The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 F. Roger Devlin Archive
Investigating a Great (Though Flawed) Investigator
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

J. Philippe Rushton: A Life History Perspective
Edward Dutton
Thomas Edward Press, 2018
182 pages, $19.89 paper, free in Kindle

ORDER IT NOW

Ed Dutton has produced a significant critical study of the life and work of psychologist J. Philippe Rushton (1943–2012). As most readers of this site are aware, Rushton is famous for extending r-K Life History theory—originally developed for understanding animal behavior—to the three major races of mankind. As explained in his book Race, Evolution, and Behavior(1994), Black Africans have a faster (more “r”) “Life History Strategy” than the other races: they mature more quickly, do the least long-term planning, tend to produce a lot of offspring, but do not invest heavily in them. East Asians have the slowest (most “K”) strategy, with a late onset of sexual activity, more long-term planning, lower total fertility and a high-investment parenting style. Europeans are in between, but usually much closer to Asians than Africans. Higher intelligence tends to correlate with a slower life history.

Dutton’s study has two principle aims: to demonstrate that Rushton himself followed a fast life history strategy, and to assess his work in the light of biographical information and subsequent research. We shall begin with Dutton’s account Rushton’s family background and life, based upon his own genealogical research, interviews with many who knew Rushton, and access to Rushton’s unpublished autobiography.

Dutton’s research indicated that Rushton was not, as he believed, descended from the inventor Samuel Crompton. Moreover, his family history reveals a certain tendency to migration and out-marriage: his parents moved from the greater Manchester area to the southern coast of England, and his French name reflects his mother’s illegitimate birth to a French woman and a British soldier during World War I (the couple moved to England after the war, married, and had further children). Dutton argues that migration and out-marriage are consistent with the profile of “smart r-strategists.”

In 1948, Rushton’s family migrated to Durban, South Africa, where his father worked as a building contractor. In his autobiography, he mentions having an Afrikaner girlfriend during this period. Given that he was only eight when the family returned to England, this may not have been a terribly torrid romance, but Dutton notes that an early interest in girls is certainly characteristic of an r-strategist.

According to Rushton’s third wife, Elizabeth Weiss, “Phil mentioned that his parents left South Africa due to his father’s affair with the neighbor’s wife”—further evidence, according to Dutton, of r-strategizing in Rushton’s family background.

After four years in Bournemouth, England, the family moved once again, this time to Canada. Rushton’s interest in psychology began when he was fifteen; he was especially attracted to the work of Hans Eysenck. He also became interested in politics in his teens, joining the Social Credit Party of Canada, a small right-wing populist party. Writes Dutton:

Rushton recalls that he felt surrounded by anti-White and anti-Western views during this period. He sent off for reprints of old and by then ‘forbidden’ academic articles from the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics. This introduced him to the work of sometime Columbia University Professor of Psychology Henry Garrett (1894–1973), who argued that there were substantial black-white intelligence differences in the USA and that these could be explained by evolutionary processes.

At seventeen, Rushton became bored with school, dropped out, and took a book-keeping job with the Canadian Railway. He married a young girl named Nina Sack; in their wedding photo she is heavily pregnant. Their son Stephen was born in 1962, the year Rushton turned nineteen. The following year, the marriage ended; according to Weiss, this was because Rushton had begun a new relationship. He retained custody of his son, however, which Dutton speculates may have been due to the mother’s extreme youth.

[For] understanding the psychology of Rushton, this series of events is extremely important. All the behaviors which Rushton has displayed—dropping out of school, marrying young, having a child young, having an affair—are predicted by low IQ. But he manifestly had a very high IQ, so, instead, these reflect a fast Life History Strategy, and specifically low Conscientiousness. Rushton was ‘living for the now’, following his impulses, with little regard for the future.

Rushton and his new girlfriend moved to London in early 1963, where Rushton worked as a bus conductor. The couple never married but had a daughter in 1965. Rushton realized he needed a better-paying job, so he completed his A-levels via correspondence course. (A-levels are the British educational qualification required for admission to university.) During this period, however, his girlfriend returned to Canada, taking their daughter with her.

Rushton remained in London, raising his son on his own. In 1967, he entered Birkbeck College, graduating in 1970 with a First Class Degree in psychology. The former high school dropout now proceeded directly to doctoral studies at the London School of Economics, completing his dissertation on the subject of altruism in children in 1973, the year he turned thirty.

At some point during these years, Rushton made the acquaintance of law student Felicity Hammerton, with whom he vacationed in Italy, Greece and Israel. Following Rushton’s death, Hammerton wrote: “He definitely was the love of my life, but as I had trained to be a lawyer in England and he wanted to go back to Canada, romance ended and friendship sustained.” She used an inheritance from her grandfather to move Rushton and his son from “an appalling room in the East End” to the exclusive Holborn neighborhood of London. Rushton even persuaded her to leave her name off the lease, although she was paying the rent. This generosity would cost her when Rushton moved back to Canada and she had no legal standing in relation to the apartment. On the other hand, Hammerton reports that Rushton was generous with a love child of hers by another man: “appalled by the inhumanity shown by [the boy’s father,] Phil gave him time and love.”

During Rushton’s final year of graduate study, Hans Eysenck came to speak at the London School of Economics about how advances in electroencephalography could allow the recording of brainwaves correlated with IQ. Two years previously, Eysenck had published a book in which he accepted the genetic basis for racial differences in IQ.

A large group of protestors were in the audience shouting, ‘No Free Speech for Fascists!,’ and just as Eysenck began to speak, one of them pulled away his microphone, leading to uproar, the podium crashing down, and a scuffle in which Eysenck was punched in the face. ‘Adrenaline-pumping,’ Rushton clambered to the front. Believing Eysenck was under the pile of students fighting on the floor, he ‘pull(ed) people up and push(ed) them to one side,’ leading to Rushton himself being attacked by ‘Maoist’ activists. After this, he recalled that he had to go for a long walk in order to calm down.

Rushton did a year’s post-doctoral work at Oxford before returning to Canada in 1974. In 1977 he was appointed to a position at the University of Western Ontario, and in 1980 published a book, Altruism, Socialization, and Society, based on his doctoral research. Primarily relying on social learning theory, the study contained nothing especially politically incorrect.

But then Rushton spent a crucial six months at Berkeley, working with Arthur Jensen.

It was while Rushton was at Berkeley that he became a convinced evolutionary psychologist, accepting that humans are an advanced form of ape and much of their behavior is genetic and a result of evolution. In the same period Rushton also became convinced that both Jensen and Hans Eysenck were correct in concluding that there were genuine race differences in intelligence. It was also around this time that Rushton began exploring the possibility of race differences in [Life History Strategy].

In early 1983, Rushton returned to London to work with Eysenck. He recalled learning at this time that Blacks, who then constituted thirteen percent of London’s population, were responsible for fifty percent of the city’s crime. A deputy commissioner for the London Police told him that without Blacks in the city, the police budget could be cut by half.

He returned to Canada in June, 1983 and was granted tenure at the University of Western Ontario in 1985. At some point during the 1980s, he met and married Serpil Kocabıyık, a Turkish graduate student in mathematics. Dutton was apparently unable to learn much about this second marriage.

As early as 1984, Rushton applied to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for a grant to study the possible application of r-K Life History theory to the races of mankind. Although they had previously supported his research, this application was turned down. Rushton then went to the Pioneer Fund, which awarded him a grant. He first publicly revealed his new theory before a small, hostile audience in 1987. The following year he also published two short pieces on racial differences in the journal Personality and Individual Differences.

Then, on January 19, 1989, Rushton (in Dutton’s words) “threw a grenade into the world of human biology.” Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco, he gave a presentation entitled “Evolutionary biology and heritable traits (with reference to Oriental-White-Black difference).” It was widely reported in the press, and Rushton was

subjected to a year-long campaign calling for him to be fired from the University of Western Ontario. Newspapers published cartoons depicting him in the robes of the Ku Klux Klan. Ontario’s premier declared Rushton’s research ‘morally offensive to the way Ontario thinks’ [and] also called for Rushton to be fired. Left-wing campaigners scrawled ‘Racists (sic) pig lives here’ on his office door. A police investigation occurred to see whether there was evidence to prosecute Rushton (and possibly jail him for 2 years) for inciting racial hatred. This culminated in the Attorney-General of Ontario declaring that Rushton was ‘loony but not criminal.’ Rushton’s dean gave him an ‘unsatisfactory’ rating on his annual performance review, on the grounds of his ‘insensitivity,’ which Rushton successfully appealed against. His university lectures had to be videotaped and watched by students in private to avoid protestors turning his classes into riots.

The man who had occasioned all this outrage seemed to being enjoying it. Rushton even agreed to appear on popular American television shows such as Geraldo and Donahue, where he preserved his dignity as academic “anti-racist” activist Berry Mehler fumed and fussed.

‘I do enjoy intellectual excitement,’ Rushton once said. This quip is very telling. It has been said of Eysenck himself that, ‘he is attracted to the new and glittering areas to satisfy his exceptional need for intellectual stimulation. He is nothing short of being an intellectual sensation seeker,’ and that remark seems to have originally been made about Rushton by American psychologist Marvin Zuckerman. Fast LH strategists are essentially adrenaline junkies. They are evolved to enjoy risk, because in an unstable ecology you can only survive by taking risks. High in testosterone, they are also highly status-driven and it seems fairly obvious that if you are able to provoke people to intense fury or upset them, you have power over them. It renders you the centre of attention, it may provide you with a group of countercultural supporters; it is a means of attaining status.

As Dutton notes, most academics are content to offer slight tweaks to the generally accepted theories of their time. But those whom posterity remembers “are highly original thinkers who—because original ideas always upset the status quo—weathered venomous attacks, social ostracism and much more besides. They attain the highest status, while their careerist colleagues—who likely had much easier lives—are forgotten.”

In 1994, as part of his research, Rushton paid 150 customers of the Eaton Mall in Toronto—one third white, one third black and one third East Asian—to fill out a survey that included questions about penis size, thereby attracting more unfavorable attention. In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine in October, 1994, Rushton mentioned that penis size seems to correlate inversely with brain size: ‘It’s a trade-off; more brain or more penis. You can’t have everything!’ Thanks to the tireless efforts of the Southern Poverty Law Center and academic intellectual-ethnic activists such as Richard Lewontin, this has become perhaps the best-known finding of Rushton’s entire scientific career—even cited in his obituary in the Globe and Mail (Toronto). (This study was replicated by Richard Lynn; see here.)

In 1995, Rushton published his most important book: Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. It offered data for the three major racial groups across sixty different physical and behavioral variables, consistently finding the fastest life history for Black Africans and the slowest for East Asians, with White Europeans in the middle. Rushton’s book received some less-than-rational criticism, of which my favorite example comes from the pen of a certain David Barash: “Bad science and virulent racial prejudice drip like pus from nearly every page of this despicable book.” But Rushton’s work was positively reviewed by Linda Gottfredson, Arthur Jensen, and Richard Lynn, among others. As Dutton explains, the book was a paradigmatic example of good science:

Rushton had brought together a very large amount of disparate data and presented a theory which seemed to neatly explain all of it. In doing so, he had complied with two fundamental goals of science: hypothesizing a unitary theory to explain a very large amount of data in the simplest way, and unifying separate fields of thought; in this case social science and biology.

In 1999, Rushton brought out a “special abridged edition” of Race, Evolution, and Behavior that summarized the results of the larger work in the style of a popular scientific magazine article. He arranged for 40,000 copies of this booklet to be sent, unsolicited, to various academic psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists, provoking (as he doubtless intended) a strong backlash. The publisher, Transaction Books—a reputable academic publisher then run by Irving Louis Horowitz and his wife, issued an apology and refused to have anything further to do with Rushton. As a result, in the following year he published both a “2nd special abridged edition” and a 3rd edition of the unabridged work through the Charles Darwin Research Institute, his own creation.

In 1997, Rushton met graduate student Elizabeth Weiss—half-Jewish, half-German, and thirty years his junior—at a Human Behavior and Evolution Society conference. The following year, he filed for divorce from his second wife. He and Weiss were married the day the divorce was granted, in 2000.

According to Weiss, during their relationship, Rushton was very concerned it would be revealed that he had fathered a half-black child out of wedlock through an affair he had engaged in with a married black woman. ‘Phil told me that this son looked like him and he had behavioural issues,’ explains Weiss, ‘but that the mother did not leave her husband and, thus, the child’s last name was not Rushton.’

Dutton comments: “Obviously, cuckolding another man—passing on your genes while someone else does the investment—is an extreme r-strategy, as is attraction to those who are strongly genetically different from yourself.” One wonders whether this affair of Rushton’s might not improve his reputation in an age when disliking blacks is considered a more serious moral failing than adultery.

Weiss also recalls that “one of Rushton’s ex-girlfriends, who spoke with an English accent, got in touch, remonstrating about the fact that he had ‘forced her’ to have an abortion, decades earlier. She left multiple phone messages on our machine.”

In 2001, Rushton’s estranged daughter Katherine tracked him down and got back in touch.

Weiss felt Rushton became obsessed with his daughter and assisted her in various ways which, for Weiss, put pressure on their relationship. In 2003, ‘We got into a huge argument, in which he threw me off a chair, and I left and had him served with divorce papers. After I filed, he emptied out our bank account (which is actually not allowed).’ Rushton attempted to use academic grant money, claims Weiss, to pay for the divorce.

In his later years Rushton suffered from Addison’s Disease, whose

symptoms include mania, confusion, anxiety, concentration problems, depression and even psychosis. It has been found by some researchers that cortisol deficiency is associated with emotionally flat and callous behaviour. In addition, severe stress can be very problematic for sufferers of Addison’s because they can’t produce enough cortisol to deal with it. The result is a collapse in blood pressure which tends to lead to feelings of intense fear and emotional distress.

The illness worsened over time, and Dutton believes it affected his work from about 2010, “at least the papers he authored alone.”

Rushton served as director of the Pioneer Fund from 2002. In August, 2012, a few weeks before his death, he transferred half of the Pioneer Fund’s money, about 1.9 million in American dollars, to his own Charles Darwin Research Institute. He apparently did not consult with a lawyer before taking this action, which was illegal under the American law governing trusts. Upon his death, he left control of the Institute with his son Stephen, who changed its name and used the money—donated for the specific purpose of supporting scientific research—to establish a scholarship fund at the university where he teaches.

The Pioneer Fund still legally exists, with Richard Lynn having succeeded Rushton as director, but it no longer has enough money to support scientific research. Lynn comments:

We would have hoped and expected that Phil would have left the Pioneer Fund funds in the hands of people who . . . would use these to further the causes in which he believed and for which they were donated. So, in the end, Phil let us all down and betrayed the trust placed in him. He was in very poor health at this time and perhaps he did not have a full understanding of what he was doing.

* * *

Rushton’s table ranking the three major races according to some sixty variables is, as Dutton writes, “astonishingly consistent,” revealing no exceptions to the pattern which forms his central thesis. Dutton also found that the same pattern holds for some variables Rushton did not examine, including “age at menopause” and “senility.”

However, Dutton also found evidence that Rushton incorrectly reported the data on testicle size, ignoring at least two sources which indicated that not only East Asians, but also Africans, have smaller testicles than whites. In a coauthored paper from 1987, Rushton even blithely dismissed the evidence that Africans have smaller testicles than Europeans as “contrary to the general trend.”

Dutton also produces evidence that Rushton misstates the case for a correlation between general intelligence (g) and slow life history (K). Such a correlation does indeed exist when species or subspecies are compared, but not when comparing individuals:

British evolutionary psychologist Michael Woodley (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of the relationship between gand K [in individual humans]. He found that there was no relationship between the two. Only one study found a positive and statistically significant relationship for both sexes and it was led by Rushton. Another study found this, but only for one sex. An analysis of Woodley’s meta-analysis has demonstrated that both of these studies are outliers, differing significantly from the other studies of the same relationship.

Another questionable aspect of Race, Evolution, and Behavior was its limitation to just three races. Although there is no unequivocal number of distinct human races, Dutton argues that, at a minimum, Australian Aborigines and Amerindians ought to have been included as well: Amerindians, e.g., are nearly as genetically distinct from Northeast Asians as are Europeans. Such an extension of Rushton’s study would have revealed further anomalies, however:

Rushton himself concedes that Native Americans are seemingly higher in Conscientiousness and lower in Extraversion than Europeans. Lynn finds that Native Americans are higher in psychopathic personality—in this context meaning very low Agreeableness—than African Americans. Native American life expectancy is about a year lower than that of African Americans.

In other words, Amerindians exhibit higher K than Europeans according to some measures, but lower K than Africans according to others.

Even within the framework of Rushton’s three-race model, East Asians are more often a poor fit than one would gather from reading his book. Neuroticism, e.g., is a form of ‘mental instability,’ so on the basis of Rushton’s theory we would expect Northeast Asians to be lowest in it. In fact, they are highest in it, and Africans are lowest

The reason for this appears to be the importance of social anxiety – a trait which comes under the umbrella of Neuroticism – in high K societies. In such societies, in their harsh ecology, you are more likely to survive if you can form a highly cooperative group and you will die quickly if you are cast out of this group. So it pays to be socially anxious.

Another anomaly is that Asians have been greatly outdone by Europeans on measures of cultural achievement despite their higher average intelligence. Dutton cites a Japanese scholar who attributes this to Asians’ high levels of social anxiety, which allows them to develop cooperative groups, but also “renders them very low in inquisitiveness, openness to new ideas, curiosity . . . indeed any behavioural tendency that might ‘rock the boat.’”

Negative ethnocentrism, or distrust of foreigners, is another area where Asians fail to match the pattern predicted by Rushton’s theory. One would expect that K-strategists, being more trusting, would be the less hostile to foreigners. However, Northeast Asians are more negatively ethnocentric than either Africans or Europeans.

Is there any way of accounting for these counterexamples to Rushton’s theory? Michael Woodley and his colleagues have argued that as a race or species adopts a slower Life History Strategy, the traits that make up that strategy will correlate less closely with one another. In Dutton’s words:

Under conditions of intense selection—of the kind experienced by Northeast Asians—you end up with a very high-K group and thus extreme specialization and a weak relationship between K traits. So, we would expect them to be less K than Europeans on some measures. It is likely that, in a very harsh ecology, a group which was highly cooperative but also hostile to outsiders (breeding with whom would only be maladaptive because the children would be less adapted to the harsh ecology) would have been more likely to survive. Foreigners also potentially undermine community trust, particularly crucial for extreme K-strategists.

So the anomalies Dutton reports are by no means beyond the possibility of evolutionary explanation, but Rushton neglected to mention them altogether. Dutton considers this cherry-picking of the evidence on Rushton’s part, whether conscious or unconscious.

* * *

Dutton occasionally overstates his case: e.g., when describing Rushton as a “pathological liar.” The examples of Rushton’s dishonesty he cites appear motivated either by bias in favor of his theory or a desire to conceal the less creditable aspects of his personal life or family history. Other false statements are probably mere failures of memory.

The search for evidence to support his theses may also bias Dutton’s interpretation of particular facts. He describes Rushton’s mention of his supposed family connection to inventor Samuel Crompton, e.g., as bragging in order to support his view that Rushton was a narcissist. But Rushton may just as well have mentioned it because he thought a famous ancestor the only feature of his family history likely to interest readers.

In response to ideological attacks on him, Rushton once remarked:

It may be worth recalling the words of the deeply pious Blaise Pascal when faced with the Copernican hypothesis: “If the earth moves, a decree from Rome cannot stop it.” Readers may fervently wish that genetically based differences in behavior did not exist, but the data show otherwise.

For Dutton, this is further evidence of narcissism: “By implicitly comparing himself to Pascal and his theory to that of Copernicus, Rushton is presenting himself as a genius, a brave scientific dissident and a profound thinker.” Yet the gist of the remark would seem to be the comparison of his critics’ irrationality with the Roman Curia’s attempt to settle an objective argument with a decree, and the quote from Pascal is entirely apt.

These and other examples of tendentious interpretation are perhaps an inevitable hazard of any attempt to establish a psychological profile from a multitude of facts not especially important in themselves. Dutton foresees that he will be accused of base motives in attacking a great and courageous scientist, but the highlights I have assembled in this review are enough to show that his study does make a significant contribution to our better understanding of both Rushton and the matters he investigated.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: Behavior, Hbd, Phil Rushton, R/k Theory, Racial Reality 
Hide 49 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. GLad to see articles by F. Roger Devlin here.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  2. I’m trying, and failing, to unravel the psychological reasons for the difference between his research and his own life. He constantly lived the ‘r strategy’ life, not just in personal life, but with his research as an ‘intellectual sensation seeker’. But seemed to glorify K strategy in his work. You could say this was a form of honesty, in admitting that the ideal man is far from your own behaviour. But it comes across as hypocritical, like a pastor visiting a whore after his sermon.

  3. What’s new ?:

    https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wouter_Buikhuisen

    Aan het einde van de jaren zeventig kreeg hij landelijke bekendheid door zijn controversiële stellingen over de biologische achtergronden van criminaliteit. Als gevolg van negatieve publiciteit die hiermee gepaard ging, stapte hij op als wetenschapper.

    Short summary: at the end of the seventies he became famous for positions about the biological background of criminal behaviour. He had to resign.

  4. I don’t have much to add. I’ve always (since I’ve seen his work) thought that Rushton’s ideas were pioneering, unoriginal & limited. He simply uses big 5 without questioning this entire paradigm; he selected only three races, but omits others (Native Americans, Abos- but also varieties of Indians from subcontinent & Melanesians, as well as non-white Caucasians); he is too much focused on IQ, while marginalizing other, even more important, traits. True, he has addressed them, but evidently for him IQ is the King.

    Rushton will be remembered as one of Profiles in Courage.

  5. Peter Frost says: • Website

    Interesting bio. Devlin is correct in his criticisms of Rushton:

    1. Higher intelligence and slower life history correlate at the population level but not at the individual level. These two traits aren’t genetically linked. Rather, the same selection pressure that favors one also tends to favor the other.

    2. Number of races. There is an indefinitely large number of human races, and the trajectory of evolution has differed from one to the next. There is no unifying theory of human biological variation, other than the theory of evolution.

    Nonetheless, Rushton did a lot of good by standing up for his beliefs at a time when other academics were standing down and caving in. His example encouraged others to speak up and speak out. In a way, he was like Trump. He simply didn’t care what other people might think and seemed to enjoy being thrown into the lion’s den.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  6. FB says:

    ‘…East Asians have the slowest (most “K”) strategy, with a late onset of sexual activity, more long-term planning, lower total fertility and a high-investment parenting style…’

    That’s why there are 1.4 BILLION Chinese…that ‘lower total fertility’…

    LOL…social ‘science’ leads the way in unmitigated quackery…

    • Replies: @Peter Johnson
  7. MBlanc46 says:

    So the man as a cad. And his research findings are open to criticism. I suppose that the conclusion I’m supposed to draw is that equalism and blamk-slatism are correct, after all.

    If having an early interest in girls is evidence of a K strategy, then I and every male I’ve ever known (except for the homosexuals, I suppose) is a K strategist.

    • Agree: cassandra
    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Colin Wright
  8. Having not read the text, my comments may be unfair.

    but its a safe bet given his attitudes and beliefs going in, that, unless he had a mechanism to weed them out of his research, there would be little untainted coming out.

    By the time the eight year old hit the Continent, there is virtually nothing left of the original societies of the african continent left to actually consider minus the impact of slavery and colonial rule. So there would be no way to measure the supposed evolutionary history regarding social relations among families.

    Ignoring the radical and flawed notion of evolution, I have to reject on its face, the suggestion that blacks among Africans demonstrated small investment in family or offspring. In the US we have been taught that after slavery blacks roamed the countryside lost and listless having no comprehension of what to do — but the record tells another story. It tells a story of thousand of blacks traveling the country in search of loved ones sold off into parts unknown. It tells the story of free blacks working to buy back their children, husbands and wives. And until the 1960’s or late 80’s, it tells a story of tight and intact family structures despite lass.

    The authors own caveats suggest the body of work has conflicting data sets within it, that the researchers does not acknowledge, that are pertinent to his analysis.

    And based on what we now know concerning DNA data sets of the African population, that the physical variances are vast and obvious. So so vast that skin color is a poor indicator of differences. that the genetic make-up among certain whites to certain blacks if far more in line to relationship than among various black to black and white to white dynamic.

    look the reason such research is treated with suspicion is not because intelligence is not genetic, but because the evidence for it is scant and based largely on social correlations, which are heavily impacted by the the social engineering which is not be definition genetic. And more importantly is complicated by the differences in cultural intermingling which don’t exist in vacuums.

  9. @FB

    You are confused in your thinking – total fertility is not the same as population growth rate. They can be positively or negatively correlated or uncorrelated. Homo Sapiens have much lower total fertility than chimpanzees, but massively higher population numbers.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  10. FB says:

    Thanks ‘Peter Johnson’…any relation to Dick Pecker…?

  11. I couldn’t help but think that in a White Nationalist America, Hollywood would be making a film about Rushton. Christopher Plummer or Peter O’Toole in their prime would have been excellent, but I’m sure readers will have ideas about which modern actors would do the job.

    He married a young girl named Nina Sack; in their wedding photo she is heavily pregnant

    It would be a film not without humour. Indeed, when I saw the above, I couldn’t stop laughing. Rushton may have been a cad and a bounder, but he was good in the Sack, literally.

  12. Interesting story, but the why so eager to take up the false premise that one strategy is superior to the other, or that anyone’s particular strategy is more salient than another’s?

  13. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Peter Johnson

    The Chinese had an immensely high fertility rate prior to the 1970s. Rushton’s research and theory seem to be based on One-Child Policy China, which is/was a historical/cultural anomaly.

    Source: The very high fertility in the early 1950s and late 1960s corresponded well with Mao’s political dogma that a huge population would promote China’s military and political power. The high fertility caused the enormous population increase of modern China and is responsible for the huge momentum effect which is now incorporated in China’s age structure.
    http://www.china-profile.com/data/fig_WPP2010_TotPop_TFR.htm

    https://www.unz.com/article/mao-reconsidered/#comment-2045728

    China right now: Polygamy in China.

    Apparently, this exec had told the Mr. that he’s actually a polygamist–not only does he actively practice it, but he’s very involved in advocating for its return in China. He says that after thousands of years of this lifestyle, there’s no way that a couple of decades of altered social norms will have any effect on making men satisfied with just one woman for the rest of their lives.http://hkhousewife.com/china/salt-lake-meets-shanghai-polygamy-in-china/

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/#comment-2059325

    Plus, there is data that many Chinese families did not register their daughters when they were born to circumvent One-Child Policy rules:

    Asia’s gender imbalance is bad news for growth
    From a lack of brides to economic efficiency, why too many men can mean trouble
    http://asia.nikkei.com/Features/Too-many-men/Asia-s-gender-imbalance-is-bad-news-for-growth?page=2

    Recent data suggests the male surplus is smaller than has long been thought because, researchers argue, many parents did not register the birth of daughters.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/chinas-rise-americas-fall/#comment-1864010

    Source: http://clinicalpsychreading.blogspot.com/2017/04/finding-chinas-missing-girls.html Archived link and graph: http://archive.is/Aobrc and http://archive.is/5YKQm

    Outstanding piece, by the way!

    Edward Dutton has been on fire!

    Thanks to Mr. Devlin for keeping us updated on Dutton’s output and to Mr. Unz for featuring these great pieces.

    • Agree: Peter Johnson
    • Replies: @HobbesianM
  14. This smacks of the general critique of Marx. He didn’t live like a Marxist, but that is not the proper place to attack his ideas from. An idea is good or bad based on the idea, not the character of the guy that pushes the idea.
    At worst, it makes Rushton a hypocrite. The way he lived his life says nothing about r/K theory.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  15. Anon[409] • Disclaimer says:
    @MBlanc46

    I think you misread it. Wasn’t it r strategy that went with an early interest in girls?

  16. I have the book ready to read, and hope I will have the time to do that and write a review in the next few months.

    That said, to address two common criticisms of Rushton’s racial r/K theory here:

    1. Other races that don’t fall in these categories

    But Caucasians, Negroids, and Mongoloids are the main three races, accounting for perhaps 90% of the world population.

    Moreover, many of the major races have been majorly elevated in IQ, and depressed in psychopathic tendencies, by having had developed agriculture and practiced it for several millennia.

    This makes comparisons with races that only had agriculture for a shorter period of time (the southern Ameroids) or not at all (the northern Ameroids) much more dubious.

    To take an extreme example, the Jews would be the most K-selected subrace measuring by pure (verbal) IQ, but are quite unremarkable on most other physiological features relative to their Caucasoid stock.

    Another example: Latin Americans – who are part Ameroids, who in turn are a paleo-Mongoloid people – in the same environment live longer than (predominantly) Anglo-Germanic American whites. Higher life expectancy is an indicator of greater K.

    2. Chinese fecundity

    In the medieval era the Chinese and Japanese were having kids spaced out every 4-5 years, whereas Europeans were having them more frequently, once every 2-3 years.

    Main difference: Only about 75% of West European women married and had kids, whereas 90%-95% of Chinese women did.

    (Figures are not perfectly accurate, and of course varied between regions and over centuries anyway, but they would generally be in this ballpark).

    Another thing that I recall Rushton citing was that (1) average period of gestation is 1 week longer amongst Mongoloids and Negroids, with Caucasoids in between; (2) Negroes having much higher chances of producing twins and triplets than Mongoloids, with Caucasoids again in between. This suggests that at a pure, physiological, culture-reduced level, the Mongoloids are the most K-selected while the Negroids are the least, as per the traits that would be the closest single proxies to the K factor.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
    , @FKA Max
  17. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Dr. Krieger

    I think the criticism is legitimate.

    Rushton claimed to be a scientist, while Marx was a philosopher and political theorist, etc.

    Personal questionable, hypocritical behavior is of greater concern in a scientist than it is in a philosopher, in my opinion, since scientist is regarded as a highly competent, prestigious and respected profession by the general public: “Scientists Seen as Competent But Not Trusted by Americanshttp://wws.princeton.edu/news-and-events/news/item/scientists-seen-competent-not-trusted-americans , “Doctors, Military Officers, Firefighters, and Scientists Seen as Among America’s Most Prestigious Occupationshttps://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/doctors-military-officers-firefighters-and-scientists-seen-as-among-americas-most-prestigious-occupations-274579231.html and “Nurses, Doctors and Scientists Are Canada’s Most Respected Professionalshttps://insightswest.com/news/nurses-doctors-and-scientists-are-canadas-most-respected-professionals/

    Rushton should be held to the highest of standards, in my opinion.

    This is a very good critique of Differential-K theory:

    Race, Sexual Permissiveness, and Questionable Science

    Why Differential-K Theory gets Racial Differences in Sexuality Wrong

    Schmitt’s results are more consistent with an alternative theory, known as strategic pluralism, that low sociosexuality and a preference for monogamy are more adaptive in harsh, difficult environments because infants then have a better chance of survival when bi-parental care is more prevalent. Conversely, in resource-rich environments, such as in developed nations, single-parenting becomes more viable and higher sociosexuality becomes more common.

    Another environmental factor associated with sociosexuality is imbalanced sex-ratio (Barber, 2008). For example, in societies where there are more men than women available for marriage, levels of sociosexuality tend to be lower. In this situation, marriageable women are highly in demand, and women can demand a higher level of relationship exclusivity from prospective partners, and they are more likely to delay intercourse until after marriage. Conversely, when there are fewer men than women available for marriage, levels of sociosexuality tend to be higher. In this situation, women must compete more intensively for mates and sex outside of marriage and more permissive sexual attitudes are more common. Imbalanced sex ratios featuring more men than women occur today in a number of East Asian countries and this might help explain why these countries tend to be more sexually conservative (Schmitt & Project members, 2003).

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201603/race-sexual-permissiveness-and-questionable-science

    Source: https://ramblingperfectionist.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/where-to-get-your-freak-on/ Archived link: http://archive.is/oGq0W

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @HobbesianM
  18. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost

    In a way, he was like Trump. He simply didn’t care what other people might think and seemed to enjoy being thrown into the lion’s den.

    Yes, they seem to have similar personalities and life histories.

  19. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @FKA Max

    Science is defined by reproducibility. Ultimately what’s relevant is whether or not Rushton’s results are reproducible. So his behavior is actually less of a concern in a discipline like science than philosophy or political theory, since the former is defined by objective reproducibility unlike the latter.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  20. Some of the more startling aspects about Rushton come from his wife alone–or at least, other sources are not mentioned. Without additional evidence, I remain a bit of a skeptic.

  21. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Another thing that I recall Rushton citing was that (1) average period of gestation is 1 week longer amongst Mongoloids and Negroids, with Caucasoids in between;

    This study states that “Newborn babies are clearly heavier and slightly longer in the US than in China. In contrast, there is no difference between Caucasian US newborns and Chinese newborns with respect to head circumference or gestational duration.

    Birthweight differences between USA and China and their relevance to breast cancer aetiology

    Lagiou, et al. (2003)

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/813f/59cba89d4ea4c2e8b281b0466a73ebfba312.pdf


    Table 1
    Mean, median and standard deviation values of weight, height, head circumference, and gestational age of 296 newborns in Boston, USA and 329 newborns in Shanghai, China
    Mean (SD) Median

    Birthweight (g) US newborns 3489 (543) 3511 Chinese newborns 3384 (465) 3400

    Birth length (cm) US newborns 50.2 (2.7) 50.9 Chinese newborns 49.8 (2.7) 50.0

    Head circumference (cm) a US newborns 34.3 (1.9) 34.5 Chinese newborns 34.5 (2.0) 34.0

    Gestational age (wk) US newborns 39.8 (1.9) 39.9 Chinese newborns 39.8 (1.8) 39.9

    a
    There were 8 missing values among US newborns and 14 missing values
    among Chinese newborns.

  22. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Anatoly Karlin

    (2) Negroes having much higher chances of producing twins and triplets than Mongoloids, with Caucasoids again in between. This suggests that at a pure, physiological, culture-reduced level, the Mongoloids are the most K-selected while the Negroids are the least, as per the traits that would be the closest single proxies to the K factor.

    Doesn’t the increased risk of and higher required investment in twin pregnancies, births and upbringing contradict this?

    Here an interesting theory, which, to me, would make higher rates of twin pregnancies in a population/race actually a more K-selected strategy:

    Why Have Twins?
    Mothers more likely to have twins have heavier, healthier non-twin babies, possibly explaining why twinning evolved.

    Bearing two babies at once is risky business—they are often smaller and weaker than single babies, and there’s a greater chance that either the mother or the babies, or both, will not survive. So the fact that some people have twins has long stumped scientists. To see if he could find an answer, evolutionary biologist Ian Rickard of the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom mined a unique data set of 50 years’ worth of medical data on people in Gambia, collected by the UK Medical Research Council. Examining the birth weights of nearly 2,000 single babies, Rickard and his colleagues found that those born to mothers who had also had twins were 226 grams heavier than mothers who never gave birth to multiples. Thus, bearing twins on occasion might also afford mothers to have healthier single babies, suggesting that the benefits to the mothers might outweigh the costs of twinning.
    […]
    But the study found that even single babies born before their younger twin siblings tended to be heavier, suggesting other mechanisms must be at play. The authors suggest that the answer may lie in a protein called IGF-1, which in addition to increasing the chance of twinning (by causing the ovaries to release multiple eggs), regulates fetal growth.

    https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/why-have-twins-42087 and “Twinning propensity and offspring in utero growth covary in rural African women” http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/8/1/67

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  23. ‘… Blacks, who then constituted thirteen percent of London’s population, were responsible for fifty percent of the city’s crime…’

    What’s immediately striking is how closely these correlate to North American figures. Blacks seem to be about eight times as likely as non-blacks to commit crimes. This holds true across different environments, different sources for the blacks, and different regimes of policing, education, and so on.

    It’s funny. When the truth is the truth, you can approach it from almost any angle — and it turns out to be the same.

  24. ‘…Rushton mentioned that penis size seems to correlate inversely with brain size: ‘It’s a trade-off; more brain or more penis. You can’t have everything!’…’

    This would be a good example of Rushton, sensationalist as opposed to Rushton, scientist.

    The predecessors of Whites and Asians moved out of Africa — and had to adapt to something known as ”winter.’

    Partly, this favored larger brains. ‘Can you figure out how to sew clothes? Winner gets to live until Spring!’

    It also favored smaller genitalia — and shorter limbs. You don’t want to be losing any more heat than you have to. Reduce surface area! No big dicks.

  25. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    I presume you are not a Planckian 😉

    “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” […] ““In the long run,” Azoulay said, “the best ideas probably win. But in the short run, lots of funky things can happen.” – https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-10/science-advances-one-funeral-at-a-time-the-latest-nobel-proves-it

    Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?

    Source: https://www.unz.com/article/reply-to-nathan-cofnas/#comment-2253730

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  26. ‘…”Bad science and virulent racial prejudice drip like pus from nearly every page of this despicable book.”…’

    ! Think what this could do the finish on your bookcase!

  27. [i]’…Amerindians, e.g., are nearly as genetically distinct from Northeast Asians as are Europeans. ..'[/i]

    Really? My own (admittedly haphazard and subjective) observations are that Hispanics of largely Indian stock are remarkably like Asians — both in appearance and in certain fundamental aspects of behavior.

    I’m prepared to learn I’m wrong — but I’m reluctant to accept this claim without question.

  28. @MBlanc46

    ‘…So the man as a cad. And his research findings are open to criticism…’

    Interestingly, much the same could be said about Isaac Newton — or for that matter, Roman Polanski.

    In all three cases, what remains undeniably true is that their ideas remain seminal and compelling — no matter how much we revile them. They and their thoughts will remain vital and important long after all the congenial mediocrities of their eras have been buried and forgotten.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  29. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @FKA Max

    Science is not about star scientists who are taken to be authority figures and their acolytes and collaborators. It’s not about “the best ideas” “winning” arguments. Science is about experimental reproducibility.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  30. @FKA Max

    ‘…
    (2) Negroes having much higher chances of producing twins and triplets than Mongoloids, with Caucasoids again in between. This suggests that at a pure, physiological, culture-reduced level, the Mongoloids are the most K-selected while the Negroids are the least, as per the traits that would be the closest single proxies to the K factor.

    Doesn’t the increased risk of and higher required investment in twin pregnancies, births and upbringing contradict this?…’

    I can’t offer any data to speak of to support this hypothesis; but in a humid tropical environment such as most African blacks live in, wouldn’t disease be a terrific killer of infants?

    I do know that among at least some African tribes, a baby isn’t regarded as human until he’s a year old — possibly, a cultural adaption to high infant mortality.

    Given high infant mortality rates, wouldn’t twinning be evolutionarily more desirable than it would be if a higher proportion of the infants are going to live? Fairly obviously, higher infant mortality is going to make higher fecundity more of an asset.

    Given high enough rates of disease, available food, ability to evade predators, etc become relatively less important; you’ve got to average enough offspring making it past infancy to offset the losses.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  31. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Colin Wright

    Given high infant mortality rates, wouldn’t twinning be evolutionarily more desirable than it would be if a higher proportion of the infants are going to live?

    Yes, that is what I used to believe as well, but given the hypothesis I shared up-thread, I am actually somewhat questioning that.

    The increased risk to the mother to die during pregnancy or delivery and other factors that very much decrease the survivability of the offspring seem to be contradictory the “quantity over quality” hypothesis you suggest.

    I find this very plausible “The authors suggest that the answer may lie in a protein called IGF-1, which in addition to increasing the chance of twinning (by causing the ovaries to release multiple eggs), regulates fetal growth.“, which I interpret to be a “quality over quantity” strategy with twinning just being a byproduct/side-effect, not the actual selection goal, which instead is the selection for the IGF-1 protein.

    The stronger the offspring and its mothers are, the higher its survivability chances are.

    This is also a good study:

    The fitness of twin mothers: evidence from rural Gambia

    In summary, in a natural fertility and high mortality environment twin mothers have higher fertility than singleton mothers that cannot merely be accounted for by their twin births. There is some evidence that this may lead to higher fitness among twin mothers. We have also found indications that twin mothers may be of higher phenotypic quality than women who only give birth to singletons. This suggests that variation in body condition of women may contribute to variation in the probability of twinning within populations. This does not necessarily imply that twinning itself is adaptive, it may be a conditional strategy in women of high phenotypic quality, or it may be that women of high phenotypic quality merely suffer fewer costs from the error of a twin birth.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2001.00287.x

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  32. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    I think you are underestimating and disregarding the human element.

    There is a difference between “Newtonian/hard” sciences and “Darwinian/behavioral” sciences. The former being much more predictably and reliably reproducible, whereas in the latter reproducibility is elusive, i.e., far less predictably and reliably achievable.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  33. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max

    Typos: … the survivability of the offspring seem to be contradictory *to* the “quantity over quality” hypothesis … The stronger the offspring and its *mother* are

    More confirmation “that twin mothers may be of higher phenotypic quality than women who only give birth to singletons”, and therefore follow a K-selected strategy, despite having “higher lifetime fertility”:

    Twinning in humans: maternal heterogeneity in reproduction and survival

    Mothers of twins exhibit lower postmenopausal mortality, shorter average inter-birth intervals, later ages at last birth and higher lifetime fertility than their singleton-only bearing counterparts. From the largest historical sample of twinning mothers yet published, we conclude that bearing twins is more likely for those with a robust phenotype and is a useful index of maternal heterogeneity.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3203505/

    Interesting excerpt from the same study, which explains Mr. Karlin’s observation up-thread, I believe:

    In the medieval era the Chinese and Japanese were having kids spaced out every 4-5 years, whereas Europeans were having them more frequently, once every 2-3 years.

    http://www.unz.com/article/investigating-a-great-though-flawed-investigator/#comment-2440170

    More frail women have both longer inter-birth intervals and earlier ALB, resulting in lower fertility. The women who continue to bear offspring to older ages are a more robust subset who have higher fertilities and are more likely to successfully incur the cost of twins.

  34. @Colin Wright

    Newton a cad? An astrologer I knew, and he must have liked money, but a cad???

  35. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @FKA Max

    Even in a field like physics there is lots of playing with math and theorizing. It’s not science until there’s experimental reproducibility.

    The same applies to other fields like biology, even if experimental research is more difficult. Otherwise it’s just endless theorizing and argumentation.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  36. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Agreed.

    An even more pointed and roaring tribute to experiment came from the utterly self-assured king of experimental physics, Ernest Rutherford. His opinion of theoreticians was that “they play games with their symbols, but we turn out the real facts of Nature”. And he is said to have admonished the capable students working under his tutelage – nine of whom won Nobel Prizes – to not “let me catch anyone talking about the Universe”.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/are-we-cleverer-than-the-ancients/#comment-1925549

  37. I remember reading some years back an article on Rushton (I think it was in Amren) that had an embedded video. That footage showed Rushton being accosted at his car by some dickhead reporter and Ruston ended up smacking him with a briefcase or slamming the guy’s hand with his trunk lid.

    I hope someone can find and re-post here. It was hilarious.

    • Replies: @DFH
    , @Anonymous
  38. FKA Max says: • Website
    @TomSchmidt

    Another very good review of the book:

    Mini-Review of “J. Phillipe Rushton: A Life History Perspective” by Edward Dutton

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/07/15/mini-review-of-j-phillipe-rushton-a-life-history-perspective-by-edward-dutton/ Archived link: http://archive.is/iQqks

    Some people, such as PumpkinPerson, may wonder why Dutton is attacking someone “on his team“, but he addresses people who would ask such questions, writing (pg. 15):

    “But on this basis, it could be argued that my critique of Rushton simply gives ammunition to emotionally-driven scientists and their friends in the media. However, it could be countered that my critique only goes to show that it is those who are genuinely motivated by the understanding of the world — those who accept empirical evidence, such as with regard to intelligence and race — who are prepared to critique those regarded as being ‘on their side.’ And this is precisely because they are unbiased and thus do not think in terms of ‘teams.’”

    Dutton argues that “many of the criticisms leveled against Rushton’s work by mainstream scientists were actually correct” (pg 13).

  39. cassandra says:

    Testicle size. TESTICLE SIZE! Rushford measures, then fudges, testicle size?

    So, ok, the guy’s got an idea that testicle size should connect with something, but it doesn’t. Hmm, maybe something’s wrong with this idea. Does he check to see if this testicle size thingy doesn’t really mean what he thinks it does? Apparently not: much better to cheat.

    That this is a political act is obvious for two reasons: first, it creates mass psychological response, and second, because evidence of why this should matter is dismissed. These are political propensities masquerading as junk science. Everything else in this well-written article confirms this impression.

    My take on the subject of this review: Rushford is flawed, yes, great, not so much. The portrait of Rushford is that of a charlatan who convinced too many that he’s competetent at something, but is actually quite the mediocrity.

    OTOH, maybe I don’t have enough evidence either.

    • Replies: @Anon
  40. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @cassandra

    My take on the subject of this review: Rushford is flawed, yes, great, not so much. The portrait of Rushford is that of a charlatan who convinced too many that he’s competetent at something, but is actually quite the mediocrity.

    People in the field certainly think Rushton was competent, and it’s not uncommon for brilliant scientists to be unscrupulous or vicious. Einstein, for example, was certainly unscrupulous, and Newton was certainly vicious. Probably these traits even help one to become famous, compared to the general population of people at that level of brilliance in any field.

  41. Excellent article, Roger.

    As usual!

  42. @Anonymous

    “Mr. Rushton, are you a racist?”

    Now that’s what I call a charming opening.

    The charming producer also asserted that Rushton was “teaching our children” his book, but Rushton was a college professor. He had nothing to do with teaching children.

  43. @FKA Max

    The one-child family of the past few decades was an anomaly, caused directly by government policy, but so was the very large family size of the Mao era. Both were government-induced anomalies. Whether these dramatic changes in family size are reflections more of how powerful the state is, or how obedient the people are, is an open question.

    As for the high rate female infanticide, that could be seen as evidence of a K strategy, though it is also an unintended side-effect of an old imperial law, still in place today, that requires sons, but not daughters, to look after their parents when the parents grow old.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  44. @FKA Max

    Marx claimed his work was scientific, while dismissing the work of most mainstream economists as vulgar propaganda for for bourgeois ideology, as well as dismissing the work of earlier social theorists like Comte as “utopian”. He was very consistent in this. Engels wrote a whole book (title, “Socialism justifying the claim that Marxism was scientific (title: Socialism, Utopian and Scientific). It outlines a philosophy of science called “dialectical materialism”. Marx and Engels were quite serious about this, but most philosophers today agree that dialectical materialism is bunk.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  45. FKA Max says: • Website
    @HobbesianM

    Whether these dramatic changes in family size are reflections more of how powerful the state is, or how obedient the people are, is an open question.

    This is a very good point you are making. Thank you very much for your feedback.

    The one-child family of the past few decades was an anomaly, caused directly by government policy, but so was the very large family size of the Mao era.

    You are probably correct, but even before Mao, the Chinese fertility rate must have been pretty high.

    I was not able to find Chinese fertility rate figures prior to 1945, but I was able to find pre-Mao Japanese ones and it appears that the Japanese and Chinese had comparable fertility rates before Mao, so we might extrapolate from the Japanese figures what the Chinese fertility rate might have been prior to 1945:

    Source: https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_POPU_901_0007–the-demography-of-east-and-southeast-asi.htm

    Here more figures going back all the way to 1900 in Japan with an average fertility rate of about 4 births per woman:

    Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/sjwhate/comments/5u3wv8/fertility_rate_japan/ Archived link: http://archive.is/SoG4a/image

    What is interesting is that the U.S. fertility rate was actually consistently below that of Japan for the first 50 years of the 20th century, which, in my opinion, is another data point making Rushton’s hypotheses of Northeast Asian K strategizing questionable/doubtful:

    Chart 10.
    Total U.S. fertility rates with and without adjustment for survival to age 10, 1875–2005

    Source: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html

    Here the Japanese figures since about 1870:

    Source: https://prezi.com/f05n839rjkop/japan/

    These are also very good links. Japan actually had pro-natalist policies in place for most of the last 150 years:

    Fertility in Japan


    See Wikipedia:Abortion in Japan for the abortion timeline, and this paper for the pro-natalist policy timeline.
    https://demography.subwiki.org/wiki/Fertility_in_Japan#Qualitative_history_of_fertility-relevant_events_and_trends

    1873-1901 huge increase TFR increased from 3.41 to 5.01

    1901-1906 rapid decrease TFR decreased from 5.01 to 4.37

    1907-1919 upward jump, followed by modest decrease TFR jumped up to 5.02 (from 4.37 the previous year), then decreased gradually to 4.77 The introduction of explicit penalties for women who have abortions in 1907 might explain the jump.

    1920-1939 rapid decrease TFR decreased from 5.35 to 3.8 The sudden change between 1919 and 1920 may be attributable to the change in data source.

    1939-1947 fluctuation TFR increased from 3.8 to 4.5, but with fluctuations The war years of 1944 and 1945 were particularly bad for TFR. https://demography.subwiki.org/wiki/Fertility_in_Japan#Trends_in_period_fertility

    The rapid decrease in the Japanese fertility rate after World War II was due to the 1948 Eugenic Protection Law:

    JAPAN’S ABORTION AGONY

    Abortion was legalized after World War II, when the devastated country could barely support the people who survived. The prospect of more Japanese children to feed — as well as mixed children fathered by the American occupation troops — inspired the 1948 Eugenic Protection Law.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1990/10/25/japans-abortion-agony/64704f8d-aeac-4357-9731-5bf856abb4a4/

    Fertility in USA

    https://demography.subwiki.org/wiki/Fertility_in_USA

  46. FKA Max says: • Website
    @HobbesianM

    Again, thank you very much for your insightful feedback.

    Marx never claimed to be a scientist by training though, right?

    He just stated to have used the scientific method to arrive at his theories, right? He claimed to be a scientist in spirit, so to speak, not by training.

    The Irresistible Science of Karl Marx

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/27866708?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    I think Rushton very much saw himself as a scientist by training (and in spirit), I believe, and very much promoted and fostered this image of himself to the public and his followers/supporters:

    Modern-Day Galileo: J. Philippe Rushton (1943-2012) – A True Man of Science

    There is one very small consolation in Phil’s tragically early death: Phil was not an artist, he was a scientist. When an artist dies, his art dies with him, which is why there has not been (and will never be) Beethoven’s 10th Symphony or Guernica II. Unlike art, however, science is cumulative. The rest of us can honor his memory and his scientific legacy by continuing his work. Phil was simultaneously a tremendous role model and a very tough act to follow. He was a model of scientific integrity. Unlike Galileo, he never recanted.

    https://www.amren.com/news/2012/10/modern-day-galileo-j-philippe-rushton-1943-2012/

  47. Danny says:

    What are the chances that some of the more provocative ‘revelations’ about Rushton’s personal life are just lies or imaginings? Is there any evidence that he fathered an illegitimate child with a married black-woman, aside from his statements to his wife?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All F. Roger Devlin Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution