Jean Philippe Rushton is Dead

No matter how much one may have disagreed with a colleague in life, no matter how much damage one might feel a particular person's work may have done, when that colleague finally dies one says a few good words, pays respect, and puts aside past differences.

But not in this case. I met Jean Philippe Rushton a couple of times but never got to know him as a person. But I do know that he was convinced of the inferiority of Africans compared to, for instance, himself, and spent his entire life improperly manipulating data, sometimes just plain making the data up, to "prove" this. If you look at modern "psychometric" studies you will find, as you trace back the data to earlier sources "demonstrating" the link between genes and behavior and how races are real and how we can use racial distinctions to predict criminality, intelligence, levels of sexual aggression, and so on, you will find Jean Philippe Rushton's "scholarly" effluence amassed at or near the base of the literature like a cancerous tumor deep in the body cavity of a rotted and stinking corpse splayed on the autopsy table.

And now he's dead. Ding dong.

More like this

Ahhh..that's too bad. The world will (hardly) miss him.

By Michael Haubrich (not verified) on 06 Oct 2012 #permalink

No, I know some people who still reference him to support their own (racist) views.. His views have not rotted nearly enough.

Best news I've heard all night.

Truly a blot on the culture. I'm not a nil nisi bonum kind of guy, and the world is better and smarter for his passing.

By Tom Levenson (not verified) on 06 Oct 2012 #permalink

Ah the great racial theoretician, known for such "scholarly" practices as citing data from Penthouse Forum to provide "evidence" for his theorising - and I'm not making this up either!

By Scott McGreal (not verified) on 06 Oct 2012 #permalink

I am sorry to hear that!
Hope she will be peaceful!

I wonder what it was in his life that made him so insecure that he would compromise his profession in order to convince himself he was somehow superior

Simple question: Have you personally written, and had published in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals, articles refuting any aspect of Rushton's work? If so, please provide a reference. TIA.

NO, I've not. Nor have I written anything refuting Lemark or Lysenko, yet Rushton, Lemark and Lysenko have all been roundly criticized by me in my teaching (I've taught courses on race that addressed Rushton).

I'm not sure why you would expect that.

Thanks for saying what needed to be said.
Rushton was just a racist, not a scientist.
I'm sure he will find a special place has been made just for him.

By Rusty Mayhew (not verified) on 08 Oct 2012 #permalink

The death of Phillipe Rushon is great news. While you shouldn't generally take pleasure in the passing of a human being, you have to make an exception here. Can anyone truly say that the world is made a better place because of his research apart from the racists, nitwits, nazis, and bigots? This kind of rubbish is real poison and it is used to justify the worst behaviour from those who would chose to treat other people unjustly because of their race, religion, or country of origin. Hopefully with his death will go the death of this type of science--if you can all it that!!!!

By David Grant (not verified) on 12 Oct 2012 #permalink

I am not sure I would call Rushton a racist in the classical sense: that is, he did not seem to adhere to the belief that Whites were superior to all other races. He seemed to believe that Asians were more intelligent than Whites and that Blacks had greater sexual prowess. So Whites came across as fairly mediocre in Rushton's scheme of things. Yes, I saw Rushton's theories as preposterous and easily refutable, but I would not necessarily label him as a White Supremacist by the general definition of that term.

Before finding this blog, I happened on a blog extolling the virtues of Philippe Rushton and his scientific merit. Well, I'm aware of Rushton's sloppy work and outright frauds and the only regret I have about his passing is that it didn't occur sooner.

And before I forget, I can't wait to read about the demise of the other two miscreants of race "science" - Arthur Jensen and Richard Lynn.

Intelligence is genetically based. There is only a few percent gene difference between a human and a chimpanzee, but the potential of intelligence is very different.
Gene flow between populations has made it so you can't speculate on genes based purely on racial characteristics.
There always has been gene flow, even between neanderthal and homo sapiens.
Unfortunately, racists make it impossible to talk about differences between gene groups without bringing up race.

I cannot for sure call Mr. Rushton a racist, I cannot look into his heart. His research, though, was celebrated by people who clearly had racist and discriminatory motives. It is difficult to know to what extent his research was used by those with these motives, but it wasn't helpful at all to a world where are enough of these problems.

By David Grant (not verified) on 25 Oct 2012 #permalink

All races and both sexes are absolutely equal with respect to any desirable biologically-based cognitive ability.

Any appearance of inequality is due to the social environment, is a result of deliberate design by those who wish to support the oppressive racist sexist classist status quo, and can be remedied via a government program.

Anyone who doubts this and says so in public deserves the worst that can happen to them.

"Ningún hombre es una isla entera por sí mismo.
Cada hombre es una pieza del continente, una parte del todo.
Si el mar se lleva una porción de tierra, toda Europa queda disminuida, como si fuera un promontorio, o la casa de uno de tus amigos, o la tuya propia.

Ninguna persona es una isla; la muerte de cualquiera me afecta, porque me encuentro unido a toda la humanidad;
por eso, nunca preguntes por quién doblan las campanas; doblan por ti". ( si tambien por ti Gred Laden...)

JOHN DONNE, Londres (1572-1631)

Tambien puedes leer a Heminway ...

By Tomas Strobert (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

No man is an island entire of itself.
Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the whole.
If the sea takes a piece of land, Europe is the less, as if a promontory, or the house of one of your friends, or your own.

No person is an island, the death of either affects me, because I'm attached to all mankind; therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for you. (Mr Greg...)

John Donne, London (1572-1631)

By tomas Strobert (not verified) on 14 Jan 2013 #permalink

Philippe Rushton is to my knoweldge one of few scientists who have received an entire journal article dedicated to their work: a recent issue of Personality & Individual Differences, a leading journal in psychology.

Here's E. O. Wilson on Rushton:

I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher. The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is, it is logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species -- a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk, for example -- no one would have batted an eye.

"Personality & Individual Differences, a leading journal in psychology."

Uh..No. It's one of two journals (the other being "Intelligence") primarily used by scientific racists to promote psuedoscience. For example, that IQ test scores are a measure of human intelligence when they are obviously only a measure of how an individual scores on a specific test.

Jensen, Rushton and Lynn's belief in biological "races" shows their understanding of basic biology and high school genetics is lacking (i.e., non-existent).

By Rusty Mayhew (not verified) on 21 Jan 2013 #permalink

The reason why Rushton's theory of race differences (he did a lot of work in other fields, too) is still cited widely in the scientific literature is that it's still the only game in town. The PC guys are too stupid to come up with theories of their own to explain (away) race differences in a way that does not offend the intellect.

Bitter liberal full of hate that can't deal with the truth, I will wish for your speedy death and celebrate it when it comes.

Can't deal with the truth? That's Rushton, dear Jacob. He couldn't deal with the truth of not being super special by accident of birth. And you, too, apparently. Scientists deal with the truth, seek it out, in fact. Rushton's cheating and lying to advance a falsehood that is damaging to the progress of humanity is fair game for hate.

Emilia, how has Rushton been "easily" refuted? I don't value his work, but most of you here have not provided any refutation of anything Rushton has proposed in science. You are not scientific, only emotional.

Well, he cooked the hell out if data that wasn't very good to begin with, John.

Well, he was a scholar who was very well aware of the fact that faking and manipulating data to prop up a racist pseudoscientific doctrine was wrong. That makes him a racist.

It is quite possible to be a soft spoken very nice guy and still be a racist.

Thank you for reading my essay. I suppose I should clarify that Rushton was not a racist in the classical sense of the term, i.e. that he believed that Whites were the pinnacle of humanity. Perhaps a better definition might be that he was not a White supremacist but that he was a racist.

As I wrote in my essay, I think there is a bit of an ambivalent attitude towards Asians among White racists. For example, even Jean LePen (French opposition leader) seemed a little reluctant to bad-mouth Asians as he did Blacks, Muslims, etcetera. I think LePen felt he had to oppose the entry of Asians in France in order to be 'consistent.' So perhaps Rushton lauding Asians was not that radical.

I'm actually sceptical of both the right and left wing's view of race and racism, so perhaps that feeds into my view of Rushton.

I don't see any faking or manipulating data. The IQ difference is true. I found it on many research articles. I feel sorry for Mr. Rushton. He just try to tell the truths. It is just like people's first reaction of Einstein theory of relativity.

As poor Professor Rushton learned, scientific method is no match for political correctness. Critics can't refute his findings, but that doesn't stop their knee-jerk character assassination even after his death.

Sad to witness your gross disrespect to a dead person just because he proposed theories that you consider false. Please let me know which of Rushton's proposed facts were ill-grounded and in what way. Or are you simply a dogmatic who can't hear another view without screaming heretic at the messenger?

Good riddance! Why should someone like Rushton, who was a outspoken promoter of eugenics, the same ideologies spread by Adolf Hitler be missed?! Rushton should be buried in history and be forgotten!!!

I think this situation is really sad. Rushton proposed a relatively coherent scientific theory that attempted to explain why and how people from different parts of the world are different. Whether or not he was right or wrong is no excuse for the abuse and ridicule he was subjected to. There is a sad irony in that the hostility and hatred directed at him are just as bad as the racism he is accused of.

John, it is impossible to believe that Rushton was honest about his research, and the long term negative effects of his bogus science have affected a lot of people. Probably not you, so maybe that is why you don't care.

Greg, you may want to rephrase your first sentece in the comment above...

Well, thanks, I guess. Now my comment looks like that of an idiot!

@ ^ Marco : Nah, not really, we can all read the comments and get the context.

By Astrostevo (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

Racism rely is shit.

(I can say shit here right?)


“The Earth should not be cut up into hundreds of different sections, each inhabited by a self-defined segment of humanity that considers its own welfare and its own “national security” to be paramount above all other considerations. There are no nations! There is only humanity. And if we don’t come to understand that right soon, there will be no nations, because there will be no humanity.”
- Isaac Asimov, Pages 419-421, ,‘ I Asimov : A memoir’, Bantam Books, 1995.

By Astrostevo (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

I do know that he was convinced of the inferiority of Africans compared to, for instance, himself,

Says all that needs saying and proof he's wrong really desu ne? C'est ne pas?

By Astrostevo (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

@ Daniel O :

Sad to witness your gross disrespect to a dead person just because he proposed theories that you consider false. Please let me know which of Rushton’s proposed facts were ill-grounded and in what way.


What part of "Africans are inferior" do you NOT understand and NOT understand is utterly racist and wrong exactly?

By Astrostevo (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

I've got to weigh back in on this, regarding comment #34 and #35 (not really sure about #36-38). It is not impossible to believe Rushton was honest about his research. It does not seem very likely he would have willfully destroyed his reputation and jeopoardized his career for something he knew to be false. That isn't to say that his theory was correct, just that he more than likely sincerely believed it.

I don't think it is ok to hate someone for being wrong.

John, he may well have been honestly convinced that racial differences for real. Actually I'm pretty sure that is the case. But he managed to convince himself that his research methods, which were roundly criticized and clearly wrong, were OK. To him, perhaps, the ends justified the means.

But it doesn't matter. The research is the research. Reducing the size of all brain volume measurements for African Americans by a constant factor because an unrelated archaic homo sapiens skull from thousands of years ago had a thick skull given that we've had modern human African skulls for decades (and they tend to have relatively large or normal size brains) is simply wrong. It totally invalidates most of his findings.

His career was never jeopardized. He had tenure, and there was apparently room for a small number of people doing what he did. He was a big fish in a small pond. The idea that he would it would have made sense for him to protect his career does not apply, and also, does not obviate the bad analysis.

I don' t think it is terribly unreasonable for people to be upset at a researcher who promoted invalid research which helps supports a racist system that has measurable impacts on the lives of individuals simply because they have dark skin. A lot of people have bought into the race argument, the idea that people with dark skin are inherently inferior, intellectually, is based and supported by this bogus research. That idea is held by employers, teachers, neighbors, friends, relatives, policy makers, politicans and elected official, police officers, etc. etc. His work also promotes the idea of moral inferiority and primitiveness in behavior. All of that is bogus but fits with the overall racist theme. It is very very destructive to have everyone who looks at you assume you are an inferior human being because of the color of the skin.

Thanks for your response. I like your blog. I don't know what you are referring to in the second paragraph.
Although his career was not in jeopardy directly from the university due to his tenure (as you said) it most certainly was in jeopardy from the criminal investigations stemming from allegations of violating Canadian hate crime laws. Not to mention all the threats of violence, vandalism, verbal abuse etc. I don't doubt that the stress contributed to his death.
It seems unlikely anybody would be so committed to perpetuating something bogus in the face of such persecution.
Anyway, the idea that groups of people from different parts of the world are different and that those differences are measurable should not and does not harm anyone. Value judgements of "inferiority" and "superiority" are attached to Rushton's research mostly by people either looking to label him a racist or white supremacists trying to gain scientific legitimacy. I think both are wrong. A study of human variation (maybe oversimplified as race) does not need to be controversial, and unfortunately most scientists, unlike Rushton, are unwilling to risk their jobs and lives studying this topic. The sadness I expressed in my original post is not that Rushton is dead but that the close-mindedness of people who condemn his efforts are no better than the prejudice of bigoted racists who would judge a man based on the color of his skin.

john, #45: There are many, MANY examples in history of people who have been quite willing to go to their death to defend their beliefs -- including false beliefs. Rushton is not exempted from this.

Anyone -- and especially those in an academic position -- who willfully and repeatedly falsify data, methods, etc. in order to arrive at a pre-conceived result that honest "efforts" repeatedly disprove and call out should be condemned for their dishonest "efforts".

To do so is hardly closed-mindedness, by any stretch. There is no way to justify the false balance that "all opinions about what can be (properly) scientifically demonstrated" are equal. They are not. To condemn someone who continues to insist and preach that 2+2=47 is not being closed-minded. To give credence to such is being simple-minded.

I'll express my sadness for those who cannot make this simple distinction and give misguided support for someone who is antagonistic regarding academic integrity and respect for their fellow man.

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 20 Feb 2015 #permalink

"Anyway, the idea that groups of people from different parts of the world are different and that those differences are measurable should not and does not harm anyone. Value judgements of “inferiority” and “superiority” are attached to Rushton’s research mostly by people either looking to label him a racist or white supremacists trying to gain scientific legitimacy."

This, I'm afraid, is just wrong. The assertion that there are meaningful racial differences is wrong. (This is not the same as heritable variation across humans.) His research suggested that these are differences in intelligence, morality, and criminality. Those are not things attached to his research. These are things his research tried to demonstrate.

We are not talking about closed mindedness here. We are talking about bad research.

I waited a couple days to check back on this blog. I kind of figured the replies would be derogatory and hostile. They weren't. Thank you.
I was not aware Rushton had willingly and repeatedly falsified data. If that is the case he has no relevance to anything but I'm not sure that is the case. The bulk of his research involved using studies other people had done, and aggregating them. In studying Rushton's work I haven't seen any evidence of deliberate manipulation of data., much less the pervasive academic dishonesty you allege.
Most of the "refutations" I have seen have been people yelling "racist!" then that being the end of it with little or no discussion of his actual research. See the youtube "debate" with Dr. Suzuki.
Rushton understood very well that variation within human populations is greater than variation between human populations and just because there are group differences is no reason to treat individuals from a certain group differently.
To say that there are no meaningful differences is to discount the wonderful diversity of the human race, our evolutionary history, our adaptability to different environments and paints a bland, erroneous (albeit politically correct) image that everyone everywhere is the same.

John, Rushton chose to decrease the estimated size of all "Black" skulls in the sample by a factor based on a non-modern human fossil found in Africa. He decreased all three samples (to account for skulls), using somewhat questionable data to decrease Asian skulls the least, "White" skulls a bit more, and used highly questionable data to subtract out "Black" skulls a lot.

"To say that there are no meaningful differences"

A lot goes into that statement. What I'm saying here is that he introduced a meaningful looking difference that was fabricated. He fabricated the difference. This is not about everybody being the same (or not). It is also not about political correctness. It is about good (or not) science.

I actually just happened to run across a study by Rushton for the first time today, which lead me to this blog. It was his study on IQ differences between males and females using the SAT...the SAT, as well as the ACT, are standardized tests that colleges use to predict success in their program. Apparently Rushton completely missed the lesson on Validity and Accuracy where the test you use has to actually measure what you are trying to measure. It's been scientifically proven time and again that success (which the test he used attempts to measure) does not correlate with IQ. That's an example of how he "cooked the numbers". It also fails to take into account stereotype threats, environmental development differences that are still too prevalent to really compare gender and IQ and so many other factors. These are huge anyone could understand the scientific method and support these findings based on his methods is...devastatingly sad.

I did not know and cannot find what you are referring to in the reduction factor based on non-modern skulls. Can you post a link to that?

John, some literature is only found on paper. You simply need to read his original research.

I taught at an all-black elementary school in NE Phila. Out of the entire school, I doubt that one child had a 100 IQ. That, coupled with the fact that, if mankind is "out of Africa" precious little else is. Sub-saharan Africa, other than whiter South Africa, produces no autos, computers, technology...not even the guns that they use to kill each other with such frequency. Of course, it's not that the rest of the world isn't adept at killing, but we also invent and create.
I'm just beginning to research Rushton, but it seems that it's you who is unscientific, or at least lost in liberal fantasy. There are so many who won't admit anything that doesn't fit into their nice, polite fantasy castles. I need to study it further, but it sounds as if you're whistling past the graveyard.

By WAYNE ROSENKRANTZ (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

Which part of his original research? He did hundreds of studies over 30+ years all over the world. Saying some literature is only found on paper seems like nothing more than an alibi for hearsay.

Pretty much most of it. He didn't really do hundreds of studies. Most of the corpus of his work consists of a small number of studies either repeated, redone, or consisting of references to his other studies.

Look at all high minded morally superior liberals celebrating another human beings death just because he had a different opinion to them. How nauseating.

Meanwhile the IQ/SAT score race gap remains cast iron.

Perhaps, if Mr Rushtons theories have been debunked as you say, you'd like to point me to this magical environmental factor X that has replaced genetics as the logical explanation?

Oh thats right, there isn't one.

Funny how the burden of proof never falls on the liberal on these matters isn't it...

Back in the real world, parallel to the pesky IQ/SAT gap, ongoing studies are not only showing the heritability of IQ and academic performance, but the exact genes that cause it.…

The truth will out, as they say...

Aside from Rushton's diligence to prove his three-way pattern with (often) terrible methods, he had a real perversion in race and sex. He was obsessed with sex and sex hormones and size of genitals and sexual activity. Personally, I think it is vile to determine the ‘superiority’ and ‘inferiority’ of races in these extremely private and personal ways. That was not necessary. It’s uncalled for…Rushton was just so hung up on the idea of procreation having a genetic evolutionary basis that he couldn’t see how indecent he was being.

His claims are at odds with population sizes and records of reproduction rates. There is no set pattern grounded in evolution. Birth rate in humans has probably been up-and-down for all of history.

Humans frequently engage in non-procreation sex via birth control. Humans decide the size of their families and especially nowadays where everything is about money and status. Cultures that put less emphasis on ‘safe sex’ with inevitably have more children and more sexually transmitted diseases. Different races are prone to catching different diseases as well.

Religion may also play a role in how many children you have and the size of your families. It’s not just ‘promiscuity’ that increases the illegitimacy of children, but also it depends on whether you get married or not. Depends on whether your culture puts emphasis on marriage or not. Nothing puts a bigger emphasis on marriage than does religion. I suspect religious people to be the most married and consequently to have the most legitimate children. In Europe there has been a big decline in Christianity as a faith and marriage is no longer seen as being particularly important. More and more people are going to have children while unmarried.

Rushton grossly simplified these complex matters to fit them into his pattern. It’s especially bad how he ignored all evidence to the contrary and just carried on with his initial claims - degrading high hormones and large-sized genitals and those that enjoy frequent sex – by associating it all with crime, violence, promiscuity, infidelity, large procreation and low IQ.

By Broken Butterfly (not verified) on 13 Dec 2015 #permalink

@broken butterfly
Rushton's theory was about r/k selection in humans. Studying differences in group sexual behavior and morphology was completely consistent with his area of inquiry.

Also, I'm not sure your suspicion that religious people get married the most always holds; for example, African Americans are one of the most religious groups in the US but also have the lowest marriage rates.

Whether or not crime, violence, promiscuity, low IQ, and genital size are correlated is a matter of fact. Determining the truth or falsity of that does not make a person indecent.

Perhaps not, but indiscriminately attributing it to causation, especially to support a racial bias, is indecent. (As well as being unscientific.)

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 21 Dec 2015 #permalink

The only causation Rushton proposed was evolution by natural selection. His theory was that groups of people evolved in different environments which resulted in some groups being more or less "r" or "K" than others. He identified about 30 variables which reflected differences in "r" to varying degrees and found they were consistently ordered between the groups. The correlation of those variables was not indiscriminate, did not mistake correlation for causation, and was not unscientific.

To John,

Philippe Rushton claimed that blacks have the most copulation and thus the most children due to evolution. And East Asians have the least copulation and thus the least children due to evolution. In other words: blacks are born to mass reproduce as an inevitable consequence of their adaption to Africa.

Now, consider the fact there are statistically more East Asians than black Africans on planet Earth. The Chinese (alone) have like 1.3 billion…and between the 1950s and 1970s, saw the biggest increase of ‘litter size’ on historical record.

Do you not see the problem with the initial claim? It doesn’t hold true! All Rushton had to do what ask for the statistics on population sizes from country to country, or continent to continent.

Do you think the Chinese have a One Child Policy because they just fancy it, or because it’s the only way they can control their over-population? Let me inform you: this One Child Policy entails forced abortions and forced sterilisations and heavy taxing for those parents that have more than one child.

Is it really so surprising that contemporary Chinese would be very careful about sex after having a One Child Policy enacted against them?


Now, let’s talk about Rushton and his sexual perversions.

With morbid intensity, Rushton tried to prove the ‘purpose’ of the black race was to have sex…and then sex…and also more sex. That it is somehow genetically encoded - and evolution is the cause.

He suggested that men with large genitals were born to be promiscuous, to produce more sperm and to ensure maximum impregnation in as many different females as possible.

Large genitals are meant for no such thing. This is a gross demoralisation of human genitals - and a gross demoralisation of men with large genitals. Oversized genitals mean no more than giant stature, or large hands and feet, or large ears. Body parts can become overgrown. It doesn’t mean anything.

His ideas are CONTRADICTED by evidence suggesting otherwise. His claims are UNWARRANTED and yet he persisted with them. It is a complete perversion of evolution. It’s disgusting!

When you persist with an idea that doesn’t hold true, it suggests that you are OBSESSED. Indeed Rushton was obsessed with race and sex.

Philippe Rushton was a perverted psychologist and that’s that. In my opinion, he didn’t get what he really deserved. Canada went soft and let him off the hook.

I’m telling you: there was something seriously wrong with that man. And I couldn’t STAND his feigned innocence.

David Suzuki’s ‘moral outrage’ was a perfectly reasonable reaction - especially as there are A LOT of problems with the claims being made. It can be hard to know where to begin explaining the multitude of problems with Rushton’s work.

You know how it feels when they say whites are all evil and ignore anything good we’ve done? That’s how Suzuki felt about the demoralising of blacks, as well as most of the audience. This feeling deepens and turns bitter when they are made aware of any contrary evidence that is being FLAT-OUT ignored.

It wasn’t just liberals being liberal.

No, this is one of the few cases where liberals have it right.

Imagine if somebody tried to get you fired from your job for fabricated reasons. Built up such a lie that you couldn’t refute it ‘on the spot’…and then further attacked you when you cried victim…which is the same as criminalising the appropriate emotions. (Funny, when this is happening between two people it is called emotional abuse, i.e. manipulation.)

That is essentially what Philippe Rushton had done. He played his game with a crooked deck and then accused anyone who pointed it out as being ‘emotional’ rather than scientific.

The gross condescension!

But rather than a racist, perhaps the man was an attention whore???

You know if you took Rushton’s bad methodology, you could easily ‘prove’ that whites are the most evil race. And if you object it’s only because whites can’t face up to their evil. The objection would be outrage not an argument.

Sound familiar?

Rushton’s sympathises are disillusioned. I reckon a ‘Rushton sympathiser’ has as much as a 98.9% chance of being American.

And that means something: this problem IS American.

I think very few non-Americans have trouble recognising what is wrong with Rushton’s work. I suggest the problem is caused by black hatred amongst white Americans. They will accept any work that demoralises blacks regardless of who is making the claims, regardless of how they come to their conclusions, and regardless of whether or not the claims hold true against OTHER evidence.

This is foolish and pathetic.

Foolish, pathetic Americans…

And it doesn’t look good when Rushton’s sympathisers become verbally abusive towards Jews and blacks on their race-realist forums. Do they really have so little self-awareness? They struggle with civility. This is reinforcing the idea that they are ‘racists’.

What is ‘wrong’ with Philippe Rushton’s work is blindingly obvious if one could just look at it OBJECTIVELY.

And what am I supposed to say?

Richard Lynn (British psychologist) is and another pathetic man with his head deep in the sand. I caught him pulling a Philippe Rushton when he wrote an article about bullying. He suggested that low IQ people were more predisposed to bullying others.

Blacks have lower IQ than whites who in turn have lower IQ than East Asians. Therefore, blacks bully more than whites, therefore also whites bully more than East Asians.

(You do realise this kind of thinking is void of critical thinking? Richard Lynn is making himself look incompetent as his job. Sod that - he IS incompetent.)

OF COURSE he left out the massive bullying problem in Japanese schools. The Japanese have documented their school bullying problem. One only has to google search it. Bully behaviour is aggressive. There are lots of aggressive Japanese boys and girls…in despite of their 105 IQ.

What that’s called is CONTRARY EVIDENCE.

I’ve learnt that psychologists (like Rushton and Lynn) love nothing more than to CONTRADICT themselves in their practice, and it’s a bit ridiculous that they should call themselves ‘realists’.

When a race-realist claims to be a realist - it is the equivalent of an anti-racist claiming to be against all racism.

Exact same thing: both despicable creatures. Both lie, twist and distort. Both work with an agenda. Both assert their claims with much condescension whilst knowing full-well what they’re doing is wrong.

Philippe Rushton’s sexual demoralising of blacks was as repulsive as those leftist pigs that make out the white race to be the demons on Earth.

I honestly see no difference between ‘liberal leftists’ and ‘conservative race-realists’. They are largely the same beast accept coming from opposite sides of the sea. Different policies: same poor conduct.

It’s one man raping a woman for an orgasm and another man raping a woman to get at her husband. Regardless of the reason, the act is the same.

A ‘Rushton sympathiser’ acts like a slightly retarded child struggling to understand why something is wrong.

End of story.

By Broken Butterfly (not verified) on 24 Dec 2015 #permalink

Wow. My guess is no amount of explanation will change your mind on this but since you wrote so much it is worth a reply.

Looking at simple population numbers is irrelevant. The total number of individuals in a population does not necessarily reflect their reproductive strategy, merely it's success. If you had a group who had many children but only a few survived and a group that had few children but most of them survived, the population of the latter group could exceed the former even if they had less "copulation".

I don't have time to respond to the rest of your rant point by point but I would like to ask you two questions:

One, if Rushton had been studying a the sexual behavior of a globally distributed species of turtle or rabbit and found the same kind of group differences in reproductive strategies would you still call him an obsessed pervert?

Two, what in your understanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection would lead you to believe it possible or probable for relatively isolated groups of humans who evolved in drastically different environments over tens of thousands of years to exhibit identical reproductive strategies?

The criticism of Rushton's work is nothing but moralistic fallacy, straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, and unsubstantiated allegations of fraud.

John, you misphrased what you meant to say - the words "criticism" and "unsubstantiated allegations of" shouldn't be there.

Ad hominem argument was never part of Rushton's repertoire. Nor was accusing his colleagues of fraud. Moralistic fallacy and straw men apply equally poorly, but I like your word play. Kind of clever, but completely lacking in substance.

John, give it a rest.

You’re using the ‘this is moral outrage’ as an excuse to evade the fact that there really are things wrong with the methods used in Philippe Rushton’s work. Moral outrage is perfectly reasonable, as it would be for Whites to do so if we are being called the world’s most evil race under false pretences. And you sound like a whinging baby because you cannot actually refute my response, as I pointed out your gross hypocrisy.

Rushton’s big mistake, in my opinion, was his obsession with pretending that there is a strict Black-White-Asian ordering to all things. The problem is that we know of many, many variables that do not fit this pattern: average absolute physical strength, skin melanin content, propensity toward domestic violence, average adult height and numerous disease susceptibilities (including HIV). He cherry-picked the items that fit his pattern and ignored everything that contradicted it, and that makes all of us look bad when he is touted as being representative of the science behind our worldview.

I get it. You have no empathy.

Stop comparing humans to animals. You can’t humiliate a group of animals by studying their sexual behaviour and arriving to the wrong conclusion, though by doing so to a human group - and declaring it publically - you can inflict upon them a totally worthless feeling as sex and private parts are extremely personal.

Chinese are demonstratively the most reproductive, and East Asian peoples are not vastly dying out like the White race. This means that Whites don’t fall in-between Africans and East Asians. Comprehend it!

China has a One Child Policy because they are desperate to control the breeding of their people. This is because Chinese copulation, when left to its own devices, is f*****g rampant. You bizarre Americans make them out to be perfect angels and I just don’t get it. And for Africans and all their ‘promiscuity’ and ‘unsafe sex’ they still can’t produce the largest populations in the world, so imagine how much smaller they would be if they started doing millions of abortions and practicing safe sex.

The be-all and end-all of evolution is gene survival. All major groups that have survived to the 20th century have done so from strong reproductive output.

Accept now, and because of birth control, Whites are failing miserably as are the Japanese. The Chinese have a One Child Policy enacted against them which entails literal forced abortions and forced sterilisations. They have no choice but to be very careful about sex.

You don’t have to admit you’ve lost, we can see it for ourselves.

By Broken Butterfly (not verified) on 06 Jan 2016 #permalink

You are using moral outrage to evade facts. I did easily refute your claim that simple population numbers disprove Rushton's theory, which you apparently still do not understand. As far as the rest of it, sorry, but I don't really want to address your description of Rushton (or myself for that matter) as a gross, disgusting, pathetic, obsessed, despicable, racist, retarded, child-like, whining, hypocritical, attention-whoring pervert. I doubt you have actually read any of Rushton's work that wasn't a synopsis written by someone who disagreed with him.

I really would like someone else to give a good answer to my second question in post #63. An actual answer, not just name calling would be nice and appropriate for a science blog. Here it is again:

"What in your understanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection would lead you to believe it possible or probable for relatively isolated groups of humans who evolved in drastically different environments over tens of thousands of years to exhibit identical reproductive strategies?"

Oh yeah, and people ARE animals.

Part 1


I’m a race realist…but a proper one. Not a lying, bias, hypocrite. That’s what Philippe Rushton was. His work indirectly ruins the validity of race difference with his bad science. His sympathisers are fools, and it’s quite possible they actually could be racists. I don’t know what props them to be so uncivil and empathetic towards blacks. They don’t even attempt to hide their bias, instead it spills out everywhere. It makes us all look bad - and I’m sick of it. We give liberals the ammo to fire at us, so they can invalidate anything we might have to say about race.

Whites need to become more self-aware, especially American whites.

Of course there are race differences, though proving it is something quite different. It takes a lot more thought and consideration to assert the differences than saying: it has to be because of genes! This is like a copout because you haven’t got what it takes to really assert the differences. You don’t even have to assert the genetic link with intelligence because it’s a fact already, you know, there is a genetic component to intelligence. Saying there isn’t, is like saying the sun doesn’t rise in the morning.

You must consider that sometimes genes and environment are so intertwined; it can be difficult to know what the dominant factor is to, say, a disparity.

The problem with guys like Philippe Rushton is that they are preposterous. Not racist, not supremacist, but quite simply preposterous. If his work is racist, then it is the ill effects of his perversity. I don’t believe he was ever intentionally racist. His sympathisers are probably much more genuinely racist than he was, I find significance in the fact that you absolutely refuse to see how he could be wrong on anything.

Alas, you don’t accept his work because you’re interested in evolution or biology or genes - you accept his work because he’s telling you exactly what you want to hear about blacks. Unfortunately, this isn’t very smart.

Races certainly have adapted to different geographical locations, but they have no ‘reproductive strategies’. To assert this claim, first, you would need to prove that ‘birth rate’ has been stable and consistent throughout the centuries up to the present day. Second, you would need to compare the demographics of different populations to see if they fall in line with the birth records.

By Broken Butterfly (not verified) on 07 Jan 2016 #permalink

Part 2


You want a refutation? Here, then. Feel the solidary of this one.

In the 1940s, Europeans were having about 4 children per average family. Nowadays, they are having about 2 children per average family. Many don’t want children at all. Europeans have aborted millions of unborn children over the last century, and take ‘birth control’ pretty seriously, so they are able to continue having lots of sex without the children.

Unless we’re still evolving and in the wrong direction, then our barely-able-to-survive reproduction can’t have anything to do with adaption.

Between the 1940s and 1970s, China saw the biggest increase in reproduction on historical record, literally doubling in size into over a billion. They brought out a One Child Policy to cut down on population size, and it is working I think. If Chinese women don’t want to be forced to abort their unborn child, and don’t want to be sterilised so they can’t reproduce, then they have to be very careful about sex. This means they will, purposefully, have few sex partners and be adamant about using protection. It’s not because they don’t want sex! I’m pretty sure they love it, actually. And I suspect Chinese men have to be careful as well. There’s nothing ‘remarkable’ about it.

Over the last century, East Asia has doubled its populations and Europe has halved its populations.

So what’s more accurate?

The fact that Asian-Americans are having fewer children than European-Americans in the United States, or the fact that Europe, as a whole, is having fewer children than East Asia as a whole?

Next up, the Muslims: regardless of their ethnic background, country of origin, current home, they reproduce in large quantities with many different children to many different wives. The ‘pattern’ is ‘consistent’ all around the world, but it’s just a religious thing. Not a genetic thing.

Finally, African-Americans. If they are having a bunch of illegitimate children, it is quite likely due to 1) having unprotected sex and 2) having the fewest abortions in the States. Abortions cost money. And I doubt ‘ghetto culture’ promote safe sex, or good behaviour for that matter. I mean just think about what they do promote. Africans have a genetic predisposition to HIV, so you can’t really say their ‘aids problem’ is from having far too much sex. That isn’t fair.

So, hopefully, you can see how preposterous it is to suggest that different races have different ‘reproductive strategies’.

No, I’m afraid to say that smart people do not naturally have few children, and dumb people do not naturally have lots of children.

The main reason for having few children, in our white race, is the resentment of children. People don’t want to raise them and don’t want to pay out for them. It is entirely down to choice, and it betrays our ability to reproduce in large quantities like we once used to. This is a very serious matter we are facing - and don’t you dare act as if it morally superior to have so few children!

A big penis means about as much as big legs or big hands or big ears. Body parts can become overgrown. It doesn’t mean anything.

It’s perverted to say that big penises are evolutions way of ensuring sexual dominance and big family size, especially when the race with the so-called ‘biggest penises’ do not have the biggest populations in the world, but in fact, the race with the smallest penises have the biggest populations in the world. The turnout is precisely the opposite of the claim, which only makes it all the more prosperous!

Though, I’m positive penis size has nothing to do with dominance or reproduction. This is a gross misconception.

By Broken Butterfly (not verified) on 07 Jan 2016 #permalink

Part 3


Are we meant to be like animals now?

Do men act out of pure instinct and copulate with whatever female they can get their hands on? And Africans are the most predisposed to this, right? That is essentially what Philippe Rushton was going for. Aside from being very degrading to men - especially ones with big penises - it perverts evolution to create a racial bias.

And what about the rape epidemics caused by Semite Muslims? How are you going to explain them? Semites don’t have quite as much testosterone as do Africans, but Semites sure can rape. Even worse than African-Americans, since Semites rape small girls as often as they rape adult women.

Japanese, also, did a big rape on Chinese and Korean women during WW2.

You see, none of it fits in with the genetic-basis argument.

Instead, it looks like it has a lot more to do with humans abusing their act of free will, and being encouraged to do so by religious beliefs and culture and upbringing.

Even rapists are selective about their victims, which again supports the idea of choice and not genetic predisposition. Rapists are a lot more selective than muggers are. Muggers will mug anyone in a dark alleyway. Rapists hunt and groom and plot. Rapists, typically, know their victims. Raping is far more psychological than physiological. It’s about hurting the victim by dominating over them. Rape is full of malice and hate.

Now, a ‘psychologist’ like Philippe Rushton should know better than to blame rape on the physiological need to be gratified.

A man who rapes on ‘impulse’ wouldn’t even been normal I think. He’d be disturbed. Most rapists are not found to be mentally disturbed and their raping isn’t impulsive. Selfish, spiteful, hateful and abusive, but not mentally disturbed.

What’s next…?

By Broken Butterfly (not verified) on 07 Jan 2016 #permalink

John, dude! You did not refute the population number issue. You hopped over it with an unexciting response. Broken Butterfly cannot do anymore for you as you’re far too closeminded to cope with what they’ve put forth. You act like you don’t get why people use birth control. I’m worried. Are you even aware that there is such a thing as birth control? Whites and Orientals only appear to have “small litter size” because they use birth control to largely reduce their numbers. Take away the birth control, and their numbers would shoot up again. Trust me! They’ve decided they don’t want to have many kids anymore. China is using the “one child policy” to forcibly reduce their numbers. This is engineering, not natural evolution. If Oriental Chinese adapted to their environment, and adapted to have “small litter size” then why on earth would they need such a policy? This suggests to us that they can’t keep their “reproduction” in check and need more drastic measures to control it, so their government has taken matters into their own hands.

Chinese were not always such a big population, you know. They had a sudden huge increase over a few decades and then ended up with an overpopulation problem.

Do you honestly think it could change that rapidly if reproduction in humans was a set pattern?

Blacks don’t reproduce the most, and most crucially, whites don’t reproduce more than Orientals. The white population, worldwide, has been seriously shrinking and it’s NOT because Europe and North America is flooded with “disease” and “famine” and “aids”. Whites have the lowest birth rate, not the highest death rate, and they do not fall between blacks and Orientals. The three-way-pattern is NOT consistent on reproduction.


The main problem I see is that Rushton was using “litter size” to estimate the rate at which human groups have sex. And he was using “promiscuity” to estimate little size as well. Accept this is manipulated by birth control and humans regularly engage in non-procreation sex. Some females fall pregnant with the first male they go with, other females fall pregnant after having been with many males. Some females have many children with the same male, while other females have many children with different males. Some folks could have lots of casual sex and still be childless. You can’t overlook the effects of birth control on “litter size”. It’s not a matter of whether kids survive to adulthood; it’s a matter of them not being born in the first place!

And furthermore, if sexual activity does not determine “litter size” then it is an arbitrary point to make. It’s like saying, well, blacks and whites appear taller when standing next to Orientals. And? So what?

Ok, I give up. You win. You obviously do not understand r/K selection, or Rushton's theory regarding its relation to humans, or have any desire to. You probably haven't and won't ever read anything he has actually written. I could try to point out each flaw in your derisive thousand-word tirades but it would just evoke more of the same. For anybody who stumbles across this blog like I did last year, here is something interesting and pertinent to the conversation.
You can respond all you like but I won't see it. I'm done. You win.

I am writing a piece about Rushton right now (in Swedish). I have a special chapter on friends and foes of Rushton. The foes do often act in a strange way (like Greg Laden). Let me give you two examples: 1. One thing that strikes me is that the foes of Rushton often refer to the things he has not written about. For instance does he argue thar africans are not inferior to europeans. He rest this argument on evolution. 2. John Philippe Rushtons name is John Philippe Rushton (and not Jean-Philippe Rushton). The mistakes done by Greg Laden are quite common and are therefore excused because he lacks knowledge. Ignorance is bliss. A tip for the future to the harsh critics of Rushton: Read his articles before critizing. This alternative give rise to proper criticism instead of politicallly correct statments that don´t represent the reality. Racism must be fought with truth instead of meta-stupid lies.

Michael Söndergaard

By Michael Söndergaard (not verified) on 16 Apr 2016 #permalink

And if you think niggers are in any way equal to Whites, you're even more brainwashed.

By Cartier McCloud (not verified) on 06 Jul 2016 #permalink