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

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

Expand Messages
  • J. P. Rushton
    Rushton replies to Richards who wrote in words similar to those I heard from my faculty mentors at LSE at that time regarding Eysenck s beating which sounded
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 29, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Rushton replies to Richards who wrote in words similar to those I heard from my faculty mentors at LSE at that time regarding Eysenck's beating which sounded to me more in excuse than condemnatory. These are repeated following the photo if I get to insert this correctly. Perhaps Graham wants to include it in his biography:

      At left of centre, facing camera, with light hair is Hans Eysenck; at right of centre, also facing camera is Phil Rushton.

      Eysenck....was his own worst enemy - never making his own anti-racism explicit .... You cannot take this
      event out of the context of ... 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.
      ...  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').
       
      Hans Eysenck was a genius anticipating the way the scientific parts of psychology, would go, namely to a bio-social perspective, in which both genes and environment interacted (genes doing much of the selecting of the environments that people end up in). Currently I am engaged in a citation analysis of his life which will be published in due course.

      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
       
       
       

    • McBride, Dennis
      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
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 29, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        [evol-psych] Re: Rushton on Richards & Eysenck

        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
        Professor
                Psychology
                Engineering
        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:
        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/_/951865244/

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

      • David Mullen
        I am happy that, as an engineer, you did not dismiss F=MA because of Newton s personal qualities as Newton has often been described as chronically irritable
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 1, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          I am happy that, as an engineer, you did not dismiss F=MA because of Newton's personal qualities as Newton has often been described as chronically irritable and insufferably arrogant.

          As for the directionality of selection, it seems likely to me that selection for behavior as well as morphology with psychological consequences seems likely to have occurred. Given the substantial redundancy in the CNS and PNS (for example, catecholamines are heavily involved in both) though some of the PNS functions are not strictly behavioral, a change in catecholamine metabolism could conceivable result in a selected for change in a non-behavioral PNS function that also had psychological consequences.

          For example, Jerome Kagan has argued that a change in norepinephrine metabolism in northern European populations may have resulted in improved resistance to cold (more efficient shivering )-- a PNS impact. Yet this same increase in norepinephrine may have had a secondary result psychologically in an increase in anxiety and inhibition due to an increase in locus caeruleus activity in the CNS.

          As a clinician, I am increasingly impressed with the potency of genetic risk factors for psychiatric disorders and it often seems that understanding the impact of environmental experience helps me understand the specific CONTENT of the disorder more than whether or not the person is likely to develop a disorder in the first place. So I am clearly not interested in dismissing or minimizing the importance of genetic factors. I do think, however, that perhaps our collective energies would be better spent in trying to understand HOW genes and environment together generate persons with behavior rather than arguing about which influence is "more important", ie I think I am becoming thoroughly tired of the nature nurture debate.

          David J. Mullen, MD
          Assistant Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
          University of New Mexico School of Medicine

          >>> "McBride, Dennis" <dmcbride@...> 02/29/00 06:07PM >>>
          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
          Professor
          Psychology
          Engineering
          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:
          > 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/_/951865244/
          >
          > -- 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:
          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/

          ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Start your own free email group on eGroups.
          http://click.egroups.com/1/1884/3/_/3786/_/951940142/

          -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
          -- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=evolutionary-psychology&m=1
        • McBride, Dennis
          David--You make good points. I want to clarify one thing, however. Psychologists are interested in behavior at any observable level of resolution (i.e. the
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 2, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            [evol-psych] Re: Rushton on Richards & Eysenck

            David--You make good points.  I want to clarify one thing, however.  Psychologists are interested in behavior at any observable level of resolution (i.e. the definition of psychology is "the scientific study of the behavior of organisms").  So,  PNS phenomena, like shivering, *is* behavior.  When we talk about psychological consequences, therefore, we are talking about an entire repertoire of behavior, from reflexive to cognitive, as survival strategies or adjuncts that were selected under pressure.  Shivering is an excellent example of a survival strategy (unconscious as it is).  The so-called "hunting" reflex (which helps regulate splanchnic temperature in Europeans and Asians) is reportedly absent in Africans--this is an example of an evolved evolutionary thermoregulatory strategy that was produced under the pressures of cold and varying ambient temperatures.  What should be interesting to a clinician like yourself is how strategies that evolved during our ancestry have become (a) unuseful (e.g., the appendix, to use a morphological reference to an organ that apparently *behaved*), (b) re-used for novel purpose (e.g., some of us have speculated about possible past recruitment of hibernative processes to "support, physiologically" clinical depression), or (c) retained unfortunately (because it's so darned hard to rid built-in strategies) to maladaptive ends (e.g., pregnancy sickness and anorexia nervosa).  A biological view promises serious promise for medicine; do you think?   

            -----Original Message-----
            From:   David Mullen [SMTP:DMullen@...]
            Sent:   Wednesday, March 01, 2000 7:41 PM
            To:     evolutionary-psychology@egroups.com; dmcbride@...
            Subject:        [evol-psych] Re: Rushton on Richards & Eysenck

            I am happy that, as an engineer, you did not dismiss F=MA because of Newton's personal qualities as Newton has often been described as chronically irritable and insufferably arrogant. 

            As for the directionality of selection, it seems likely to me that selection for behavior as well as morphology with psychological consequences seems likely to have occurred.  Given the substantial redundancy in the CNS and PNS (for example, catecholamines are heavily involved in both) though some of the PNS functions are not strictly behavioral, a change in catecholamine metabolism could conceivable result in a selected for change in a non-behavioral PNS function that also had psychological consequences.

             For example, Jerome Kagan has argued that a change in norepinephrine metabolism in northern European populations may have resulted in improved resistance to cold (more efficient shivering )-- a PNS impact.  Yet this same increase in norepinephrine may have had a secondary result psychologically in an increase in anxiety and inhibition due to an increase in locus caeruleus activity in the CNS.

            As a clinician, I am increasingly impressed with the potency of genetic risk factors for psychiatric disorders and it often seems that understanding the impact of environmental experience helps me understand the specific CONTENT of the disorder more than whether or not the person is likely to develop a disorder in the first place.  So I am clearly not interested in dismissing or minimizing the importance of genetic factors.  I do think, however, that perhaps our collective energies would be better spent in trying to understand HOW genes and environment together generate persons with behavior rather than arguing about which influence is "more important", ie I think I am becoming thoroughly tired of the nature nurture debate. 

            David J. Mullen, MD
            Assistant Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
            University of New Mexico School of Medicine

            >>> "McBride, Dennis" <dmcbride@...> 02/29/00 06:07PM >>>
            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
            Professor
                    Psychology
                    Engineering
            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:
            > 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/_/951865244/
            >
            > -- 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:
            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/

            ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Start your own free email group on eGroups.
            http://click.egroups.com/1/1884/3/_/3786/_/951940142/

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

          • maura richards
            ... From: McBride, Dennis To: evolutionary-psychology@egroups.com Date: 01 March 2000
            Message 5 of 10 , Mar 3, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              [evol-psych] Re: Rushton on Richards & Eysenck
               
              -----Original Message-----
              From: McBride, Dennis <dmcbride@...>
              To: 'evolutionary-psychology@egroups.com' <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
              Professor
                      Psychology
                      Engineering
              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:
              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/_/951865244/

              -- 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:
              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/
              eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/evolutionary-psychology
              www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
            • McBride, Dennis
              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
              Message 6 of 10 , Mar 6, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                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
                Professor
                        Psychology
                        Engineering
                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
                    Professor
                           
                    Psychology
                           
                    Engineering
                    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:
                    <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/_/951865244/>

                    -- 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:
                  <
                  http://www.egroups.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/info.html>
                  The Evolution of Love by Ada Lampert
                  <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275959074/darwinanddarwini/>
                    _____ 

                   <http://click.egroups.com/1/1606/3/_/3786/_/952125477/>

                    <http://adimg.egroups.com/img/1606/3/_/3786/_/952125477/EEMOC468.gif>

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

              • Graham D. Richards
                To take McBride s latest points in turn. 1. I totally agree that nature selects behaviour with respect to morphological features which are directly related to
                Message 7 of 10 , Mar 14, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  To take McBride's latest points in turn.
                  1. I totally agree that nature selects behaviour with respect to
                  morphological features which are directly related to behaviour. Some
                  features of course are not, serving in a passive fashion to enhance
                  survival (e.g. in relation to climatic conditions - subcutaneous fat
                  levels, skin pigmentation, nasal morphology). The principle can also
                  hardly apply to plant evolution without stretching the notion of
                  'behaviour' rather too far. Other exceptions would be traits governed
                  by 'hitch-hiking' genes. Nonetheless I am happy to go along with this
                  generalisation, hence I did not address it. I also do not quite see
                  how it bears on the main issues in question.

                  2. I did not say 'race doesn't exist', I said the concept does no
                  scientific work and that modern population genetics can handle human
                  genetic diversity quite readily without it. The concept does the
                  social work of providing a loose set of categorisations for refering to
                  this diversity, but this social work is now overwhelmingly negative in
                  character because the term has essentialist connotations completely out
                  of kilter with current genetic understanding. The canine analogy is
                  misleading - different dog breeds have been engineered over centuries
                  precisely by reproductively isolating various gene-pools (hence many
                  breeds are now seriously inbred and wouldn't last five minutes in the
                  wild). As I mentioned before, I have a grandchild who is an eighth
                  Ghanaian, three eighths white British, a quarter Jewish and a quarter
                  Irish - so what 'race' is he? Would McBride wish him to be labelled an
                  'octoroon'? It is not a question of 'within race variation' exceeding
                  'inter-race' variation, but that the number of people who can be
                  assigned a clear racial identity on the basis of membership of a large,
                  long reproductively isolated, gene pool is decreasing daily and almost
                  certainly does not include the vast majority of subjects in
                  current North & Latin American and European research. This is quite
                  clearly not to say that there aren't group differences of various
                  kinds, but it is to say that these groups are not fixed natural
                  categories of a 'racial' kind. (Incidentally, it occurs to me that the
                  long-established and largely reproductively isolated group
                  traditionally refered to as 'midgets' or 'circus dwarves' is never
                  considered to be a 'race'. Why is that?)

                  2. My syllogism - there's no excluded middle in it, it can be
                  stated in elementary Barbara mode:
                  All human behaviour (A) is the legitimate subject matter of
                  Psychology(B)
                  Being a psychologist (C) is a form of human behaviour (A)
                  ERGO
                  Being a psychologist (C) is a legitimate subject matter of
                  Psychology
                  All A is B, C is A, ergo C is B.
                  That Psychology is in this reflexive bind is inescapable. And I
                  in no way wish to exempt myself from it. McBride seems to think it is
                  merely a rhetorical ploy to enable me to 'shut down' scientific
                  antagonists. This is far from the case, all I am objecting to is the
                  tendency of some psychologists (like many other scientists) to feel
                  under attack when subjected to the same kind of scrutiny to
                  which they hold everything else in the world may be legitimately
                  subjected. That is not a scientific attitude - its blind dogma. The
                  truth will only out in science if it is prepared to reflexively examine
                  itself in the same spirit it addresses everything else. Regarding hard
                  data - this exchange began with my claim that interest in 'race
                  differences in IQ' was an overwhelmingly North American obsession and
                  that this was for clear cultural reasons. In my book 'Race', Racism
                  and Psychology: towards a reflexive history (1997) I present some data
                  on race-related publications during the interwar period drawn from
                  Psychological Abstracts and Psychological Record. This clearly shows
                  that non-American anglophone publications on the topic are virtually
                  absent until the 1930s, when there is a small flurry (often
                  anti-differences in conclusion) while the German 1930s publications are
                  radically different in character - Jaensch for example objected to
                  comparing races on intelligence because IQ tests were biased towards
                  Jewish intelligence! To return to McBride's points - I did not say
                  psychologists in general were busy explaining their own Psychological
                  behavior, I only said that doing so was a legitimate psychological
                  project and one which historical psychologists are beginning to
                  undertake. Introspection doesn't come into it. On the contrary, it is
                  because psychologists of almost all theoretical persuasions (not least
                  sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists!) have concluded that
                  self-explanations for behaviour are invariably incomplete and often
                  erroneous that psychologists own accounts of their 'psychological
                  behaviour' cannot be taken at face value. Being a scientist is not to
                  be in some privileged spiritual condition.

                  3. Regarding hand-guns and possible effects on violence of their
                  control. Never mind urban DC versus 'a municipality' in north Georgia -
                  how about the United States versus say Norway or even Poland. This is
                  a topic on which, to most Europeans, US attitudes seem most bizarre and
                  irrational. The world is not divided into law-abiding citizens and
                  law-breakers - people shoot one another in fits of rage, madness,
                  momentary loss of temper and by accident as well. The US is, let's be
                  frank, a gun-fetishist culture, 'you will not take my gun from me until
                  you prise it from my cold dead hands' as the old NRA bumper-sticker had
                  it. Really and truly, to most of us this side of the pond that's just
                  plain wierd. George Harrison (knife attack) survived, Lennon (shot)
                  didn't - there's a whole world of difference between what it takes to
                  shoot someone and what it takes to kill them in a knife-fight. But what
                  is McBride suggesting is the alternative that a knowledge of
                  selection-guided genetic causes of violence might bring?

                  4. env x gen. My own problem with this is that 'environment' is
                  discussed as if it were a coherent independent variable, when it simply
                  means everything that isn't genetic, from the weather to the education
                  system. Since (as Eysenck etc. state) genes determine capacity,
                  'environment' determines how far that potential is realised. Again as
                  Jensen & Eysenck etc. state, in the ideal environment all variation
                  would be genetic (i.e. have an H score of 1) which would then be read
                  as meaning that environment had no effect! This leads to so many
                  conceptual tangles and absurdities however that I will refrain from
                  rehearsing them again here (see my 1974 paper cited previously and the
                  book cited above here).

                  5. I am happy that I misunderstood McBride's attitude to the
                  Holocaust, though he must admit his original wording was open to such a
                  misunderstanding. I am less sure that he is right in seeming to
                  ascribe all war to racial and ethnic hatred, although this obviously
                  has a lot to do with much of it, but so do economics, religion, social
                  structure (in cases of civil war) and so on. I sense that there is a
                  basic temperamental difference between us - McBride is passionately
                  forward looking and perhaps believes the lessons of the past are both
                  clear and have already been learned, whereas I believe neither. I
                  certainly do not believe hard problems will go away if ignored, but I
                  don't believe they can be cured until we more fully appreciate quite
                  how hard they are. McBride seems to think a technological fix is
                  around the corner with the human genome project. I rather fear that
                  future technological fixes (in whatever area) will prove no less
                  disastrous than those tried in the past. Are our positions
                  fundamentally incompatible or potentially complementary?

                  6. On war. My point was only that the historical record hardly
                  shows 'Caucusoids' to have been less violent than any other group. If
                  Africa has been 'grossly over-represented' this (i.e.last) century this
                  has presumably been during the latter half of the century during the
                  post-colonial mayhem in which plenty of socio-economic and cultural
                  causes are patently clearly implicated (not forgetting white
                  mercenaries!). Was warfare as rife in 14th century Africa as in 14th
                  century Europe? Some Native American cultures were undoubtedly fairly
                  violent in character, but the fatality levels which ensued pale into
                  insignificance beside that resulting from the European onslaught. Even
                  on his figures however, of 88.25 million war deaths in the twentieth
                  century the combined non-'Negroid'-inflicted figure is hardly
                  insignificant - perhaps he could provide the total of post-1900 Boer
                  War+WW1+Russian Civil War+ Spanish Civil War+Sino-Japanese
                  War+WW2+Korean War+deaths resulting from British (and other European)
                  anti-independence movement actions in their colonies etc. etc.? (Our
                  perception of violence is admittedly rather odd and prone to bias - why
                  is it that 'hacked to death with a machete' sounds so much more savage
                  than 'mown down with a machine gun'- let alone of course 'regrettable
                  collateral damage from a cruise missile'?)


                  I'm still not entirely clear whether we are genuinely opposed or only
                  at cross-purposes. Perhaps our mutual misunderstandings are cultural
                  in origin!

                  Sliante, loch heim or whatever!

                  Graham Richards



                  On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 20:24:46 -0500 "McBride, Dennis"
                  <dmcbride@...> wrote:

                  > "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
                  > Professor
                  > Psychology
                  > Engineering
                  > 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
                  > > Professor
                  > > Psychology
                  > > Engineering
                  > > 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:
                  > > <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/_/951865244/>
                  > >
                  > > -- 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:
                  > > <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/>
                  > > _____
                  > >
                  > > <http://click.egroups.com/1/1838/3/_/3786/_/951940142/>
                  > >
                  > > <http://adimg.egroups.com/img/1838/3/_/3786/_/951940142/ColorMeRevised-468
                  > > .gif>
                  > >
                  > > eGroups.com Home:
                  > > <http://www.egroups.com/group/evolutionary-psychology>
                  > > www.egroups.com <http://www.egroups.com> - Simplifying group
                  > > communications
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > _____
                  > >
                  > > To subscribe/unsubscribe/select DIGEST go to:
                  > > <http://www.egroups.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/info.html>
                  > > The Evolution of Love by Ada Lampert
                  > > <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275959074/darwinanddarwini/>
                  > > _____
                  > >
                  > > <http://click.egroups.com/1/1606/3/_/3786/_/952125477/>
                  > > <http://adimg.egroups.com/img/1606/3/_/3786/_/952125477/EEMOC468.gif>
                  > > eGroups.com Home: <http://www.egroups.com/group/evolutionary-psychology>
                  > > www.egroups.com <http://www.egroups.com> - Simplifying group
                  > > communications
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  > To subscribe/unsubscribe/select DIGEST go to:
                  > http://www.egroups.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/info.html
                  > Evolution and the Theory of Games
                  > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521288843/darwinanddarwini/
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  > Planning a party? iParty.com is your complete source for party planning and
                  > supplies, with everything you need to throw the perfect party!
                  > http://click.egroups.com/1/1635/3/_/3786/_/952457275/
                  >
                  > -- Check out your group's private Chat room
                  > -- http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=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)
                • McBride, Dennis
                  Richards reply suggests that we are converging. My reply (and I am away from email for more than a week...) 1. I am happy that we now both agree with Mr.
                  Message 8 of 10 , Mar 14, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    RE: [evol-psych] Re: Rushton on Richards & Eysenck

                    Richards' reply suggests that we are converging.  My reply (and I am away from email for more than a week...)

                    1.  I am happy that we now both agree with Mr. Darwin.  By the way, I think that Richards would agree that subcutaneous fat, etc., are more appropriately cited as "production of subcutaneous fat."  That is, this is *behavior* - albeit at the physiological level, and not mere morphology.  As I noted earlier, there are demonstrated group differences among H. sapiens in thermoregulative behavior (as in the production of pigmentation, its responsivity to sun exposure), most notably, in the so-called "hunting response" (a closed loop change in vasodilation/constriction in the extremities) which is apparently absent among Africans.

                    2.  We are at cross-purposes on the existence and importance of race as a description of behavioral and morphological survival. Races are composites of strategies that are honed to the physics of environments, where a very stingy Mother Nature almost never over-engineers.  Environments are, in turn themselves geographically-identifiable--including prey and predator, infectious agents, etc.  I presume Richards agrees that such are part of (rather, organic to) our environment, and that such other animals develop locally-effective strategies (e.g., thermoregulative, such as Allen's rule and Bergmann's rule as minor examples, which convey concommitant ambulatory alterations).  Richards nominates dwarfs as a race.  Perhaps, but such "abnormalities" as achondroplasia (and kin) are fairly well known gene "defects" and doubtful constitute a race.

                    3.  McBride has demonstrated the ruse.  No syllogism is required simply to nominate the behavior of psychologists as a subset of behavior that might be interesting to study.  This does *not* say, ergo, that psychologists should not study the behavior of H. sapiens.

                    4.  I actually agree for the most part, and think we have reached convergence.

                    5.  I misunderstand Richards' ideas about passion and hope and lessons.  We agree wholeheartedly that we must understand problems before we (someone else, if I have a say) solve them.  McBride does not think there is a fix around the corner.  I do think that there will be compelling information about the human phenome as derived from knowledge of its relationship with the human genome.  Otherwise, we seem to be complementary.

                    6.  I suggest that Richards take a look at Lawrence Keely's (1997?? don't have the ref close) book on war before civilization.  The death toll according to this war archeologist was staggering pre-historically.  And I believe that on looking at the data that Richards will smartly dismiss his thesis that white men caused war and savagery in Africa, native America, etc.  The data are stunning.  (Richards' playfulness with measures such as machete vs. machine guns was actually operationally defined by Keely:  Instrumental violence - that required to do an opponent in is distinct from gratuitous violence, as measured, for example by number of [estimated] unnecessary hacks on examined skeletons.)  The numbers in pre-history speak for themselves.

                    Perhaps we are at cross purposes.  To state mine:  et rerum causus... 

                    Dennis K. McBride
                    Professor
                            Psychology
                            Engineering
                    University of Central Florida 

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From:   Graham D. Richards [SMTP:G.D.Richards@...]
                      Sent:   Tuesday, March 14, 2000 7:26 AM
                      To:     McBride, Dennis
                      Cc:     'evolutionary-psychology@egroups.com'
                      Subject:        [evol-psych] Re: Rushton on Richards & Eysenck


                       To take McBride's latest points in turn.
                      1.      I totally agree that nature selects behaviour with respect to
                      morphological features which are directly related to behaviour.  Some
                      features of course are not, serving in a passive fashion to enhance
                      survival (e.g. in relation to climatic conditions - subcutaneous fat
                      levels, skin pigmentation, nasal morphology).  The principle can also
                      hardly apply to plant evolution without stretching the notion of
                      'behaviour' rather too far.  Other exceptions would be traits governed
                      by 'hitch-hiking' genes.  Nonetheless I am happy to go along with this
                      generalisation, hence I did not address it.  I also do not quite see
                      how it bears on the main issues in question.

                      2.      I did not say 'race doesn't exist', I said the concept does no
                      scientific work and that modern population genetics can handle human
                      genetic diversity quite readily without it.  The concept does the
                      social work of providing a loose set of categorisations for refering to
                      this diversity, but this social work is now overwhelmingly negative in
                      character because the term has essentialist connotations completely out
                      of kilter with current genetic understanding.  The canine analogy is
                      misleading - different dog breeds have been engineered over centuries
                      precisely by reproductively isolating various gene-pools (hence many
                      breeds are now seriously inbred and wouldn't last five minutes in the
                      wild). As I mentioned before, I have a grandchild who is an eighth
                      Ghanaian, three eighths white British, a quarter Jewish and a quarter
                      Irish - so what 'race' is he?  Would McBride wish him to be labelled an
                      'octoroon'?  It is not a question of 'within race variation' exceeding
                      'inter-race' variation, but that the number of people who can be
                      assigned a clear racial identity on the basis of membership of a large,
                      long reproductively isolated, gene pool is decreasing daily and almost
                      certainly does not include the vast majority of subjects in
                      current North & Latin American and European research.  This is quite
                      clearly not to say that there aren't group differences of various
                      kinds, but it is to say that these groups are not fixed natural
                      categories of a 'racial' kind.  (Incidentally, it occurs to me that the
                      long-established and largely reproductively isolated group
                      traditionally refered to as 'midgets' or 'circus dwarves' is never
                      considered to be a 'race'.  Why is that?)

                      2.      My syllogism - there's no excluded middle in it, it can be
                      stated in elementary Barbara mode:
                              All human behaviour (A) is the legitimate subject matter of
                      Psychology(B)
                              Being a psychologist (C) is a form of human behaviour (A)
                              ERGO
                              Being a psychologist (C) is a legitimate subject matter of
                      Psychology
                      All A is B, C is A, ergo C is B.
                              That Psychology is in this reflexive bind is inescapable. And I
                      in no way wish to exempt myself from it. McBride seems to think it is
                      merely a rhetorical ploy to enable me to 'shut down' scientific
                      antagonists.  This is far from the case, all I am objecting to is the
                      tendency of some psychologists (like many other scientists) to feel
                      under attack when subjected to the same kind of scrutiny to
                      which they hold everything else in the world may be legitimately
                      subjected.  That is not a scientific attitude - its blind dogma. The
                      truth will only out in science if it is prepared to reflexively examine
                      itself in the same spirit it addresses everything else.  Regarding hard
                      data - this exchange began with my claim that interest in 'race
                      differences in IQ' was an overwhelmingly North American obsession and
                      that this was for clear cultural reasons.  In my book 'Race', Racism
                      and Psychology: towards a reflexive history (1997) I present some data
                      on race-related publications during the interwar period drawn from
                      Psychological Abstracts and Psychological Record.  This clearly shows
                      that non-American anglophone publications on the topic are virtually
                      absent until the 1930s, when there is a small flurry (often
                      anti-differences in conclusion) while the German 1930s publications are
                      radically different in character - Jaensch for example objected to
                      comparing races on intelligence because IQ tests were biased towards
                      Jewish intelligence!   To return to McBride's points - I did not say
                      psychologists in general were busy explaining their own Psychological
                      behavior, I only said that doing so was a legitimate psychological
                      project and one which historical psychologists are beginning to
                      undertake. Introspection doesn't come into it.  On the contrary, it is
                      because psychologists of almost all theoretical persuasions (not least
                      sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists!) have concluded that
                      self-explanations for behaviour are invariably incomplete and often
                      erroneous that psychologists own accounts of their 'psychological
                      behaviour' cannot be taken at face value.  Being a scientist is not to
                      be in some privileged spiritual condition.

                      3.      Regarding hand-guns and possible effects on violence of their
                      control. Never mind urban DC versus 'a municipality' in north Georgia -
                      how about the United States versus say Norway or even Poland.  This is
                      a topic on which, to most Europeans, US attitudes seem most bizarre and
                      irrational. The world is not divided into law-abiding citizens and
                      law-breakers - people shoot one another in fits of rage, madness,
                      momentary loss of temper and by accident as well.  The US is, let's be
                      frank, a gun-fetishist culture, 'you will not take my gun from me until
                      you prise it from my cold dead hands' as the old NRA bumper-sticker had
                      it.  Really and truly, to most of us this side of the pond that's just
                      plain wierd.  George Harrison (knife attack) survived, Lennon (shot)
                      didn't - there's a whole world of difference between what it takes to
                      shoot someone and what it takes to kill them in a knife-fight. But what
                      is McBride suggesting is the alternative that a knowledge of
                      selection-guided genetic causes of violence might bring? 

                      4.      env x gen.  My own problem with this is that 'environment' is
                      discussed as if it were a coherent independent variable, when it simply
                      means everything that isn't genetic, from the weather to the education
                      system. Since (as Eysenck etc. state) genes determine capacity,
                      'environment' determines how far that potential is realised.  Again as
                      Jensen & Eysenck etc. state, in the ideal environment all variation
                      would be genetic (i.e. have an H score of 1) which would then be read
                      as meaning that environment had no effect!  This leads to so many
                      conceptual tangles and absurdities however that I will refrain from
                      rehearsing them again here (see my 1974 paper cited previously and the
                      book cited above here).

                      5.      I am happy that I misunderstood McBride's attitude to the
                      Holocaust, though he must admit his original wording was open to such a
                      misunderstanding.  I am less sure that he is right in seeming to
                      ascribe all war to racial and ethnic hatred, although this obviously
                      has a lot to do with much of it, but so do economics, religion, social
                      structure (in cases of civil war) and so on.  I sense that there is a
                      basic temperamental difference between us - McBride is passionately
                      forward looking and perhaps believes the lessons of the past are both
                      clear and have already been learned, whereas I believe neither.  I
                      certainly do not believe hard problems will go away if ignored, but I
                      don't believe they can be cured until we more fully appreciate quite
                      how hard they are.  McBride seems to think a technological fix is
                      around the corner with the human genome project. I rather fear that
                      future technological fixes (in whatever area) will prove no less
                      disastrous than those tried in the past.  Are our positions
                      fundamentally incompatible or potentially complementary?   

                      6.      On war.  My point was only that the historical record hardly
                      shows 'Caucusoids' to have been less violent than any other group.  If
                      Africa has been 'grossly over-represented' this (i.e.last) century this
                      has presumably been during the latter half of the century during the
                      post-colonial mayhem in which plenty of socio-economic and cultural
                      causes are patently clearly implicated (not forgetting white
                      mercenaries!).  Was warfare as rife in 14th century Africa as in 14th
                      century Europe?  Some Native American cultures were undoubtedly fairly
                      violent in character, but the fatality levels which ensued pale into
                      insignificance beside that resulting from the European onslaught.  Even
                      on his figures however, of 88.25 million war deaths in the twentieth
                      century the combined non-'Negroid'-inflicted figure is hardly
                      insignificant - perhaps he could provide the total of post-1900 Boer
                      War+WW1+Russian Civil War+ Spanish Civil War+Sino-Japanese
                      War+WW2+Korean War+deaths resulting from British (and other European)
                      anti-independence movement actions in their colonies etc. etc.?  (Our
                      perception of violence is admittedly rather odd and prone to bias - why
                      is it that 'hacked to death with a machete' sounds so much more savage
                      than 'mown down with a machine gun'- let alone of course 'regrettable
                      collateral damage from a cruise missile'?) 


                      I'm still not entirely clear whether we are genuinely opposed or only
                      at cross-purposes.  Perhaps our mutual misunderstandings are cultural
                      in origin!

                      Sliante, loch heim or whatever!

                      Graham Richards
                       
                              

                      On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 20:24:46 -0500 "McBride, Dennis"
                      <dmcbride@...> wrote:

                      > "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
                      > Professor
                      >       Psychology
                      >       Engineering
                      > 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
                      > >     Professor
                      > >             Psychology
                      > >             Engineering
                      > >     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
                      > >
                      > &g

                      (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.