientific accuracy. Those who try to silence thse findings, while their intentions are good, do a complete disservice to science. MuseBell10 09:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of accuracy, with respect to your 4th assertion, that cranial size is linked with intelligence, the reference you offer is a study of the size (volume) of different regions of the brain. Not cranial size. The two are not necessariliy one in the same and the cuasal direction of the size/IQ link is by no means clear. Further, I question the statement that the link between cranial size and intelligence is "widly held by psychologists". While a substantail portion of the field suggests that IQ has some genetic basis, this is quit different from making the assertion that psychologists support that notion that IQ can be predicted by cranial size, which IMO is supported by very few psychologists. Arglebargle 9:56-April 8, 2006

You might be interested in these studies:

Andreasen, N. C., Flaum, M., Swayze, V., Oleary, D. S., Alliger, R., Cohen, G., Ehrhardt, J. and Yuh, W. T. C. (1993). "Intelligence and Brain Structure in Normal Individuals". American Journal of Psychiatry. 150 (1): 130–134. PMID 8417555. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) McDaniel, M. A. (2005). "Big-Brained People Are Smarter: A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between in Vivo Brain Volume and Intelligence" (PDF). Intelligence. 33: 337–346. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2004.11.005. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help) Wickett, J. C., Vernon, P. A. and Lee, D. H. (1994). "In Vivo Brain Size, Head Perimeter, and Intelligence in a Sample of Healthy Adult Females". Personality and Individual Differences. 16 (6): 831–838. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)90227-5. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Willerman, L., Schultz, R., Rutledge, J. N. and Bigler, E. (1991). "In Vivo Brain Size and Intelligence". Intelligence. 15: 223–228. doi:10.1016/0160-2896(91)90031-8. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Dd2 18:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Professionalism

JereKrisheil, I don't have time to debate these edits, but please take it easy. Statements such as "Fatally prejudging the data, Rushton argues that..." are POV-pushing, aren't they? If nobody cleans up the many bad edits that have been made to this page, those POV tags will be needed for a very long time.--Nectar 22:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. Both User:72.1.195.4 and I have behaved very poorly, I will endeavor to write from his/her perspective, and hopefully they can give a shot at writing from mine.

Simply put, I think it is unfair to sugar coat the problems with Rushton's methods, conclusions, and simplistic assertions. It is especially weasely when statements made by him, or his supporters, are presented as truth - this continues to happen in several specific places, where you'll have an "Although,..." statement.

What I would like to see, and have help in, is giving a fair representation of what Rushton believes, a fair representation of the significant criticism to his work and conclusions, and perhaps most difficult of all, a clear indication of the extreme minority status of the POV he represents.

This has been spilling into Blasian, where the idea of "genetic averaging" has reared its head for a while. Whatever you may believe about Rushton, his work is not generally accepted by scientists around the world (specific allies, of varying degrees of prominence, notwithstanding). This needs to be made clear, in a respectful way. That is to say, even though the world is generally completely against him, he has a right to his opinions.

I think what is happening is the article is becoming a personal defense and promotion of Rushton, rather than an encyclopedic overview. Perhaps we should be pruning great sections instead of tit-for-tatting? --JereKrischel 22:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems hard to make definitive statements about how these topics are viewed by the expert community, as it's long been claimed that race and intelligence research in general has been refuted or discredited, but the most recent survey of experts seems to show the opposite.[2] At any rate, the defense of Rushton by some of the biggest names in evolutionary biology, like E. O. Wilson and William Hamilton,[3] seems to indicate a neutral article will need to calmly regard him as a scientist, albeit one who has instigated large controversy.

(I'm not sure where the Baartman caricature image came from, but including it is about as POV as it gets on Wikipedia.)--Nectar 00:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"...the most recent survey of experts seems to show the opposite..." Uhh... No. Read that section again. A slim majority think that there's some link between genetics and intelligence. There's nothing in that survey about race.

Truce on tit-for-tat edits, let's talk organization

If User:72.1.195.4 (and others from canada - perhaps Rushton himself?) would care to humor me for a moment, I'd like to discuss organization and concentrate on that rather than tit-for-tat citations for a moment. We can get into that later, but right now it seems that too many similar arguments are happening in the same places.

I guess I'm thinking right now that so many of Rushton's hypothesis are controversial, it is difficult to discuss criticism completely separately - that is to say, maybe we can have sub-sections to each specific "theory" section, and put criticism and defense there. For example:

• Early Life
• Genetic Similarity Theory
  • Criticism
• Race Theory
  • Criticism
    • Accusations of racism/new "eugenics"
    • Disputes with the biological basis of race
    • Disputes with the "aggregation" methodology
• Social Class Theory
  • Criticism
• Controversy quotes
  • Supporters
  • Detractors
• Notes
• See also
• References
• External links
  • Supporters
  • Detractors

I think we should probably save the lengthy quotes for their own section (maybe use references instead?), but we can thrash that out later.

Ideas? Comments? Rushton, if you're out there editing this yourself without identifying yourself, do you have a particular perspective you'd like to share on the organization of the article? --JereKrischel 08:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I very much like the outline you propose. I think this article does need a lot more criticism, however if wikipedia is to remain a credible source, all criticism and praise should be attributed to specific individuals. Also, a wikipedia article should not take sides by making assertions.

Looks good. With almost as many end material main sections as content main sections, I think a single End material section as the article has now makes sense.--Nectar 20:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to take a first pass on it, but I'd like to partner with a rushton supporter during the process. We can work on it at User:JereKrischel/Rushton draft, if you'd like...if other editors would please observe a short moratorium on changes, I'm sure we could have something to present in just a few days or so. --JereKrischel 20:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to participate if it helps. I think most of the time I have for Wikipedia tends to be spent debating with Ultramarine, but I'll stop by when I can.--Nectar 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems pretty easy to make the changes. Mostly a matter of creating new headlines and moving text to the corresponding section. Certain sections like Genetic Similarity Theory don't appear controversial enough to require a criticism section, but if criticism can be cited or intelligently argued, than a criticism section can emerge there too. You might as well just make the changes as quickly as possible. I don't think the Rushton supporters will object to the new organizational structure, but they may make edits to the actual content. If I have time I too might go to the draft section to speed the process.

Actually, I think it's much more complex than that - there are series of argument chains that need to be taken apart, consolidated, and ordered. I'll try working on a first draft soon. --JereKrischel 00:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy help, but most of what time I have for Wikipedia is currently spent debating Ultramarine.--Nectar 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit of professional opinions

I changed the description of Arthur Jensen from "Rushton supporter" to "Psychologist" since this is more accurate and follows the pattern of the description of Psychologist David P. Barash and biologist E.O. Wilson mentioned prior to Mr. Jensen

Good edit. Thanks! --JereKrischel 18:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Detail his argument?

The different measurements Rushton looks at are central to his work. It's one thing to not discuss his discussion of each one, but not even mentioning them doesn't seem like a good option, and seems to give less detail to his work than we give to the criticism of his work.--Nectar 04:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the large table mention enough of them? Listing them out in text seems inappropriate...would you rather lose the table, and put it just in the text? --JereKrischel 05:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

that many African-American youth have adopted a culture of anti-intellectualism

text says He asserts for example, "that many African-American youth have adopted a culture of anti-intellectualism", implying that their decisions about culture are based on their race.

Is that really what Rushton thinks this implies? --Rikurzhen 04:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's what he's saying, if he's stating that socio-economic and cultural factors are a product of genetic differences. There was a lot of "Although Rushton acknowledges <blah>..." sections, that kind of editorialized before giving a quote. It would be nice to have a cite on that quote, and maybe see it in context. --JereKrischel 05:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That quotation doesn't appear in Google, but I'm also not sure that the phrasing makes sense. --Rikurzhen 05:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

American Renaissance

No mention of American Renaissance (magazine)? --Rikurzhen 04:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

race valid concept?

where did the blue and green bag of coins example come from?

here's actual data on the pattern of world-wide genetic variation:

Caption: Human population structure can be inferred from multilocus DNA sequence data. In this figure, 1048 individuals from 52 populations were examined at 993 DNA markers. This data was used to partitioned individuals into K = 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 clusters. In this figure, the average fractional membership of individuals from each population is represented by horizontal bars partitioned into K colored segments. 2 cluster analysis separated Africa and Eurasia from East Asia, Oceania, and America, 3 clusters separated Africa and Eurasia, 4 clusters separated America, 5 clusters separated Oceania (green), and 6 clusters subdivided native Americans.

--Rikurzhen 04:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

blue bag/green bag example just a degenerate mathematical illustration of what "means" are. Couldn't find an NPOV way of saying, "Arthur Jensen is full of crap - different groupings can be distinguished with different means", so I thought the example was a better way of making the point. Not sure if the observation of arithmetic means counts as OR - maybe there is a better way of highlighting Jensen's error? --JereKrischel 05:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Jensen's error? Lewontin's error? --Rikurzhen 05:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

perhaps this is a simpler example of how multivariate clustering is able to distinguish groups when single variables fail (because the variables are correlated). --Rikurzhen 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i think this applies to multivariate clustering as well - when 85% of the differences between humans are within "race" groups, you'll get a multivariate graph that overlaps as well - of course, pick peculiar variables that aren't really correlated (but serve as an artificial discriminator), and you can get whatever you want. --JereKrischel 05:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're not getting it. Consider first the graph above. It uses 993 markers from throughout the genome to classify individuals. These markers were probably selected because they're polymorphic within populations, but they turn out to divide populations geographically too. Second, consider what the 85% number translates into in terms of a biallelic SNP. Denote the alleles + and - ... the allele frequencies that correspond to an average of 85% of total variance within populations is (approximately) 30% +, 70% - in popuation 1 and 70% +, 30% - in population 2. If all alleles were equally as informative as this, then the chance of missclassification is 30% for SNP, but approaches 0% when a hundred such SNPs are taken into consideration. --Rikurzhen 06:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not arguing that you can't define biogeographic clusters - I'm asserting that if you continued using more than 993 markers, those biogeographic clusters would be highly specific (most likely down to the family level), and that the difference between two clusters in the same "racial" category would be greater than the difference between two clusters in a different "racial" category. Certainly you aren't suggesting that 993 markers is sufficient to map all genetic diversity across biogeographic areas, are you? --JereKrischel 06:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

the difference between two clusters in the same "racial" category would be greater than the difference between two clusters in a different "racial" category -- that doesn't seem to be holding true as they increase K in this example, nor does that make intuitive sense to me. at K=6, there's definitely more variation between two populations of different "colors" than between two population of the same color (over the entire set of markers). now, for any single marker, this need not be the case. --Rikurzhen 06:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly you aren't suggesting that 993 markers is sufficient to map all genetic diversity across biogeographic areas, are you -- all? no. the top tier outlines? yes. 500k SNPs can capture most common variation. so 1k (microsatellites?) certainly can't describe a whole genome, but it's also certainly going to be a case of diminishing returns as you increase the number of SNPs. --Rikurzhen 06:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "diminishing returns"? Given the order of magnitude difference betwee 1k and 500k SNPs, and equally weighting differences (which is how you get "K", right?), wouldn't the addition of let's say, 10k more SNPs to your analysis, reveal even more clusters? (K=1...60?) What you're trying to say, I think, is that 1k SNPs serve as a reasonable proxy for another 499k of common variation - I guess in order to understand this further, I'd compare an analysis of any arbitrary 10 SNPs out of the 993 between each other, then an analysis of any arbitrary 100, to get an idea of how the data refines as more SNPs are used - is that discussed in any of your sources? --JereKrischel 07:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

see figure 3 of the paper where the graphic came from [4] they look at a range of # of loci from 10 up. returns diminish for clusteredness, but surely 500k is better than 1k, just not 500x better. --Rikurzhen 07:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading over the study, it looks like K is something they predefined - that is to say, they could have run their algorithm on K=60, and gotten 60 clusters...they also specifically said, Our evidence for clustering should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of “biological race.”. Reading over their study, it seems as if they wanted to demonstrate that geographically, you will see both clines, and discontinuities, based primarily on geography. At the very least it blows Rushton away on his idea that there is a single "evolution" of race from Negroid to Caucasoid to Mongloid (the data from the study show multiple clines and discontinuities, and probably would have shown more if they had increased K, their data set, and the loci observed). Very interesting study, thank you for pointing it out! --JereKrischel 17:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Issues with reorg

Let's discuss particular issues with particular sections here, as per the massive reorg that recently occured. Blanket reverting isn't helping move the article to a more NPOV stance - we need to work collaboratively with eachother, and express what our concerns are, and I think then we can more effectively address our issues. Please, let's talk about specific concerns you have here, and find some common ground on how to address it before doing massive reverts. Thanks! --JereKrischel 21:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop describing all Rushton supporters by their most infamous description (i.e. Pioneer fund). One of the experts you quote was fired from his university but i don't describe him as fired professor. Also, the section on Rushton's race theory was very well written. Why would you erase half of Rushton's own views from an article about Rushton, while providing ample room for your own original research on racial mathematics. Why do you erase pro-Rushton quotes calling them red-herring while keeping in negative quotes?

I also think a huge problem is that we're all editing too much to quickly. That doesn't allow us to debate edits slowly point by point. You've already reorganized the entire article in a massive way allowing four complete sections all devoted to criticism. In light of all the changes you've already made, it would be nice if you could make future changes more slowly, describing each one, and make more effort to not play favorites with experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs)

The problem I'm having is that we did the reorg to separate things out, and instead of working with the new structure, old parts are being put back in without thought. For example, there is a section that says "(See Criticm)", and there is no section like that anymore.

I'm sorry if the Pioneer Fund seems to be an infamous description - they are particularly notable, and I think it should be clear where his support comes from. I tried to be neutral about putting that in (I didn't say, "From the infamous, facist Pioneer Fund") - is there a way we can include that salient information in an NPOV fashion for you?

Why is it relevant to point out where Rushton's supporters get their funding from? Every person being cited has some kind of bias yet only the bias of Rushton's supporters is pointed out. All of these people are being cited because they are experts so only their relevant qualifications (i.e. Harvard biologist)should be mentioned. You seem more interested in discrediting all those who agree with Rushton than producing a neutral article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs)

Well, the obvious answer is that if everybody supporting him is funded by the same group, they may have motives beyond pure academic ones in supporting his research. Is there a contra-example to the Pioneer Fund, that represents Rushton critics? If everyone on the other side is being funded by a single entity, I think it's important to note that too. I'm sorry if you feel like making associations clear is somehow discrediting people, but attribution is important. Much in the same way you'll have media disclaim their financial relationships to companies they cover in the press, I think that it is absolutely best practice here to make the funding connection clear - after all, Rushton is the president of the Pioneer Fund now, right? What might happen to people's grants if they contradicted him? --JereKrischel 01:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well he wasn't the president of the Pioneer fund at the time those quotes were taken. Obviously most of the people who support Rushton do similar research and thus get similar funding, but this is true in many areas of research. Seems kind of biased to describe all Rushton supporters as "Pioneer fund scholar" but describe all his detractos by their professional qualifications, even though in many cases, his detractors have lesser qualifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 (talk • contribs)

I'm not describing all Rushton supporters as Pioneer Fund scholars - I'm only describing those who are Pioneer Fund scholars as Pioneer Fund scholars. Have I mislabeled someone? Or are you asserting that there are no Rushton supporters who are not funded by the organization he is the president of? I fully support putting everyone's qualifications in their description, but we should also note those who have direct financial ties to the Pioneer Fund in the name of full disclosure. --JereKrischel 03:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the red-herring quotes, they may belong *somewhere*, but when put in arbitrarily they don't make sense - PC analysis doesn't refer to absolute genetic difference at all, and it shouldn't be held up as an argument. I'm sure there are better arguments to hold up - let's find them together! --JereKrischel 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if you read Jensen's quote, he seems to think that PC analysis describe genetic similarity and so that view deserves representation. It's not our job to decide which expert is correct. You posted an intelligent expert refuting race to counter Jensen's view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs)

I think we put that back in already:

Rushton supporters claim that when Principal components analysis is performed on data from Cavalli-Sforza, major racial groups did indeed form widely seperated clusters

Would you like to expand on that? Or have we settled it? --JereKrischel 01:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved some stuff

Okay, I've tried to re-add most of the NPOV portions of the previous POV edits - hopefully this gives us a good place to start. In general, I'm trying to leave the sections describing his work completely neutral (merely stating his beliefs, not making every argument he has), and putting all the debate in the Criticism sections - mostly that's because otherwise the argument ranges too wildly - one person will point out A, then the other one will say B, but look C, then someone responds to C, which leads to D, and has nothing to do with A.

I also removed text directly lifted from another website. We're not allowed to do that without attribution. If we want to make those arguments, we can summarize and reference them, but wholesale copying is not allowed.

Thank you everyone for helping with this - I'm sure with some hard work between us, we'll have a fair and balanced article addressing everyone's issues. Let's take our time, be polite, and assume good faith. Thanks! --JereKrischel 23:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Race Evolution section

Okay, I understand that there are issues with POV here, but let's not do blanket reverts. I think the cite for his book is good, the caption for the included image, and the shortened length of laundry lists. If there are additions past that you see should be made, let's try them out one by one to see if we can find some compromise! Thanks! --JereKrischel 00:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue's not POV, this issue is that when I encouraged you to reorganize the page, you took the liberty of eliminating much of the content from his primary theory. You cut out crucial explanations about the relevance of splitting off dates, many of the variables he discussed, the unifications of all the variables through r/K, the survival challenges of different environments. You devoted more detail to the criticism (including your own original arguments) than the original arguments of the subject of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 20 June 2006

Okay, for the variables he discussed, they're all in the table - I think it's pretty much overkill to list them all in the text.

We still have the information regarding the splitting off dates, and we still have the mention of the unified r/K. We also still have the survival challenges for colder environments...what in particular do you think is missing? --JereKrischel 00:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Splitting off dates:

Rushton concludes that Negroids branched off first (200,000 years ago), Caucasoids second (110,000 years ago) and Mongoloids last (41,000 years ago). Rushton has claimed that this first, second, and third chronological sequence perfectly correlates with, and is responsible for, what he believes to be a consistent global multi-dimensional racial pattern on everything from worldwide crime statistics, the global distribution of AIDS, to personality.

You didn't explain how or why the splitting off dates correlate with the pattern he describes in the broader evolutionary context which is one of the most important aspects of the theory. You edited out his quote about some populations being more advanced than others which is a radical idea because most people assume that all modern humans are at the same level of evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs)

Okay, let me try and edit that in...the specific quote you'd like would fit in well with "Rushton believes that this branching represents a linear evolution, with Negroids being the least evolved, and Mongoloids being the most evolved." --JereKrischel 01:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unified r/K:

Rushton believes that his collection of 60 different variables can be unified by a single evolutionary dimension known as the r and K scale. His theory is based on an attempt to apply the inter-species r/K selection theory to the immensely smaller inter-racial differences within the human species. While all humans display extremely K-selected behavior, Rushton believes the "races" vary in the degree to which they exhibit that behavior. He asserts that Negroids use a strategy more toward an r-selected strategy (produce more offspring, but provide less care for them) while Mongoloids use the K strategy most (produce fewer offspring but provide more care for them), with Caucasoids exhibiting intermediate tendencies in this area.

You edited out a lot of the r and K differences he claims to have seen among the races. He describes 60 different variables. The previous version mentioned as many of them as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I think it is inappropriate to laundry list all 60, or even more than a few. The table represents that data in a much more concise manner than a repetitive list. Certainly, the mere laundry list doesn't improve his argument - we've already declared that the variables he's chosen cover a broad range. --JereKrischel 01:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Survival challenges:

He further asserts that Caucasoids evolved more toward a K-selected breeding strategy than Negroids because of the harsher and colder weather encountered in Europe, while the same held true to a greater extent for Mongoloids. Rushton believes that the survival challenges of making warm clothes, building durable shelter, preserving food, and strategically hunting large animals all selected genes for greater intelligence and social organization among the populations that migrated to cold climates.

Is there something missing there? --JereKrischel 00:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The other problem is you just impulsively edit things you have no knowledge of in a way that badly distorts reality. For eample you write:

He asserts for example, "that many African-American youth have adopted a culture of anti-intellectualism", implying that their decisions about culture are based on their race.

You make it sound like Rushton is accusing African-American youth of adopting a culture of anti-intellectualism. It was Rushton detractors who claimed that anti-intelletucal culture was artificially lowering their IQ scores. Rushton simply replied that perhaps the culture was a product, not the cause, of the low IQ's.

I'm sorry, I thought I had followed that reasoning - genetics cause low IQs...low IQs cause anti-intellectual culture. Let me see if I can freshen that up a bit with your thoughts. --JereKrischel 01:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Other problems

Why did you move Charles Murray's quote out of the "Questionable Methodology" section. It's obvious that you just want to cite all the scholars with a negative view of Rushton's methodology so that the reader comes away with the impression that his data is all crap. But Charles Murray defending Rushton's data and scholarship provided much needed balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I can see what you mean. I was trying to put the professional opinion in its own section, because I thought it wasn't a really good argument. Let me see if I can find a good way to move it. --JereKrischel 01:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why did you edit out this part of Jensen's quote:

This is true, however, only if one is comparing the range of individual differences on a given characteristic (or on a number of characteristics) within each population with the range of the differences that exist between the means of each of the separate populations on the given characteristic

You imply that race is invalid because differences within races exceed difference between them, but here Jensen explains that that's an oversimplification. You don't have to agree with Jensen, but his view is crucial to understanding why Rushton focuses on race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs)

Mostly because it was cited in a weasely way, leading off with "This is true.." Let me try and extract the whole quote and edit the section. --JereKrischel 01:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I also have a problem with this statement:

This research directly contradicts Rushton's proposed "evolution" of the races, demonstrating biogeographic evolution occuring as recently as 500 years ago, rather than 200,000, 110,000 or 41,000 years ago.

Can you please avoid making categorical authoritative statements like "the research directly contradicts". You downplay all the ways in which the theory supports Rushton's views (including editing out a quote) and then draw dogmatic attention to what you view as a contradiction. All Rushton said is that the races split off 200,000, 110,000, & 41,000 years ago. This research in no way shape or form contradicts those assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs)

You're absolutely right, I should have made it clear that that is only one interpretation. Made the edit, hope it helps! --JereKrischel 01:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a little better but again I have problems with your statement:

This research is seen by some as directly contradicting Rushton's proposed "evolution" of the races, demonstrating biogeographic evolution occuring as recently as 500 years ago, rather than 200,000, 110,000 or 41,000 years ago.

First of all you edit out the quote by a frequently cited expert Christopher Brand who sees the study as a total validation of Rushton and you replace it with "the research is seen by some". Who exactly are these some (besides you) and why is that bizare interpretation given weight? Also Rushton is describing splitting off dates which have absolutely nothing to do with this study and in no way, shape, or form are contradicted by it. From now on, if you wish to express a point of view could you please just cite an expert. If you can't find an expert that holds your view could you please just leave it out. Adding your own opinions as though they are a widely held academic criticism has no place in a wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 (talk • contribs)

I placed the Brand quote in the professional section...maybe we should move it back around. I'll definitely get a cite for you when the page opens up again. Whether or not you believe that observations of recent evolution contradict Rushton's assertion that the races branched off from each other tens of thousands of years ago is up to you, but some people do believe it directly contradicts his assertions of a tri-level hierarchy of races. --JereKrischel 03:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Some people do believe that the Earth is flat too but that doesn't mean they deserve space in a Wikipedia article. Please just stick to citing experts and leave your own opinions out of the article. How does the spread of a brain size variant contradict the dates at which humans split off? Now what you could say is that the study shows significant brain size evolution occuring after the races diverged but editorializing that as a contradiction of Rushton's theory is simply incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

I'll give you a professional cite - if there is any "flat earth" going on here it's on Rushton's part :). Simply put, Rushton asserts that there is a linear progression between his tri-level hierarchy - and he asserts the more recently "evolved" line is the most advanced. In order for his linear "evolution" to hold water, you need to believe that since isolation, no new evolutionary pressures have been applied to a given race - that the evolutionary pressures have remained constant, and that because of that, a "Negroid" today is much like a "Negroid" of 200,000 years ago, and a "Mongoloid" today is much like a "Mongoloid" of 41,000 years ago. Seing the speed of evolution continuing in time periods an order of magnitude less undercuts his idea because it asserts that in the past 41,000 years, and the past 200,000 years, these supposedly fixed populations have been simultaneously and independently reacting to environmental pressures and developing neurogenetic adaptations. --JereKrischel 16:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hominoids, apes, and monkeys represent a tri-level hierarchy within the primate order with the most recently evolved line being the most advanced, and yet since isolation massive new evolutionary pressures have been applied to a given grouping (i.e. hominoids) so I think it's probably your argument that doesn't hold water. Further hominoids, apes, and monkeys are very different from their direct ancestors millions of years ago. And the notion that the rapid line of brain evolution from which monkeys, apes, and early hominoids chronologically branched off (in direct correlation with their brain size) has continued full speed into modern humans, suggests that the chronological branching of modern races off that line will also correlate with brain size. Now if brain evolution has ended with the emergence of modern humans, then the splitting off dates would be irrelevant because the line from which races are diverging would have no neurogenetic significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.70 (talk • contribs)

You're drawing a false analogy there. First of all, the isolation you assert between humans is denied by the genetic Most recent common ancestor (see Rohde, Olson, and Chang (2004)). You also have Lahn's data to contend with, showing biogeographical continuities and discontinuities that challenge a simplistic notion of a tri-level hierarchy. Not to mention the question as to what is the "branch" and what is the "trunk" - you seem to pick a definition that is convenient, not supportable.

And contrary to your understanding, continuing brain evolution, observed world wide, in such recent times (well before the 41,000 years that "Mongoloids" were supposed to have "branched"), makes the case for judging people based on their ancestor's geographic location only a few hundred to thousand years ago. More likely than not, evolution continues to this day, confounding the attempts of people to pigeon-hole and classify humans into neat, discrete categories.

The most recent bit of evolution I've read about was a butterfly species within the past decade or so. Does this put them higher on the evolutionary hierarchy than those of us who have had 46 chromosomes for the past 200,000 years? :) --JereKrischel 04:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because the genetic isolation between groupings within the human species is much less than isolation between groupings within the primate order in no way invalidates an analogy between them. It just means that the analogy must be scaled down by an enormous degree. Indeed the r/K differences Rushton sees among the races are extremely tiny compared to the r and K differences seperating hominids, apes, and monkeys. This is exactly what we should expect given the fact that the latter groupings experienced far more extreme genetic isolation. Also far more brain evolution has occured since the 3 primate groupings became isolated, yet we still can evaluate them by their splitting off dates. Your reasoning seems flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Actually, *especially* because the genetic isolation is orders of magnitude less the analogy is invalidated. Conflating organisms which can be biologically distinguished as species, and those which exist on a continuum of change (in varying vectors) within the same species is flawed reasoning. What you're missing in your primate hierarchy is every little step inbetween that exists with humans - I believe the example is taking a bike ride from Scandanavia to Africa: you will not reach an identifiable point where people stop being "white", and start being "black". And to assert again, you can evaluate things on "splitting off dates" prejudges the question of which is the trunk and which is the branch. Rushton is simply finding patterns where none really exist. --JereKrischel 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually hominids, apes, and monkeys also exist on a continuum of change. For example chimpanzees share far more of their DNA with humans than they do with many or all other apes. At least PC analysis can group human populations into Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid categories, but a genetic PC analysis of all primates would probably contradict the human-ape-monkey division of primates because chimps and humans would cluster together, suggesting that the primate division (well accepted by biologists) is actually more arbitrary than the racial one. Indeed so continuous are the variations between humans and monkeys that chimps were originally considered to be the product of people having sex with monkeys and there was much confusion among early explorers over where to draw the line between man and ape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

A continuum is different that discrete discontinuities. The colorful thought that chimps may have been a product of people having sex with primates is something that I believe has been fairly discredited - unless Rushton has been performing experiments in this area :). When I refer to a continuum between all humans, I mean that you can find examples anywhere on the analog scale - 99% the same, 99.1% the same, 98.99% the same. Between hominids, apes and monkeys, you do not have this analog continuum - you have discrete differences that genetically prevent breeding (total genetic isolation), rather than a range of differences that cannot be biologically distinguished in anything but an arbitrary way. --JereKrischel 21:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Even today many dictionaries describe apes as a type of monkey, suggesting just how fuzzy the boundaries between the primates are. Of course the continuum going from one race to another is going to be alot more smooth but that's because the entire genetic spectrum has been scaled down by orders of magnitude so differences between divisions can become invisible to the naked eye. In addition to that, humans have become so successful an animal that they've migrated to every corner of the globe, so within almost every race, you see dark skin and fair skin adaptations to different climates. If apes and monkeys were as adaptable as humans, they too would diversify into many different geographic forms and this diversity would further blur the distinctions between the 3 levels of primates. Lastly, human races are capable of inter-breeding which allows all the races to blend perfectly into one another, but this in no way contradicts the fact that 10,000 years ago, humans were divided into relatively isolated breeding populations and even today, most humans can be statistically organized by a matrix of correlated traits that are rooted in common ancestry. If technological advances suddenly allowed the genetic crossing of humans, apes, and monkeys we could see a perfect continuum of these 3 groups emerge too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Most humans have a recent common ancestor of less than 5000 years ago - apes & monkeys have to go much further back. Again, both you and Rushton are conflating two completely separate issues - species differences, which by definition create total genetic isolation, and "racial" differences which are confounded by the continual sharing of genetic information. --JereKrischel 21:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The common ancestor from 5000 years ago is only caused by interbreeding between races. Like I said, if new technology progresses to the point where groups with more extreme isolation (i.e. humans, apes, monkeys) can produce offspring together, then you could see in the future all primates sharing a very recent common ancestor, but that wouldn't change the fact that many primates are primarily human, ape, or monkey in their genetic composition. About 10,000 years ago all the major races were relatively isolated from one another but then new technologies allowing efficient transportation caused them to interbreed more frequently. The fact that they're capable of interbreeding only means that an arbitrary threshold of genetic isolation had not yet been met, but the difference between races and species is a matter of degree. Even Darwin described races as incipient species, and within other species, races are described as subspecies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but postulating a technology that would allow specific species to overcome the genetic isolation caused by the inability to breed in no way brings you to a conclusion as to what the results of that breeding would be, much less if the hybrids that were created were sterile, or could continue breeding with or without technological assistance. The "arbitrary" threshold of genetic isolation is critical - without it, you essentially have a single gene pool and in the case of genetic research with humans, biogeographic differences of an order of magnitude smaller than variation within a given geographic area.

By your logic, we should consider non-breeding cousins as a separate "race", or a separate subspecies, right? --JereKrischel 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And no Rushton is not prejudging which racial group is the trunk or the branch. Virtually all human population geneticists will tell you that by far the oldest and deepest branch of the human family tree is between Africans and non-Africans. The non-African branch however continued to split into other races. A splitting of a branch represents an evolutionary development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

The genetic trees discovered clearly show that both the "African" and "non-African" branch continued to split - why does one count as the "branch" and one as the "trunk", other than colonial western convention? --JereKrischel 21:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The African branch only split into various ethnic groups within the African race. By contrast the non-African branch actually split into different races or if you don't like the term race, geographically isolated populations on different continents. The other reason why Africa is viewed as the trunk is because the first population of modern humans was in Africa and that population is ancestral to all of today's populations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but you and Rushton clearly mistaken here - the African branch has had isolations just as long and significant as any other branch of human biogeographic diversity. Take for example the sickle-cell anemia issue related to environmental pressure: it is common in some African populations, but not in others. For some reason, you and Rushton want to consider such geographic and genetic isolation on the continent of africa different than that between africa and asia? Or africa and europe?

Again, I point out here that you and Rushton arbitrarily made a decision on what is a "trunk", and what is a "branch", and have completely ignored the genetic research that has indicated biogeographic "splits" (which is probably the better term - a split into two equal branches that continued to respond to environmental pressures and selection) within each of Rushton's "races" (and including "races" he never even imagined). See http://www.friesian.com/trees.htm for a graphic representation of how West Africans are a more recent development than Europeans. Perhaps if you saw all of these splits as only various ethnic groups within the Human race, you'd have a better understanding of the scientific data available. --JereKrischel 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Rushton, me, or you wish to think. PC analysis and other objective statistical procedures cited by Jensen and Sforza clearly show that the African branch of the human tree forms a single cluster, while the non-African branch forms several clusters which is exactly what we would expect since the African branch remained on one continent while the non-African branch diversified into several continents. It's easy to arbitrarily single out any one particular trait (i.e. sickle-cell anemia) and divide Africans in to different races, but when the full range of genetic correlations are entered into a PC analysis, non-africans form widely separated genetic clusters, while different ethnic groups within Africa cluster together.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs) 

Read Principal components analysis, please. "Objective statistical procedures" are hardly implemented objectively when selecting what data to simplify away - and Rushton's interpretation of the clusters is hardly objective. How you can assert that the genetic diversification that occured on the continent of africa is any different that diversification that could occur elsewhere during the same time period is beyond me. And how can you deny the genetic distance trees is quite amazing. When you talk about the "full range" of "genetic correlations", what specifically are you talking about? Have you ever done a PCA on anything before? Do you have data you can demonstrate your point with, or are you just repeating sound-bites? I get the feeling that you are pushing a specific POV (without malintent) by denying any balanced critique of Rushton's work. How can we change the wording to allow a full expression of the contradictions Rushton faces on several fronts, but still remain sympathetic enough to allow the reader to decide whether Rushton or the other researchers are correct? --JereKrischel 02:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The PC analysis is cited in the article. Jensen has done yet another staistical analyis on another collection of genetic data by yet another researcher that has not been cited. All Rushton is saying is that life forms that branch off earlier are less evolved than higher branches. This is hardly a controversial idea, and is expressed in biology classes all over North America. The only reason it's controversial in Rushton's case is because he was the first to apply the idea to human sub-species. You argue that Rushton is prejudging the data by asserting which life-forms branched off earlier, but why does this criticism apply to Rushton only? Why not criticise the significance of splitting-off dates across the entire spectrum of living organisms? Why not criticise biologists who argue that reptiles are less evolved than mammals because they branched off earlier? All your same arguments could apply (i.e. genetic diversification has continued to occur among reptiles too)? Why not claim that biologists who study reptiles are prejudging the data by assuming that mammals branched off of reptiles and not the other way around. My point is that we have to judge human biological diversity by the exact same standards that are applied within any other biological category. The only response you've provided to this point is that humans are similar enough to interbreed, but all this means is that races are sub-species and not a species, but the genetic relationship among subspecies within a species is directly analogous to the relationship between species within an order, which is directly analogous to the relationship between orders within a class, which is directly analogous to the relationship between classes within a kingdom. True, sub-species can slowly blend together, and the distinction among them may one day vanish all together, but for now Rushton's ideas stand within a well-supported scientific framework. I think you need to step out and look at this from a much broader evolutionary perspective.

Protected

The page has now been protected to force all involved parties to use the talk page to resolve disputes, rather than furthering this disruptive edit war. Once you have reached an agreement and protection is no longer necessary, please let me know or request unprotection. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

penis size, the r/K factor, etc.

article says: Rushton has not provided any direct evidence to support this assertion, instead relies on examples of evolutionary trade-offs between brain size and reproductive frequency that permeates the r-K evolutionary scale. No study has ever shown a correlation between reproductive frequency and penis size.

there's a well established trade off between testis size and brain size: http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3367 bat species with promiscuous females have relatively smaller brains than do species with females exhibiting mate fidelity. This pattern may be a consequence of the demonstrated negative evolutionary relationship between investment in testes and investment in brains, both metabolically expensive tissues. --Rikurzhen 02:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, Rushton never cited studies on human testes size. Not even sure if any have been done. --JereKrischel 02:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Rushton does either, but I'm familar with at least one study done by someone who is now famous and probably wishes he hadn't (PMID 3083267). --Rikurzhen 02:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Rushton does mention the weight of the testes. I was planning on adding that to the table. He finds Caucasoid men have much heavier testes than Mongoloid men. I'll have to put a question mark for black men though since he cites no study for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 (talk • contribs)

Of course, Diamond only cites a 1974 study on differences between some Danish and Chinese testes on autopsy. Amazingly, this seems to be one of extremely few, or maybe the only study, on this in the world. He also notes "An explicit test revealed no relation between testis size and copulatory frequency in Korean men." Ultramarine 02:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess this sort of leads into the questionable quality of the research he chose to "aggregate"...I wouldn't be averse to making some note of the testes size studies, but what he said was, more-brains, less-penis, not more-brains, less-balls. Kindof OR for us to make the explanation for him, perhaps? --JereKrischel 02:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, we'd need to find testes-size to brain-size studies, not testes-size varying over biogeographic category, right? Not sure if you get anything just by saying balls are different between biogeographic areas... --JereKrischel 02:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Rushton never claimed that brain-size and sexual anatomy were inversely correlated among individuals, only between populations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 (talk • contribs)

What? So the trade-off somehow happens at a group level, but not an individual level? How would that work if a given population group he defines "evolves" and increases brain-size? Would that evolution somehow cause other population groups to spontaneously reduce their testes size? Can any group in isolation evolve into a big-brain/big-testes group? If Rushton claimed that brain-size and sexual anatomy only inversely correlate amongst populations, he's got a bigger problem defending his position that I originally thought. --JereKrischel 03:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Rushton never commented on tradeoffs at the individual level one way or another. But if in one environment brain size is selected and in another environment penis size is selected, you could very easily have one population with the bigger brain, the other population with the bigger penis, without their being any inverse correlation within each population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, you failed to address my point. If you took a population, and it selected for simultaneously big-brain and big-penis, it would destroy any relationship that might have existed between groups. If you can't assert that that trade-off must exist within a group, you simply cannot assert that that trade-off must be constant between groups.

Let me illustrate:

• Point in time "A"
  • Group 1 has big brains, small penis
  • Group 2 has small brains, big penis

At this point, we assert that there is a trade off - a group either has big brains, or big penis.

• Point in time "B"
  • Group 1 has big brains, big penis
  • Group 2 has small brains, big penis

At this point, we cannot assert that there is a trade off - Group 1 has managed to generate a bigger penis (since there is no inverse relationship within the group, according to your interpretation of Rushton), and has now destroyed the "trade-off" observed at point in time "A". Now, maybe, if you assert that Group 2 was forced to simultaneously develop even *bigger* penises, then the observed "trade-off" may remain constant - but now you're asserting that evolutionary pressures on Group 1 somehow affect Group 2. What's your mechanism?? --JereKrischel 16:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's possible for evolution to select a population to have both large brains and large penis. But when Rushton speaks of an evolutionary trade-off he simply means that some traits are more important in some environments than others, so a population with a small brain and a large penis in a warm environment may evolve into a population with a large brain and a shrunken penis as the migrate North. Thus in order to pass on more genes in the colder environment, evolution has traded their larger penises for large brains. This needn't imply an intrinsic inverse relation between the two variables, but rather, Rushton seems to believe that as humans migrated North, those with small brains (regardless of penis size) died out, and those with big penis (regardless of brain size) also died out. If both a large brain and a small penis increased genetic fitness up North, than Northern populations would average both larger brains and smaller penis, than the ancestral population that stayed warm, without either variable requiring an intrinsic relationship within each population, or even correlating among individuals. Rushton believes that those with small brains lacked the survival skills required to solve the new challenges they faced up North, and those with large penises were too focused on having sex with multiple partners to invest the needed time to form the stable families required to pass on genes in the harsh cold. By contrast in extremely warm environments, survival was more often a matter of luck, since not even a large brain could solve the problem of unexpected diseases and severe drought. And since large brains are so metabolically expensive, prone to over-heating, and hazardous to child-birth, those with small brains and big penises arguabley had good odds of survival, because the more children you can father with the greatest number of women, the greater the chances one of them will survive an unexpected drought or disease. By contrast in a cold environment, fathering a huge number of babies with many women will likely lead to none of them surviving, since up North each child might require lots of individual attention to learn the needed skills, and require a father focused on hunting for his family, since plant food would be scarce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.70 (talk • contribs)

So, now you're back to arguing that penis size is inversely related to brain size on an individual level. As an individual moved to a climate, you're asserting that the environmental pressures on brain and penis would be inverse, favoring one over the other. This is what you earlier disclaimed, but it seems to be your point again. --JereKrischel 04:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Prima facie, if the testis size v. brain size correlation is driven by natural selection -- rather than pleiotropy -- then there's no need for a within group correlation between the two. I'm surprised to read that Rushton plays up penis size more than testis size as the latter has a much more direct connection to sexual behavior. Human penis size is inordinate compared to other apes, possibly a product of sexual selection, but so is human brain size. --Rikurzhen 03:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. testes size is more relevant to Rushton's theory, especially since the more r selected chimps have testes almost 3 times heavier than humans. I think Rushton focuses more on penis size mainly because there's a lot more data (i.e. international condom sizes)Kinsley data etc. Rushton also argues that a larger penis increases the odds of penetrating etc and thus is related to reproductive output, at least within humans. Of course mechanisms change when you try to extrapolate to wildly different species, some of which reproduce without the need for a penis.

It seems that Rushton is continually confounded with the need to come up with new explanations :). If testes size v. brain size correlation is driven by natural selection that is proportional wherever you go (that is to say, move to one place, and you'll trade off one way, move to another, and you'll trade off another way), then the differences should be observable on an individual level as well, don't you think? After all, such differences would simply be reflective of having a family living on a colder or warmer side of town, right? --JereKrischel 04:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

By your own logic (which states that correlations among populations must be matched by correlations within them) then there MUST be intra-human variation between brain-size and reproductive capacity since inter-species variation is clearly shown by the r-K scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Um, wrong, by my own logic, finding no correlation between brain size and penis size within a given population, or in general amongst humans, the intra-human variation asserted to exist is obviously a misinterpretation of the data. Inter-species variation on the r/K scale is inappropriate to apply in terms of a single species - much like the ideal gas law breaks down when it encounters Van der Waals forces, r/K simply doesn't apply within a species. The attempt of Rushton to do so is clearly contradicted by the data - data he chooses to ignore. --JereKrischel 02:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually you're the one who is clearly contradicted by volumes of literature you don't even know exists. Sevel studies imply the r-k continuum differentiates populations within species, since races, are as Darwin said, "incipient species". Rushton cites Gadgil & Solbrig (1972) who studied the common weedy dandelion Taraxacum officinale sensu latu. "among populations of naturally occuring dandelions it was found that those biotypes growing on lawns more frequently walked on, mowed, or otherwise unpredictably disturbed (i.e., subject to r-selection) had, as expected, a higher seed output and a higher proportion of biomass devoted to reproduction than those dandelions growing in less disturbed areas. When the plants were subsequently grown from seed under greenhouse experimental conditions using a variety of temperatures and soils, it was demonstrated that the differences were genetically fixed." So just as the dandilion "race" exposed to unpredictable disruptions (i.e. mowing, being walked on) evolved an r strategy, Rushton is on solid evelotionary ground in claiming that those human populations exposed to unpredictable disruptions (severe unpredictable drought & disease in extreme hot climates) also evolved an r strategy. He backs this up not only by pointing to differences in sexual activity and desire, but differences in sexual anatomy, speed of the reproductive process, rate of maturation, and even frequency of twinning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

So now you and Rushton are asserting that unpredictable disruptions only occur in extreme hot climates? And that somehow because you could selectively breed dandelions, you can compare that to a continually mixing pool of humanity? Rushton's "pointers" to differences in sexual anatomy, etc, are pointers to bad data, and the simplistic application of flower studies are bad science.

Rushton never claimed that unpredictable disruptions ONLY occur in extreme hot climates. That's a straw-man argument. But clearly some environments select for more K traits than others, and since all the data Rushton could find in the world-wide literature (good data and bad data) points to racial difference in reproductive physiology, sexual behavior & anatomy, he applied r and K to human populations. F

I thought that Rushton's argument was that because a colder climate is harder to live in, it selected for a rearing-oriented strategy, and since a warmer climate is relatively easier to live in, it selected for a reproductive numbers-oriented strategy, 72.1.195.4, you're now trying to make the opposite point, i.e. that since warmer climates are more disruptive, people evolved an r strategy. You can't have the point both ways, lest you create a logical fallacy. I think this is an oversimplification and that both warm and cold climates have their share of challenges, and I don't see it goes more the way Rusthon describes it, or the way to describe it (which looks for all the world like the complete opposite). --Ramdrake 20:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

By Rushton's analysis, the unpredictable famine, disease and cold weather of Europe would have driven r-selection just as drought and disease in Africa would have. It also begs the question, over what time period do these disruptions need to occur - is a single hurricane in florida enough to drive humans to r-selection, or does it require 100 hurricanes over 10 generations? How many generations of "peace" are required to move closer to k-selection?

But the cold weather in Europe was actually very predictable, and just because diseases occur everywhere, does not mean they occur everywhere with equal frequency.

He's made a hypothesis based on disruption, and then with a magical wand asserted that historically, Africa had the most disruptions, Europe the middle, and Asia the least. Certainly the historical data on climate repudiates this terribly simplistic assertion, and the ham-handed application of observations on flowers to the complexity of human history is really quite amusing. --JereKrischel 17:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The analogy with weeds clearly shows you were wrong to assert that r and K evolution can not operate within a species. Now you wave a majic wand by implying that although r and K can apply within species, humans are somehow above the laws of evolution that govern every other form of life. And Rushton doesn't just assert that Africa had the most unpredictable survival challenges. I think many biologists would agree that many diseases spread more rapidly in warm climates like Africa, than in the extreme cold of historical North East Asia (Europe's climate was intermediate) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

No, I think JereKrischel is trying to point out that assigning an orderly amount of disruption scale to the different areas of the globe is a logical fallacy. One would first have to prove such a difference, and then it might be used to substantiate an r/K selection scheme. However, I don't see that claiming an r/K selection scheme based on something that can't be conclusively proven (that one climate was more difficult to live in than another) works, from a logical standpoint. And please do keep in mind that recent research points towards the fact that the first inhabitants of Europe, the Neanderthals, got supplanted by the Cro-Magnons coming from the South (eventually from Africa), because the Cro-Magnon were more adaptable than the Neanderthal (I'll look up a reference for you as soon as I find time). Thus, I think history so far tends to disprove Rushton's r/K hypothesis, if anything. --Ramdrake 20:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well applying an orderly amount of disruption scale is done all the time by population biologists studying r and K differences in non-human populations. Why is the burden of proof so much higher when humans are involved? And you are correct in pointing out that the modern humans from Africa were more advanced than cold adapted Neandertals, but climate is only half of Rushton's evolutionary model. The other half is splitting-off dates, and the modern humans who evolved in Africa emerged at a much later date than the Neandertals did so the greater adaptability of Cro-Magnon's is consistent with that aspect of Rushton's model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

The burden of proof is so high because Rushton claims it is harder to survive in a colder environment, and you claim that the amount of disruption in a warmer environment is greater, thus making it harder to survive, and making the use of a reproductive numbers-oriented strategy better. What I must point out is that this is the exact logical converse of Rushton's argument. Assuming you're both in good faith (which I do), either one of you is right (colder or hotter environment is harder to survive in), or you're both wrong (the difficulties pretty much are equivalent). In either case, it makes a very weak support for the r/K hypothesis as applied to humans, from a logical stance. Also, the splitting-off date (the first one, about 140 k years ago), was a bit before the emergence of Neanderthal, so conceivably, that would make Africans closer to Neanderthals, and the rest of the races closer to Cro-Magnon (or descendants thereof). This goes counter so many genetic studies I won,t begin to count them. --Ramdrake 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No what I think Rushton is claiming that in warm environments, survival is more a matter of luck (since disease can strike anyone)thus the only way to maximize the odds of passing on genes is by producing as many off-spring with many different partners as rapidly as possible, all of which should select for larger sex organs, more sexual behavior, and more rapid maturation. Since disease can randomly strike any area, those who produce offspring with as many different people in as many different places would be most likely to have at least some surviving off-spring. By contrast, in a cold environment, Rushton seems to argue that survival is less dependent on raw luck, because the challneges are within the control of those intelligent enough to build durable warm shelter, make fires, create warm clothes, form organized communities and families, create efficient tools for hunting and skinning large animals etc. Since luck would be arguabley less important in cold climates, increasing your genetic odds through raw reproductive numbers would be less relevant than evolving a larger brain that could solve survival problems. By contrast even a large brain would have trouble solving the problems of unexpected disease in warm climates.

Err... you think? Can you get an actual reference or quote? And I see even less evidence that survival is more a matter of luck in warm climates. Cold climates brings a higher incidence of upper respiratory infections, snowstorms, avalanches, frostbites, none of which are conducive to continued survival. Not sure if it's you or Rushton here, but it looks very much like someone is definitely spinning here, no offense intended.--Ramdrake 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not spinning, I'm just trying to articulate Rushton's side of the debate since I seem to be one of the few people here who actually read his book. And there's a lot more than just bad luck involved in being killed by respiratory infections, snowstorms, avalanches, as frostbites. I think you could argue quite plausibly that such forms of death would disproportionately strike those who lacked the brain size to create warm durable clothing and shelter, or who lacked the knowledge to avoid dangerous areas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Going back to Rushton's book (which I didn't read in its entirety, although I did read a 50-page abbreviated version that I found on the web), he sustains that warm climates with their droughts and their epidemics offer a much less predictable life pattern than living under more northerly climates, thus a reproductive numbers-oriented strategy was selected for warmer climates, and a rearing-oriented strategy was selected for colder climates. However, critics of Rushton raise (among several others) two very important points:

1. There is absolutely no evidence that living in warmer climates presents more of a challenge (or of a predictability challenge) than living in colder climates (in fact, intuitive reasoning would suggest the reverse is true, i.e. living under colder cilmates is more difficult). As a side point, Rushton mentions "unpredictable droughts" as a problem for warm climates, when during the period he refers to, most of north africa was covered with a rather dense forest.

I think Rushton agrees that colder climates are more difficult to survive in, but that death is more RANDOM (i.e. disease) in warm climates. If death can strike ANYONE, this leads to r selection. By contrast in cold environments, there were certain problem-solving skills people could acquire to avoid death, so death would disproportionately strike those with smaller brains.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

No, actually the only thing he says is that death is more random and more prevalent in warmer climates, for which there is no evidence. --Ramdrake 20:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Historical evidence, should his theory be right, would predict that civilisations should appear in colder climates first, and eventually spread to warmer climates. I believe Sumerian, Egyptian, Nubian, Greek, Roman, Arab, Meso-American civilisations prove to be rather convincing evidence that at least this prediction is disproved. --Ramdrake 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Rushton argues that Mongoloids and Caucasoid populations produced virtually all of the civilization advancements. I don't know how accurate his historical sources are, but certainly most of the populations you mention are Caucasoid and thus probably had ancestors that lived in cold environments, even if they later migrated to warm ones.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

There is NO evidence for most of these civilisations having previously inhabited colder climates, with the exception of the Meso-American civilisations. Again, you seem to be forming unsupported hypotheses to back up your claim. And in actually at least one case [[5]] a sedentary Egyptian population was shown to be related to other East African populations. That most of the major civilisations of history actually developed in warm climates puts a serious dent in Rushton's hypothesis. --Ramdrake 20:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I was forgetting the point of my earlier mention of the Neanderthal-Cro Magnon encouter: if once in the past, two species (or races, as that has not been established with any certainty one way or the other) met and the one that came from a warm climate overran the cold-adapted one, why would it be that later in history, cold-adapted races would get the upper hand? --Ramdrake 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Because later in history, the cold-adapted races emerged on higher branches of the evolutionary tree, while earlier in history, cold adapted Neandertals emerged on a lower branch than their warm adapted cousins. Because Neandertals branched off earlier, their adapations to the cold were more primitive (larger robust body build) than the more evolved populations who would later adapt to the cold by changing their behavior much more than their physique. Rember climate differentiation is only half of Rushton's evolutionary story; the other half is splitting-off dates.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

Also, recent research suggests that mutation rates are also much faster in warmer climates. If it is so, why would the population advancement hinge on the evolution of its cold-adapted segments? I think you need to answer these questions. --Ramdrake 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Because generally speaking, evolutionary development takes place when there are major changes to an environment. The cold-adapted humans left Africa, and thus changed their environment dramatically, so it would follow that evolutionary developments would occur.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk • contribs)

You're saying The cold-adapted humans left Africa; do you now hypothesize that humans became adapted to cold before they left Africa? If so, please suggest a mechanism for this adaptation. Second, you say (humans who left Africa) changed their environment dramatically. What dramatic changes did these populations impart on their environment? Please cite some evidence. And you still need to address the point of how cold-adapted humans would undergo evolutionary development faster than their warm-adapted counterparts, when it is known that the mutation rate in warmer climates is much higher. --Ramdrake 20:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My point here wasn't to get into a debate about the r-K hypothesis (as applied to humans), but just to demonstrate that it invokes unsupported assumptions, that it makes some predictions which have been falsified by history, and generally speaking, upon close examination has enough holes in it that the validity of its application to the human race as Rushton advocates, at least deserves severe criticism, if not to be rejected outright. --Ramdrake 14:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Making the argument for linear evolution

Once we get unprotected, I'd like to propose an edit to your additions:

Citing genetic research by Cavalli-Sforza, the African Eve hypothesis, and the Out of Africa theory, Rushton concludes that Negroids branched off first (200,000 years ago), Caucasoids second (110,000 years ago), and Mongoloids last (41,000 years ago). Working under the assumption that more ancient forms of life (i.e. plants, bacteria, reptiles) are less evolved than more recent forms of life (i.e. mammals, primates, humans) Rushton applies the same rationale to this branching sequence, stating:

One theoretical possibility, is that evolution is progressive and that some populations are more advanced than others

Rushton has claimed that this first, second, and third chronological sequence perfectly correlates with, and is responsible for, what he believes to be a consistent global multi-dimensional racial pattern on everything from worldwide crime statistics, the global distribution of AIDS, to personality.

Hopefully that will be okay! --JereKrischel 02:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good but I really think that second paragraph could include several more variables that were mentioned in previous versions such as brain size and intelligence, rate of mental hospitalization, sexuality and the age at which babies crawl. Brain size is especially relevant because all through hominoid evolution brain size got bigger. Rate of mental hospitalization is especially interesting. And the age at which babies crawl is a good example of r/K and shows the utter diversity of his pattern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 (talk • contribs)

Could you pick three or four variables, and just leave the rest in the table? --JereKrischel 02:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay 4 variables: Brain size, personality, rate of mental hospitalization, and the age at which babies crawl. Deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.83.71 (talk • contribs)

Sounds good, keeps it nice and tight, demonstrates the wide variety, and complements the table. Thanks! --JereKrischel 03:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)