Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3295[evol-psych] Re: Rushton on Richards & Eysenck

Expand Messages
  • McBride, Dennis
    Mar 6, 2000
      RE: [evol-psych] Re: Rushton on Richards & Eysenck

      "Imagine there's no countries..."  I return the favor and misquote another British composer, one who was very unfortunately felled by an American with a handgun.  To which I will return below...

      If I read Richards correctly, he makes the following 5 + 2 points.
      I.  Race does no scientific work partly because there is no sufficient definition of race.
      II.  Because people have beliefs, they must not do research on human behavior, because human behavior is all about beliefs.

      III.  McBride thinks that genetics is an end-all explanation.
      IV.  Richards thinks that the U.S. should try banning hand guns and that the outcome would vindicate his contention that social programs work at solving social problems.

      V.  The env x gen interaction concept is bankrupt.
      VI.  McBride is indifferent to the holocaust.
      VII.  "Rushton's Caucasoids" bear the responsibility for two world wars and more, and are thus at least as violent as any geographically identifiable group.

      I would like to offer the following response.
      First, Richards for some reason elected not to discuss the thesis of my rejoinder -- i.e., that nature selects behavior, principally, and not morphology.  He did however elect to focus on the above seven issues.  In turn:

      I.  Race doesn't exist.  Must we go through this again?  Do not bulldogs and Irish setters represent canine races (or stirpes, better said), not only because of their looks, but because of their inherited behavioral tendencies?  How many reinforcements would it take to "teach" a good bulldog good sportsman skills?  Richards' argument is actually the fallacy of obscurance.  I once heard Mark Feldman (geneticist) seriously tell a Santa Fe audience of mostly older people that if asked to fill out a form indicating their race, they couldn't--because race doesn't exist! said he.  This is because there is more variation within than between races.  Obviously this is a sophomoric trick.  (A)  It is an inferential statistical method used for samples inappropriately used for inferences about populations.  (B)  It ignores the fuzzy nature of even species differences, much less racial ones.  (C)  Generalized, this means that people could not decide if they are old or young, male or female, dead or alive--for that matter, salamander or Homo sapiens!!!  Convenient hopping from phenotype to genotype is a distraction.  Taken seriously, it would mean that Mendel's work must be retracted, because even though there are reliably identifiable phenotypical differences of manipulated plant characteristics, at the genetic level there is insufficient definition of "plant races" and thus the plants are not different!  Moreover, all of this ignores the reality of phenotypical differences between/among races found in nearly everything of interest to differential psychologists--and these differences seem to be global and blind to environment.  A small sample of consistent race differences includes:  perceptuomotor ability (e.g., form board, Porteus maze), perceptuomotor acquisition (e.g., rotary pursuit and other tracking, simple and choice reaction time); susceptibilities to many oncologies (breast and prostate cancer etc.) and other pathologies and infirmities (AIDS, sickle cell anemia...); preferences for sexual partner morphological characteristics; Strong Interest Inventory preferences; representation in professional athletics (especially in the market-driven U.S., and increasingly in Europe where Africans are now being permitted to play sport such as soccer [football]), and the list continues...

      II.  The "syllogism" offered by Richards is nothing of the sort.  It is closer to a fallacy of the excluded middle.  Richards says:  a = a' (psychology is the science of human behavior, by definition).  a'  (and thus a) is a subset of A (science is human behavior, and is thus a subset of all behavior, by definition of sets).  Therefore a must attend to a', or rather, a' is a subset of a.  Doesn't parse.  Richards is trying to drag out the argument of course that humans can't be impartial.  Therefore one's scientific antagonists, who are humans, must be shut down while protagonists go off and study something reasonable.  How to defend this point?  This is precisely why peer review, replication and corroboration, parsimony, public disclosure of data, hypothetico-deductivism, empiricism etc. are all about.  At the end of the day (which might mean centuries), the truth will out in science.  It is not clear why Richards thinks that psychologists are busy explaining "their own Psychological behavior."  Haven't heard of this since introspectionism. 

      III.  No, McBride doesn't think that "genetics is explanation for all behavior."  Not at our level of discourse.  Selection is the explanation, genetics is the mechanism.  Whether Richards or McBride think that "genetics" will explain "much" of human behavior is probably irrelevant.  The human genome program will no doubt begin to answer this ultimately empirical question in good time.  "Explain" in this context means "accounts for variation in."

      IV.  Yes let's have a ban on handguns in the U.S. and measure the decrease in violence.  McBride would personally love this.  I hate guns, but Richards' reply gets away from science and seeps into politics, so let's have a go at it in return with data.  First, the right to bear arms is a 2nd amendment *protection* as part of the Bill of Rights.  It was designed and ratified in a context where citizens--of equal status under the law--expressly wanted *not* to be denied that which elected members or employees of the government were allowed to wield. This is as fundamental as it gets in U.S. constitutional legacy.  It was never intended nor is it now that law-abiding citizens should surrender rights which non-law-abiding citizens will never surrender, even under penalty of law.  By definition, law-abiding citizens don't kill people.  By my quick measurement, and even if I am off by an order of magnitude, 99.9999 % of trigger pulls (including accidental) do not result in death (or suicide, which is roughly equal to murder and accidents combined) in the U.S.  But let's try Richards' experiment quasi-style.  Washington D.C. has the tightest gun control laws in North America, but it is the murder capital of North America.   At the other end of the spectrum, a municipality in north Georgia passed legislation requiring that every household maintain a firearm.  Since implementation, there have been reportedly no burglaries, despite the fact that the law is not enforced.  The middle of the spectrum is replete with social experiments, none of which has demonstrated a relationship between toughness of control and decrease in violence, including in Canada.  People who get permits to carry guns don't go shoot up the sherrif's office.  Believe it or not, it is illegal to kill in the U.S.  The penal consequence of murder *is* a social program that obviously doesn't work.  The shootup in Columbine Colorado involved the violation of more than 20 laws.  Would another law have saved the day?  It is preposterous to think that whereas murder cannot be controlled through the threat of capital punishment (a serious social consequence), that handgun ownership can be controlled through the threat of a night in jail (a joke of a social program)???  But let's say that magically, guns went away.  Would the violence go away as well?  Would we know that a crazy man who had a gun not have used a knife on beloved John Lennon, as one almost did on George Harrison?  Richards should look at the cold hard facts associated with violence (including rape, etc.) in America and world-wide.  He should study who are the perpetrators and the victims.  He would see a theme that is not explained by such environmental variables as population density, latitude, longitude, community prosperity, etc.  He would see unbelievable recidivism patterns (by men who have been incarcerated!!!) that is not endemic to Asians,  or others for example. 

      V.  The explanation of behavior by the interaction of env x gen (complementary to gen, and env, alone) was no more done away with by Hirsch, Lewontin et al., than was Darwin done away with by Gould, Lewontin, et al.  My assertion was simply that the env is *not* randomly assigned to organisms, and thus that gen is underestimated in evaluations of its contribution to behavior.

      VI.  McBride is not uninterested in the Holocaust.  Richards' leap for the high ground is a furtive distraction.  For the record, McBride, a member of the World Jewish Congress and Zeta Beta Tau, is among those who raised his right hand and swore to give his life in uniform to protect a constitution that makes no room for Holocausts here, nor in Europe, where a real one sullied the history of humanity.  My strong feelings about this however, have no more to do with my conduct of science than has the British handling of the Irish potato famine.  Let's go forward, just as rockets go skyward no matter who invented them.  Richards should see that the Holocaust is racial and ethnic hatred elevated to war, or "policy by other means."  Same for WWI and WWII as discussed in the next paragraph, and Bosnia, and Kosovo, and... all from racial and ethnic hate.  How long must we keep our heads in the sand and pretend that such hatred is engendered merely by descent of social reinforcement?  Does Richards really think that if we ignore hard problems that they will go away?  German citizens were ignorant, we must not be.  We can wash our hands or roll up our sleeves.

      VII.  Rushton's "Caucasoids"--those responsible for WWI and WWII--are Richards' proof of parity in violence among geographical groups?  First some clarification, then some numbers.  As the archeologist Lawrence Keeley points out, violent as war is, viewed from another angle, it is the largest act of cooperation conceivable, and thus requires the greatest coordination of plans, communication, supplies, etc. known to man.  Those who prevail, or even engage, are the more clever.  Violence is the means of war, not its purpose.  In fact, war over time has been shown to be increasingly less violent, particularly before written records.  Almost any army would much prefer surrender than risk loss of life.  The point:  Lest we think that war is gratuitous violence for violence' sake, we should remember that war is not unique to humans (it is observed in many species which cooperate, extending from ants to chimpanzees).  Although violence and war are not identity, we should look at the numbers.  There have been approximately 2.5 wars per year since written history began--nearly 15,000 on record.  The average number of wars per year has grown over the past half century by an order of magnitude, from 5 to 50.  Hauchler and Kennedy's (1994) data suggest that the death toll over the past three centuries approximates an equivalent to the loss of the population of Las Vegas, Nevada every year for each of those 300 years.  Moreover, almost 90% (88.25 million souls) of those losses of life in war occurred this century.  This is the equivalent of losing the city of Norfolk, Virginia every day, for 365 days in a row.  Compared to the losses of WWI and WWII and the Viet Nam debacle (summing to hundreds of thousands in mortality), which Richards ascribes to the bloody hands of Rushton's Caucasoids, the numbers pale in comparison.  Guess which continent is grossly over-represented?

      It would be nice to Imagine living as one.  But we cannot begin to Imagine until we understand, no matter how hard our noses get rubbed into reality.  One last note:  Richards has to his credit lightened up on the ad hominem.  This is sincerely appreciated.

      Dennis K. McBride
      University of Central Florida
      Orlando, Florida  

        -----Original Message-----
        From:   maura richards [SMTP:maugrum.twells@...]
        Sent:   Friday, March 03, 2000 5:35 PM
        To:     evolutionary-psychology@egroups.com
        Subject:        [evol-psych] Re: Rushton on Richards & Eysenck


          -----Original Message-----
          From: McBride, Dennis < dmcbride@... <mailto:dmcbride@...>>
          To: 'evolutionary-psychology@egroups.com' <mailto:'evolutionary-psychology@egroups.com'> < evolutionary-psychology@egroups.com <mailto:evolutionary-psychology@egroups.com>>
          Date: 01 March 2000 19:49
          Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Rushton on Richards & Eysenck

          Graham Richards replies to Dennis McBride.

          Our orientations are probably fundamentally incommensurable but here's a parsimonious stab at bridging the chasm. First though, far from mounting a 'goal line defense' against Rushton 'what is troubling me is the nature of his game' (to misquote Mick Jagger).

          There are (groan!) at least 5 major issues now in play. I. 'race' differences themselves: my position is that population genetics can handle human genetic diversity quite adequately with concepts like 'gene pool', 'founder effect', 'genetic drift' etc. 'Race' does no scientific work and a lot of mischief (J.Huxley 1936, A Montague 1942 and subsequent writers ad nauseam). There is no reliable way of defining a 'race' beyond something like 'a long reproductively isolated gene-pool of substantial size' - few people in the world are now covered by this, and certainly not in North America, western Europe, south-east Asia and Australia. II. Whether ideological and personal factors are relevant in appraising psychological research: to state my position syllogistically - (a.) Psychology is the science of human behavior, (b.) doing psychological resaearch is a form of human behavior, ergo (c.) Psychology's remit thus includes the study of this 'Psychological behavior' itself. Psychologists of almost all schools (not least sociobiologists) view people's own explanations for their behavior as unreliable and incomplete. Why should psychologists' explanations for their  own 'Psychological behavior' be an exception? This does not necessarily affect how we appraise the technical scientific quality of their research itself but it does entail accepting that research is embedded in, and motivated by, the pursuit of larger projects of a personal and often ideological nature. Thus such factors as a psychologist's personality, funding sources, political and religious affiliations etc. are indeed valid data for investigation and comment. None of us can escape this bubble into a realm of 'pure' epistemelogical endeavour - certainly Newton didn't (see Westfall, Dobbs, Manuel and other Newton scholars ad nauseam). III. The nature of 'explanation'. McBride seems to think genetics will provide THE explanation for much of human behavior. However, explanations are responses to puzzles, ergo there are as many explanations for something as there are ways it becomes puzzling. Unless we are mind-body dualists involvement of bio-genetic factors in human behavior is simply tautological. How detailed knowledge of these might be implemented, and whether they are even relevant to particular practical puzzles are quite separate issues. This takes us into philosophical waters too deep to pursue any further here. IV. Whether social/ psychological measures can solve social problems such as crime - 'share them' begs McBride. Well - it's a cheap shot but how can I resist the temptation? - how about you guys in the States banning private hand-gun ownership for a start? V. 'e x g' - I'm amazed McBride is still trotting this crude 'interactionist' formula out - I thought Hirsch, Lewontin etc. had scotched it long ago (see also, Richards, 1984).

          McBride (after citing Newton, Darwin and Popper) wonders why I am 'obsessed' with 'dead white men'. Well, its my job, I'm a historical psychologist, '...and Nazis' - if, as a psychologist to whom nothing human is supposed to be alien, McBride finds the Holocaust uninteresting and irrelevant something is so very seriously amiss I must forebear further comment.

          Unfortunately I couldn't open the attachments to Rushton's last reply. I do however find it curious that my simple observation that Eysenck conducted no empirical research on race & IQ differences himself seems to have triggered Rushton into a lengthy peroration on the 1968 Eysenck riot. He reminds me of a ritually intoning medieval priest waving a holy relic in hopes of exorcising a fearsome demon from the nave of his church. Hardly parsimonious or sticking to peer-reviewed data as McBride advises!

          Returning though to another of Rushton's points - 'violence and blacks go together' - not on the Western Front (1914-1918) or (Eastern Front 1941-1945) ! I simply cannot believe that Rushton expects to be taken seriously on this - over 90 years his 'Caucusoids' have been responsible for two world wars (and umpteen smaller ones), nuclear weapons and the most advanced slaughtering technologies in history, from the Romans via Genghis Khan, the Crusades, the Thirty Years War, and Napoleon to the near genocide of native Americans and the Vietnam war etc. etc. non-blacks have way exceeded 'blacks' in the scale of their violence.  While I do not ascribe this their being innately less violent than anyone else, it is surely sufficient to render Rushton's view of the matter mighty peculiar!

           Again, I fail to see what relevance most of this has to evolutionary psychology, except perhaps in helping, in some small way, to establish the boundaries of what is, and what is not, within the sub-discipline's remit.

          Graham Richards

          J.Huxley (1936) 'Galton lecture: eugenics and society', Eugenics review 28 11-31

          M.F.A.Montague (1942, 5th ed.1974) Man's Most Dangerous Myth: the Fallacy of race, Oxford: Oxford University Press

          G. Richards (1984) 'Getting the intelligence controversy knotted', Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 37 pp.77-79.


          A reaction to the most recent Richards goal-line defense:  The endless ad hominem!  As an engineer (and psychologist), I would be flattened to dismiss F = MA because of Newton's  religious, sexual, personal, or other of his totally reprehinsible flaws (if he had them).  Aside from that, why concentrate on such immaterial?  Let's stick to peer-reviewed data and parsimony.  A point about the latter, below.

                  First, I think there is a revelation, and a fatal flaw in Richards' sentence: 
          "Nobody but an idiot would deny that the major human gene-pools differ
          in the frequencies with which various genes (and their alleles) are
          represented (including those with psychological consequences) - but
          this implies gene-talk, not race-talk." 
                  Many (Richards?) seem to be obsessed with the idea that nature selects morphology and that there *may* be "psychological consequences" of such selection.  This has to be absurd!  It's the other way around!  Mother nature selects survivable behavior, NOT body configurations.  Recall that selection is produced under the proximal and indifferent stress of survival.  New body gimmicks are (1) of no selectable value (necessarily) and (2) unaffordable (i.e., if they require more kcal).  Thus, it is successful behaviors that get another day (the organism having eaten or mated...), and over time, (A) morphology adapts to an engineering efficiency, not the other direction (predominantly), and *often*, (B) behavior becomes "hardwired," perhaps through a Baldwin-like effect.  As Popper liked to illustrate, let's take the woodpecker.  Do we think that the beak spontaneously elongated (via mutation) and that in time the bird learned to make use of its new, over-engineered beak, i.e., to find food behind bark?  Or did survival pressure force novel behavior first, in desperation, which survived barely effectively and inefficiently (hard pecking produced loss of beak and death in inadequate beaks), until the beak achieved morhpological efficiency.  Thus it is confusing to talk about evolutionary processes having "psychological consequences!"  Changes in behavioral repertoire--psychology--are precisely what evolution IS, as Darwin himself made abundantly clear.

                  As to your invoking the inevitability of idealogy.  Speak for yourself.  Since you seem to be obsessed with using science to re-engineer things, I submit that I can build a bridge and I can build a fleet of competent aviators (based on IQ [g]) *equally* well without a political idealogy.

                  I think that your algorithm for throwing out explanations is uninformed.  Genetic explanations (hear the increasingly loud sound of that human genome project over the horizon??) are clearly now the more elegant, and thus allegiance to parsimony has mandated a sea-state change in our so-called "default" hypotheses (much as the neuro community understands well.)  The heavy (but deserved<--sorry, personal) burden is now on environmental explanations of reliable and robust group variation.  Such environmental explanations should be crisp -- unburdened by myriad special explanations as they are so so so encumbered today.  And obviously, environmental contributions must "compete" not only with genetic, but e x g interactions as well.  And recall that our environments are not handed to us randomly -- they are in many ways *constructed* around us at the micro and macro levels by our very nature (which is what kept us alive for another day).  That is,  e x g is dominated by g.

                  Final thought.  Why your obsession with half-century-old, dead white men?? the Nazi's??  This is not only irrelevant, it is (probably intentionally) insulting.  If you think that the only remedy provided by an understanding of underlying biological mechanisms is Nazi eugenics, your obsession has blinded you.  And if you believe that there are "readily identifiable and remedial" environmental remedies at the micro-level, please share them.  Perhaps you think that by throwing a few trillion more dollars down the tubes of social reinforcement programs, that they might suddenly get traction???  Or that social scientists might get yet more money to constuct ever more complicated special explanations?   

          Dennis K. McBride
          University of Central Florida
          Orlando, Florida
          -----Original Message-----
          From:   Graham D. Richards [SMTP:G.D.Richards@...]
          Sent:   Tuesday, February 29, 2000 11:34 AM
          To:     Ian Pitchford
          Cc:     Evolutionary Psychology MailingList
          Subject:        [evol-psych] Re: Rushton on Richards & Eysenck

          My eyelid-batting habits are not as Rushton predicts, I do though blink
          when he cites Roger Pearson, self-proclaimed neo-Nazi, founder of the
          Northern League and (he boasted) mate of Mengele as a supportive
          witness to the Eysenck riot.  He's also out-of-date regarding the
          trigger-happiness of London police - a few weeks ago they shot a
          (white) guy dead because they thought he had a shotgun in a bag (it was
          a wooden chair-leg). 
          Nobody but an idiot would deny that the major human gene-pools differ
          in the frequencies with which various genes (and their alleles) are
          represented (including those with psychological consequences) - but
          this implies gene-talk, not race-talk.  'Race' membership doesn't cause
          you to have the gene, it only makes it more likely you will. At the end
          of the day what matters in practice is whether a specific individual
          has it or not. I have no problems with the idea that the reasons why
          the average 6-foot Watusi can out-jump and out-run me are 'genetic' -
          or indeed with the idea that *anyone* who can outrun me are 'genetic'!
          Nor with the fact that I am genetically less likely to have sickle-cell
          anaeomia than a West African. 
          I do not understand Rushton's animus against environmental causes for
          e.g. crime (unless it indeed be ideologically motivated). Reported
          crime rates (like, pace 'r' and K strategies, family size) are
          obviously both historically & geographically very variable and related
          in complex ways to a whole variety of environmental causes amenable to
          change if the political will is there. It is also presumably true that
          if you focus crime-detection activities on members of a particular
          group more of the crimes they have committed will be detected. There
          are also some quite subtle, but readily demonstrable  (not consciously
          racist) reasons why British police (including black ones) target black
          teenagers of Afro-Caribbean origin. The point is that before the role
          of genetic 'causes' can be ascertained we have to have factored out all
          these others and see what is left.  I am highly sceptical if any
          available data-base enables us to do this.  Cross-cultural comparisons
          are also extremely dodgy (e.g. curfew violation never figures in
          British juvenile delinquency reports simply because there are no curfew
          laws - most of us would also consider that the crime rate under the
          Third Reich was pretty high, but most of the crimes hardly figured in
          their crime statistics!).
          It does not take much imagination to think of numerous prima facie
          cultural and demographic reasons for differences between Chinese and
          African American school performance.
          Rushton is clearly stereotyping me here - assuming I am some dogmatic,
          politically motivated 'lefty' obsessed with the 'evils of capitalism'.
          All I am asking are some very simple questions:
          1.      why the obsession with detecting macro-level 'genetic'
          differences about which nothing can be done in practise short of
          Nazi-style eugenics (of which the late R.B. Cattell appears to have
          approved) when there are so many readily identifiable and remediable
          micro-level environmental and social ones to be addressed?
          2.      why his pretence that his science is non-ideological when all
          human sciences are ideological - the difference is between those of us
          who are upfront about it  (e.g. I am some kind of anti-racist green
          humanitarian anarchist at heart), and those who maintain the fiction of
          possessing some kind of split identity between their 'science' and the
          rest of their lives?  A scientist without an ideology (i.e. a set of
          values etc. which inform and guide his/her work) is like a clock
          without an escapement.
          3.      who among British psychologists, aside from Lynn, is currently
          engaged in a serious research programme on IQ race-differences?  Can he
          name more than four British psychologists (aside from Lynn's
          associates) who have done so since 1980?  why does he think the British
          research agenda is so different from the American one?  is it because
          we have all been brainwashed by lefty sociologists, naive egalitarians
          and anti-captialists?  and even if it IS because of this, doesn't even
          that concede my basic point that the agenda on this issue is socially
          determined and embedded?

          Regarding Eysenck, I too was at LSE in 1968/9 though not at the great
          event.  To present events at that time as simple anti-scientific
          bigotry is, as Rushton well knows, totally inadequate.  I hold no brief
          for punching-up guest lecturers but Eysenck (who actually considered
          himself a 'lefty') was his own worst enemy - never making his own
          anti-racism explicit (there are complex reasons for this in his own
          character too - which I will be indicating briefly in my forthcoming
          Dictionary of National Biography entry on him). You cannot take this
          event out of the context of a rising, naive, morally self-righteous
          generation raised on anti-fascist values being infused with wrath at
          the Vietnam War, assassinations of African American civil rights
          leaders, South African apartheid and the nuclear threat of the Cold
          War. To cast Eysenck as some kind of scientific martyr is absurd.
          Following his death the British Psychological Society London Conference
          held a memorial session on him organised by the History and Philosophy
          section (of which I am a past chair).  If British Psychology treated
          him unfairly (which it has in some respects) this is partly at least
          because temperamentally Eysenck was an autonomous loner who couldn't be
          bothered to try and rebuild bridges and appears in some respects to
          have revelled in his outsidership (hence his autobiography title 'Rebel
          with a Cause'). 

          What any of this has to do with evolutionary psychology I know not, and
          rather than try our colleagues' patience any further I suggest we both
          shut up.

          Graham Richards

          On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:11:16 -0500 "J. P. Rushton"
          <rushton@...> wrote:

          > Phil Rushton replies to Graham Richards who wrote
          > > Eysenck, as far as I know (may be wrong) never - or very rarely -
          > > conducted any empirical race differences research himself, what really
          > > got Brand the boot was his publicly coming out in favour of
          > > paedophilia....The fact is that empirical research on race differences
          > in intelligence
          > > in Britain since 1920 has been minimal in the extreme
          > REPLY:
          > What Graham Richards means is that the GENETIC and EVOLUTIONARY study of
          > race
          > differences has not been on the social science agenda. The "sociologist"
          > view of race
          > differences -- they are all due to poverty, social structure, labeling,
          > racism, etc
          > pours daily out of universities, newspapers and televisions.  If
          > disproportionate Black
          > crime, Black AIDs, and Black underchivement (I'm sorry this sounds
          > harsh) is attributed
          > to the racist attitudes of White policeman, White doctors, and White
          > teachers, I doubt
          > if Graham bats an eyelid. Yet this is in fact a causal theory of why the
          > Black bell
          > curve isn't the same as the White one. Similarly Black OVERachievement
          > in sports is
          > rarely if ever examined in terms of average Black biomechanical and
          > physiological
          > advantages like more testosterone, more muscle mass, and narrower hips,
          > but it is again
          > attributed only to White racism blocking  achievement via other routes.
          > Nor do these
          > left-wing sociological theories ("the white power structure," "the
          > legacy of
          > colonialism," "the evils of capitalism") have any explanatory power when
          > it comes to
          > "colonial" countries like Hong Kong doing so well well economically or
          > why Chinese
          > people are overrepresented in school achievement and underrepresented in
          > crime in
          > Britain as  elsehwere in the world.
          > Genetic and Evolutionary thinkers about race (about anything really) are
          > in a very small
          > minority in North America, just as they are in Britain. But British
          > researchers are as
          > well represented among those who do it as are Canadians and Americans.
          > RICHARDS:  And no London cop could get away with 19 bullets in an
          > unarmed black man in
          > the current climate.
          > REPLY: Since the police in Britain typically don't carry guns, this is a
          > cheap shot. But
          > note that Black policeman seem to shoot Black suspects and perpetrators
          > as much as do
          > White policeman. E.g. in Washington, DC.  Violence and Blacks seem to go
          > together
          > everywhere in the world and must raise the possibilty at least that
          > there is something
          > special about Blacks that is not true of East Indians, Chinese, and
          > Whites. (Again I'm
          > sorry if this sounds harsh, but it is a perfectly formed and reasonable
          > hypothesis).
          > That something special may be to do with their excellence in sports,
          > something like
          > greater testosterone, more muscle mass, and a general disposition to
          > surges of anger.
          > SOMETHING more than White racism is going on. Even culture theorists
          > like Thomas Sowell
          > (a Black) and Dinesh D'Souza (a Brown) are beginning to note the
          > pathologies of behavior
          > in many Black communities which is not just blamed on whitey.
          > > The real question is what the point of this whole research project on
          > > 'race' difference in IQ is, given that the differences only emerge at
          > a
          > > macro-level and that the reality of the existence of defineable races
          > > is declining daily.
          > REPLY: We need to know the causes of the variation around us. That
          > includes racial
          > variation. Blaming society, capitalism, imperialsim, poverty, whites,
          > social structure,
          > and family socialization has been tried for 60 years or more and just
          > completely fails
          > to work. We need to complete the Darwinian Revolution, the first premise
          > of which is
          > that there is important genetic variation on which natural selection
          > works. Until we can
          > overcome the fear and prejudice about race from mainly liberal academics
          > there is no
          > hope of succeeding in the Darwinian enterprise.
          > A final note: There is no "obsession" over IQ, any more than there is
          > over crime, AIDS,
          > sexuality, poverty, sports, developmental precocity, temperament, or
          > brain size. IQ
          > simply emerges in study after study as the single best predictor of
          > social outcomes. The
          > whole set of traits go together in a life-history as I argue in Race,
          > Evolution, and
          > Behavior. But we'll never accept life-history reasoning until we win the
          > debate over
          > race and get people to stop being so scared to talk about it properly.
          > --
          > J. Philippe Rushton
          > Department of Psychology
          > University of Western Ontario
          > London, Ontario Canada N6A 5C2
          > Telephone: (519) 661-3685
          > <http://www.sscl.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton.html>
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          > To subscribe/unsubscribe/select DIGEST go to:
          > <http://www.egroups.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/info.html>
          > The Evolution of Allure by George L. Hersey
          > <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262082446/darwinanddarwini/>
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          > GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds!  Get rates as low as 0.0%
          > Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.  Apply NOW!
          > <http://click.egroups.com/1/911/3/_/3786/_/951756633/>
          > -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
          > -- <http://www.egroups.com/docvault/evolutionary-psychology/?m=1>

          prof. graham richards
          centre for the history of psychology,
          division of psychology, staffordshire university,
          college road, stoke on trent st4 2de uk
          01782 294578
          01892 535595 (home phone number)

          To subscribe/unsubscribe/select DIGEST go to:
          The Evolution of Allure by George L. Hersey

          GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds!  Get rates as low as 0.0%
          Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.  Apply NOW!

          -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
          -- <http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=evolutionary-psychology&m=1>




        To subscribe/unsubscribe/select DIGEST go to:
        The Evolution of Love by Ada Lampert



        eGroups.com Home: <http://www.egroups.com/group/evolutionary-psychology>
        www.egroups.com <http://www.egroups.com> - Simplifying group communications

    • Show all 10 messages in this topic