Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Evolution and Behavior’ Category

 

[Luke Ford, an Australian living in the USA, who “converted” to Judaism in 1993, interviews Tanstaafl from the Age of Treason blog on the subject of the Jewish Question, aka, Jewish Problem.

KATANA]

 

_________________________

 

 

 

Watch the video here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2laXMYmRAY

 

 

 

Luke Ford

 

Streamed live on Mar 27, 2018

 

 

Jonny Anomaly writes: On the alt-right, it has become fashionable over the last few years to recycle a trope from 1930s Germany: “The Jewish Question” (to which the Holocaust was supposed to be “The Final Solution”).

 

The contemporary version of the question concerns why Jews have so much influence in cognitively demanding occupations, including science, medicine, law, and politics. Although the “JQ” (as alt-righters call it) has a mundane answer, many subscribe to elaborate theories to account for the fact that most Jews don’t conform to the stereotype alt-righters expect them to.

 

For example, when a scholar documents the fact that 4 out of the 10 speakers at an inaugural white nationalist conference were Jewish, along with a vast array of other evidence that conflicts with alt-right dogma, the predictable response by people in the grip of an ideology is that Jews do this to create a smokescreen: it provides cover for all of the other Jews who plot against white nationalists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Luke Ford

 

JQ Debate

 

with

 

Age of Treason

 

 


 

 

Published on Mar 28, 2018

 

TRANSCRIPT

(140 mins)

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Introduction — Tanstaafl’s Journey on the JQ

A Personal Disclosure

The White Network

Consequences for Your Marriage?

Growing Up in New York

The jewish Grandfather

Hitler’s Struggle and Yours

On Circumcision

Reading MacDonald

Jewish Crypsis and Parasitism

On Finding Support

How Your Work Differs from Others

An Existential Threat

Mein Kampf and National Socialism

Jewish Crypsis — Spain and Portugual

Jewish Crypsis — Today

“In Your Face” jews and “Down-low” jews

Ford’s Critique of Critics of jews

Tan’s Response

Complicating Things as jewish Camouflage

Jewish Gaslighting

Ad Hominem — Cofnas vs MacDonald

Jewish Deception and Coverups

Cofnas’ Critique and Your Respect for MacDonald

Cofnas — MacDonald’s Evidence is Counter-evidence

Any Factual Errors in Cofnas’ Work?

Cofnas Call MacDonald a “Bad Person”

Jews “Didn’t Du Nuffin!”

Ford — So Criticism of Scholarship is a Personal Attack?

Cofnas — Worried About MacDonald’s Work

Cofnas Doesn’t Prove His Case

Ford — Does Cofnas Screech “Anti-semitism”?

I Always Write “Anti-semitism” with Sneer Quotes

Whites Have Not Taken Their Own Side Hard Enough

You are Arguing Like a jew, Luke!

Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy

Jews Marrying Non-jews

Ford — So anything jews Do is Group Evolutionary Strategy?

Jews Always Arguing About What’s Best for the jews!

“Jews are Not a Monolith” — A Silly Statement!

The Root of jewing is: “Is it Good for the jews?”

Culture of Critique’s Chapter 7 on Immigration

Open Borders for Israel is My Attitude

Jews Not Threatened in a Multi-ethnic Society

Jews and the Second World War

Being Evidence Based

School Shooting in Florida

Does MacDonald’s Model Have Predictive Value?

Jewish Out-Marriage One Half of the Parasitism

Whatever jews Do is Bad Because They are the Enemy!

Do White People Have Agency?

Luke, You’re Not Making Honest Valid Arguments

Would You Describe jews as Ethnocentric?

Jews Moralize to Whites to Convince Them That What is Good for Whites is Bad

Fifteen jewish Intellectuals

Whites Don’t Recognise That jews are at War with Them!

Jews Behaving as “Nazis”

Intersectional jewing — Where One jew Agenda Conflicts with Another jew Agenda

Intersectional jewing — Promoting Reich, Pinker and Cofnas as Being Against “anti-racist” jewing

Why are Whites Unable to Overcome the jews?

Super Chats — What Should White Guys Do to Spread Awareness of the JP?

Ford — Are You a Leader?

Comments — Are All jews In On It?

Comments — Is Monomania on the JQ Better Than White Improvement?

Do jews Control the Weather?

Comments — How are Whites to Speak on jew Influence Without “anti-semite’ Being Shrieked

Jews are the Enemy Whatever They Do?

Is Steve Miller Anti-White?

Are You an Unhappy Guy?

Things That Make You Happy?

Reflections on This Interview

What Does It Mean To Be a jew?

Ford’s Fundamental Misunderstanding of Judaism

Do You Believe in Universal Morality?

Ford’s Journey To judaism

A jew Told Ford That you Can’t Convert To judaism

Ford Hasn’t Fooled jews

On Ford Being Rejected By his Peers at School

Ford As Cover Article in “The jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles”

Lawrence Auster Admitted That jews were Responsible for Open Borders

On Ford’s Hatred of jewish Organizations That are for Open Borders

Ford — Do You Thinks I’m Delusional?

How Ford Can Help Whites by Blowing the Whistle on Jews

END

NOTES & LINKS

PDF NOTES

Version History

 

 

 

Introduction — Tanstaafl’s Journey on the JQ

 

Ford: Hey, I’m Luke Ford. I’m here with the Age of Treason blogger, Tanstaafl. Tan, you’ve been blogging for quite a long time. Tell me about your evolution, in particular on the JQ.

[background sound]

 

Tan: Sorry let me mute that.

 

Ford: And here with Tanstaafl*, so we are going to get that microphone problem taken care of, and then we are going to discuss Nathan Cofnas’ critique [of Kevin MacDonald’s book “The Culture of Critique].. So Tan, take it away! Tell me when you started blogging. Tell me about the evolution of your journey on the JQ.

 

[* A pseudonym using the acronym for “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch“. The phrase and the acronym are central to Robert Heinlein’s 1966 science-fiction novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.]

 

Tan: Right. I started in 2005. I started blogging, and that was after I had spent about twenty years, maybe, of not paying attention, being fed up with politics, mainstream politics, and ignoring it, focusing on my career. But in 2005, I think, it was Hurricane Katrina that triggered me, the racialization of that. It was sort of a “Trayvon Martin” experience that many people experienced years later. I experienced during the Katrina thing.

 

And so I started blogging. I had been talking to friends before that privately, and I just basically took it public. And moved through pretty quickly neo-conservative thought, which attracted me at first, because it seemed like a more serious approach to politics, than plain old conservative politics. And then I ran into someone named Lawrence Auster. You might be familiar with [him] — that might have been where I came across you.

 

 

And it was really Lawrence Auster, reading Lawrence Auster, that made me aware that there was something going on with the jews. Auster himself was a jew, was a convert to Christianity. But what I noticed over time with him was that he was hyper-sensitive to criticism of the Jews. He indulged in it himself, but it was always from the point of view of “What’s good for the jews?” He thought that the jews, in various ways, he criticized them for not doing what was best for themselves.

 

(more…)

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

 

 

[Here, Canadian Prof. Phillipe J. Rushton at the Amren Conference 2000, reports on his travels to South Africa to find out for himself whether studies showing that Africans have an average IQ of 70, is true or not.

 

The very idea that there are differences in intelligence between the races has been made into a taboo topic by organized jewry, turning commonsense on its head and forcing people to believe nonsense about “racial equality”. One main purposes why organized jewry pushes this propaganda lie about the “equality of races” is to remove objections from White people to the flooding of their society with masses of low IQ blacks and browns. This is why rare academics, like Rushton, who tell the truth about racial differences are vilified in our jewish controlled media — KATANA.]

 

_______________________

 

 

 

Click link here to view:

 

Do Africans Really Have an IQ of 70?

 

YouTube Description

An except from Prof. J. Philippe Rushton’s speech given at the Fourth American Renaissance Conference in 2000.

 

Ranging from original IQ testing in the classrooms of South African universities to the study of anatomy, Rushton once more details racial differences and explains why they are important. His latest research supports the findings that the average African IQ is 70.

 

_________________________

 

 

Do Africans Really

 

Have an IQ of 70?

 

 

Published on Apr 14, 2013

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT

(12:25 mins)

 

[00:00]

 

 

 

 

Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to be here again. The first slide is actually a postcard from South Africa, which I was very fortunate to be able to visit, about a year and a half ago. The New South Africa. It is a fascinating country. When you arrive in Johannesburg, as I did, you see a very modern skyline. In fact, it’s very undifferentiated from any American city, or Canadian city.

 

 

The roads are big super highways and the motor cars are modern. Even the people on the streets and driving the cars, for the most part are indistinguishable from North America.

 

On the other hand, South Africa is a city of, a country of contrasts, and there’s a great deal of traditional society as well.

 

 

And the reason I was in South Africa, is, because of this particular chart which summarizes IQ scores that Professor Richard Lynn alluded to in his talk, based on his review, which was published in 1991.

 

 

East Asians, both here in the United States and Canada, as well as in their home continents, as Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, average a slightly higher IQ than do White people. Now the average I have there is 106. Sometimes you see the average a little bit lower, around 103. Whites average about 100. A few estimates may place it a little bit higher and say 103. Black Americans average about 85. And again blacks in Canada, or Britain, or in the Caribbean, average around 85, to maybe slightly higher, up as high as 90.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Red Ice Arthur Kemp - COVER

 

 

[In this friendly interview, Lana Lektoff from Red Ice (Radio 3Fourteen) talks with Arthur Kemp on the past, present and future of White people. Kemp has had long involvement in the White “movement” and has written several books on the subject.

Although he makes many good observations, I would consider his significant weakness to be his downplaying of the jewish problem. His focus is on the symptoms of jewish rule, that is, the deluded liberals who are the outward manifestation of jewish power over the masses through their control of the media, etc.

Also his optimism that Whites will survive is not reassuring as, by “survive” he means that perhaps a  few million will remain after the West crumbles.

That said, this is a useful interview in that it gives us an insight into the mind of someone who is on our side and well informed on many issues, yet despite years in this movement, still hasn’t grasped the extent of the central issue of jewish control over us  —  KATANA.]

 

 

 

 

 

Red Ice: Lana Lokteff

 

Interviews Arthur Kemp

 

 

 

March of the Titans:

 

The Rise & Fall

 

of Caucasian Civilization

 


 

 

 

https://redice.tv/radio-3fourteen/march-of-the-titans-the-rise-and-fall-of-caucasian-civilization

 

Click on the above link, or copy the link into your browser to view the audio.

 

Published on May 16, 2016

 

 

Arthur Kemp was born in Southern Rhodesia in 1962. Educated in South Africa, he holds a degree in Political Science, International Politics and Public Administration, having studied at the University of Cape Town and the University of South Africa. He is the owner of Ostara Publications and the author of eleven books, including March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race.

 

Arthur joins us for a look at how the aspects of racial homogeneity and racial disillusionment (multiculturalism) have historically contributed to the rise and fall of civilizations.

 

We begin by considering the essential questions of what causes culture and what happens when a civilization’s creators vanish. Arthur talks about the misconceptions of early English colonialism and the vastly different process of mass foreign invasion transpiring in the West today.

 

He addresses the proclivity of the White race to explore the world and provide humanitarian support to the less fortunate, along with the consequences of these interventions.

 

We discuss some logistics of the Out of Africa theory and the role of environment in racial differences, touching on the bureaucratic baloney that thwarts modern day archaeologists from properly investigating tremendous troves of ancient human remains holding clues of Europeans’ origins in the Northern Hemisphere.

 

Then, Arthur explains the dire reality of the population replacement events being orchestrated by the West’s rulers, and we deliberate how to wake up the ill-informed masses to their looming extinction.

 

Kemp also gives an account of his life in South Africa during the ANC’s takeover, relating the hard fact that demographics ultimately dictate the rules.

 

Our conversation rounds off with thoughts on the viability of recruiting quality Europeans to create a great ethnostate and the terrific potential that exists when enough Whites are able to unlearn their self-defeatist programming and abandon the egalitarian fantasies driving their cultures to demise.

 

RELEVANT LINKS

Ostarapublications.com

 

 

 

Transcript

 

 

[00:00]

 

Lana Lokteff: Arthur Kemp I’m delighted and honored to have you here. So, thanks for joining us.

 

Arthur Kemp: It’s a great pleasure Lana. I think you and Red Ice do a great job and I’m very honored to be on your show.

 

Lana: Well it’s refreshing to speak with you, because I’ve actually tried doing a couple White archeology shows with some racialists and it never turns out good! And unfortunately it can come across a little wacky sometimes. I’m sure you’ve come across that too.

 

Arthur: Unfortunately, I’ve had more than my fair share of dealing with wacky people, so I know exactly what you’re talking about. But, it doesn’t necessarily have to be. I think what happens a lot of the time, is that people tend to over play what the reality is and sometimes if they’re not not happy with the reality is, they add to it. I think that’s quite common amongst, not only people in this so-called White nationalist movement, but probably everywhere.

 

Lana: Yes. But when I mentioned to our listeners that you are coming on, a lot of people responded in, saying how, “March of the Titans” was a major eye opener for them, and for me, you know, I just love Euro-centric history and archaeology. “March of the Titans” is a masterful body of work, so I wanted to read a quote to kind of summarize it.

Most importantly revealed in this work is the one true cause of the rise and fall of the world’s greatest empires. That all civilizations rise and fall according to their racial homogeneity and nothing else. A nation can survive wars, defeats, catastrophes, but not racial dissolution

 

Aka, diversity, right? So Rome didn’t collapse from debauchery and decadence. So where do you like to begin when approaching the subject with new-comers?

 

Red Ice Arthur Kemp - 1665 book cover March of the Titans

[Image] Arthur Kemp’s book, “March of the Titans”.]

 

Arthur: Well, the very first way to understand it, is to take a step back away from any idea or denigrating other people. That’s probably a very important basis to start with. It’s one of the biggest problems in this so-called movement is that it seems to be based more on putting other people down. You don’t have to put anyone else down. All you have to do is stand back and look at it from a purely objective point of view.

 

(more…)

Read Full Post »

 Red Ice - Andrew Anglin - COVER Ver 2

 

Red Ice - Andrew Anglin - Progress Chart 13 - COMPLETE

Red Ice - Andrew Anglin - Video

 

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio3fourteen/2015/R314-151028.php 

 

 

 

Andrew Anglin

 

The Art of Trolling & Satire

 

 

Published on Oct 29, 2015

 

TRANSCRIPT

 

 

Andrew Anglin created the website The Daily Stormer two years ago, which now attracts over three million unique visitors per month. The controversial and humorous website seeks revolution through the education of the European masses and keeps readers informed of relevant world events hidden by the controlled media. Anglin says,

My goal is that anyone who comes to this site laughs out loud at least once every visit.

 

We begin with a look at Andrew’s journey through the alternative conspiracy route that brought him to the bigger picture of racial issues plaguing Western culture. Andrew talks about the recent heat that was brought to dailystormer.com when the SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] tried to connect him to the Charleston church shooter, Dylan Storm Roof, and he covers the recent drama with Joshua Goldberg attempting to infiltrate the website.

 

We discuss the art of trolling, tips for dealing with SJWs [Social Justice Warriors], and the future of censorship.

 

Then, we get into the big problem of low IQ cultures creeping into the system and replacing skilled workers with affirmative action. Andrew brings forth the idea of ‘Detroitification’ sweeping across the US, as minorities take over the suburbs and ‘too White’ neighborhoods are ‘diversified’ through Obama’s new HUD [Department of Housing and Urban Development] social engineering program.

 

Furthermore, we touch on the issue of low White birth rates and why Western women cheerfully support the mass importation of fighting age men from cultures with large breeding capabilities. Later, we delve into the unavoidable JQ [Jewish Question] and why Israel is so cheri$hed by so many politician$. We wrap up with thoughts on strengthening the Alt Right political ideology.

Listen: http://rediceradio.net/radio3fourteen/2015/R314-151028-andrewanglin.mp3

 

[00:00]

 

 

VOICE OVER: This is Radio 3 Fourteen on the Red Ice Radio Network.

 

Lana Letkoff (LL): Welcome everyone. This is Lana. Thanks for joining me. This weekend is Halloween and the NPI Conference in Washington DC, called “Become Who We Are”. We’ll be there and hope to see some of you there.

 

Red Ice - Andrew Anglin - NPI Conference

 

About my next guest, love him or hate him, joining me is Andrew Anglin. You’ve got to give him credit because two years ago he created the website, Daily Stormer.com.

Which now gets over 3 million unique visitors a month. He is definitely pushing the limits of what is acceptable to the establishment.

It’s mocking, it’s fun and it’s satirical to get the point across. The point being, White people want to be left alone in a country of their own without Marxist filth.

The SPLC* is obsessed with watching Daily Stormer. They can’t handle a peep of criticism in opposition because they are wrong and they know it. They just don’t want everyone else to know it. And they’re certainly alarmed that a hard-hitting opposition is forming before their eyes. Is it really so shocking considering all that they do against white people?

 

[*The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an anti-White “civil rights” organization set up in Montgomery, Alabama in 1971 by Morris Dees and the Jew, Joseph J. Levin Jr. The current SPLC president J Richard Cohen is also Jewish, as is its main media representative Mark Potok.

Unlike the Anti-Defamation League and like American Civil Liberties Union the SPLC is not an openly Jewish organization. The SPLC may therefore be able to appeal to individuals and groups who find the more open pro-Jewish lobbying by the ADL disquieting. However, activities of the SPLC generally serve Jewish interests and Jews are prominent among staff and those giving money to the organization.]

 

With all the censorship and with all the things were told we can’t say, it’s no wonder why the Daily Stormer.com is such a hit. White people want to vent. They want to let loose and shout the obvious from the mountain tops. They want to be left alone to live how and with whoever they chose. Andrew Anglin, coming up.

Welcome Andrew! Thanks for being here. I’ve thought about having you on for quite a while but finally it’s happening.

 

Andrew Anglin (AA): I’m glad it’s finally happening.

 

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Race, Evolution and Behaviour - COVER

 

 

RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR:

 

A Life History Perspective

 

 [Part 8]

 

2nd Special Abridged Edition

By Professor J. Philippe Rushton

 

 Race, Evolution and Behavior - Rushton

 

University of Western Ontario

London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2

 

Author

J. Philippe Rushton is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. He is also a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience. Rushton has published six books and nearly 200 articles. In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 22nd most published psychologist and the 11th most cited. Professor Rushton is listed in Who’s Who in Science and TechnologyWho’s Who in International Authors, and Who’s Who in Canada.

 

[Page 5]

Contents

 

Preface 6

1. Race is More Than Skin Deep 7

Race in History
Race in Today’s World
Why Are There Race Differences?
Conclusion
Additional Readings

2. Maturation, Crime, and Parenting 13

Maturation
Crime
Personality, Aggression, and Self-Esteem
Parenting and Out-of-Wedlock Births
Longevity and Population Growth
Conclusion
Additional Readings

3. Sex, Hormones, and AIDS 18

Sexual Behavior and Attitudes
Sexual Physiology and Anatomy
AIDS and HIV
Conclusion
Additional Readings

4. Intelligence and Brain Size 22

Culture Fair Tests
Intelligence and Brain Size
Race Differences in Brain Size
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Brain Weight at Autopsy
Measuring Skull Size
Measuring Living Heads
Summarizing Brain Size Differences
Conclusion
Additional Readings

5. Genes, Environment, or Both? 28

Heritability Studies
Adoption Studies
Race and Heritability
Trans-racial Adoption Studies
Heritabilities Predict Racial Differences
Regression to the Average
Conclusion
Additional Readings

6. Life History Theory 34

r-K Life History Theory
Race Differences and r-K Strategies
Testosterone — The Master Switch?
Conclusion
Additional Readings

7. Out of Africa 39

The Evidence
Geography and Race
Conclusion
Additional Readings

8. Questions and Answers 42

Is Race a Useful Concept? (Chapter 1)
Are the Race Differences Real? (Chapters 2 through 5)
Is the Relationship Between Race and Crime Valid? (Chapter 2)
Is the Relationship Between Race and Reproduction Valid? (Chapter 3)
Is the Genetic Evidence Flawed? (Chapter 5)
Is r-K Theory Correct? (Chapter 6)
Aren’t Environmental Explanations Sufficient? (Chapter 5)
Is Race Science Immoral? (Chapter 1)
Closing Thoughts
Additional Readings

[Page 6]

 

 

[Page 42]

8: Questions and Answers

 

 

This final chapter lists the most important questions I have been asked about my r-K theory and my answers to them. It also gives pointers to the earlier chapter(s) that discuss each topic in greater detail, my closing thoughts on Race, Evolution, and Behavior, and on the story of the abridged edition.

You may be asking, “Why is the information about race in this book so different from what I have seen in magazines, college texts, and on TV?” The answer is that about 70 years ago the social sciences took a wrong turn. They left Darwinism and refused to look at the biological basis of human behavior — evolution and genetics. They also divided into separate academic fields and lost the forest for the trees.

In this book I try to re-unite the social and biological sciences on the issue of race. The evidence I have used comes from the best scientific journals, not from obscure sources. I began to study and publish scientific articles on race in the early 1980s. Since then I have received many questions about my work. Probably you’ve thought of some of these questions yourself.

This final chapter lists the questions I have been asked most often and my answers to them. I’ve grouped the questions by major topic. Each topic has a pointer to the chapter(s) in this abridged edition that discuss the topic in detail.

Is Race a Useful Concept? (Chapter 1)

 

Q: You write as if race is a valid biological concept. Aren’t you only repeating the stereotypes of 18th and 19th century Europeans?

A: True, there is a 200-year history of “European” research on race. But similar descriptions were made by Arab and Turkish writers nearly 1,000 years earlier and some can even be traced back to the ancient Greeks. Today, new methods of genetic DNA analysis agree with the original classifications made by early European scientists based on their observations.

 

Q: But isn’t race “just skin deep”? Don’t most scientists now agree that race is a social construct, not a biological reality?

A: Biological evidence shows that race is not a social construct. Coroners in crime labs can identify race from a skeleton or even just the skull. They can identify race from blood, hair, or semen as well. To deny the existence of race is unscientific and unrealistic. Race is much more than “just skin deep.

 

Q: Your three major racial categories overlap and it isn’t possible to assign each person to a race. So isn’t your three-way racial classification scheme somewhat made-up?

A: Yes, to a certain extent all the races blend into each other. That is true in any biological classification system. However, most people can be clearly identified with one race or another. In both everyday life and evolutionary biology, a “Black is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa. A “White is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in Europe. And an “Oriental is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in East Asia. Modern DNA studies give pretty much the same results.

[Page 43]
Q: Doesn’t the Out of Africa theory imply that we are “all Africans under the skin”?

A: Yes and no. The theory is that Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Then some groups migrated north about 110,000 years ago into Europe and Asia. A further split took place between the “ancestral Whites and the “ancestral Orientals about 40,000 years ago. True, all humans are brothers (and sisters). But we all know that brothers and sisters can still be very different from one another.

 

Q: All Whites aren’t the same. All Blacks aren’t alike. Neither are all Orientals. Isn’t there more variation within races than between them?

A: There is a lot of variation within each of the three races. The full range of variation will be found within any of the major racial groups. Still, group averages are important. Each racial group has a bell curve distribution with some people at the high end and some at the low end, and most people in the middle.

Groups with a high average will have many more people at the high end and not so many people at the low end. The 6-point IQ difference between Orientals and Whites and the 15-point IQ difference between Whites and Blacks means that a higher percentage of Orientals and a lower percentage of Blacks end up in the highest IQ categories. Those percentages have real implications in school and at work.

The same is true for crime. Most people of any race are hard-working and law abiding. There is no “criminal race. However, the difference in average crime rate means that a much higher percentage of Blacks can fall into a life of crime. The 85 average IQ of criminals is almost identical with the 85 average IQ of Blacks, so IQ is related to crime. Although Blacks make up only about 12% of the U.S. population, each year they commit about half of all crimes.

 

Q: Why do you base so much of your argument on the differences between the three major races? Are you not ignoring divisions and sub-groups within the three races?

A: Of course there are subdivisions within the three major races. The Oriental group can be subdivided into Northeast Asians (such as the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans) and the Southeast Asians (such as the Filipinos and Malays). Black and White groups can also be subdivided in the same way. Nevertheless, my simplified three-way division serves a purpose. In science, a concept is useful if it groups facts so that general laws and conclusions can be drawn from them. The three-way classification is scientifically justified because it shows a consistent pattern for many different traits, with Orientals at one end, Blacks at the other, and Whites in between.

 

 

Are the Race Differences Real? (Chapters 2 through 5)

 

Q: Haven’t you just chosen the studies that fit with your three-way race pattern and ignored all the ones that do not?

A: If that were true, where are the studies I have ignored? I have not ignored any important studies. Whenever averages are used from several studies, the same three-way pattern of race differences appears.

 

Q: Aren’t some of the studies you use, especially those on race and brain size, very old? Haven’t they been shown to be examples of racist bias rather than honest reports of scientific facts?

A: No. Even the most recent studies, using the latest technology (such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging to measure brain size), give the same results as the older studies. These state-of-the-art studies of brain size are reviewed in Chapter 4. They are much more precise studies than the older ones, but produce almost exactly the same results. Only “political correctness caused the early findings to “vanish from the scientific radar screen. If there is any bias, it is on the part of those who choose to misrepresent both the older studies and the recent research on race and brain size to justify a social agenda they want to promote.

[Page 44]
Q: Aren’t you really producing the race differences by averaging the results of many studies? Wouldn’t it be better just to look at the very best studies?

A: Using an average of all the data is better than using any single measurement or study. When you take an average, the errors fade and real differences appear. Hundreds of studies published in the best journals show the three-way pattern of race differences.

 

Q: Isn’t it possible to get a pattern of race differences in brain size (or IQ or any trait) simply by using the studies that support the point you are trying to make?

A: That’s exactly why it is better to average all the data. Averages are used for many sports competitions including some Olympic events, public opinion polls about upcoming elections, or the stock market performance with the Dow Jones Average. The same is true when studying race, brain size, IQ, and crime.

 

 

Is the Relationship Between Race and Crime Valid? (Chapter 2)

 

Q: Your three-way pattern in race differences in crime is based on official reports of arrests and convictions. But don’t self-report studies show that there are no race differences in crime?

A: Self-reports show a smaller race difference than the official arrest and conviction records. However, self-reports are only valid as a measure of less violent crime. They often include minor items like “Have you ever been in a fight? or “Would you worry about being in debt? Unlike official crime reports, they often give no facts about the frequency of criminal behavior. Self-reports do not distinguish between career criminals and first offenders.

 

Q: But don’t the arrest and conviction statistics from U.S. police departments and the FBI reflect America’s history of racism?

A: INTERPOL Yearbooks show the same three-way pattern of race differences in crime. African and Caribbean countries have twice as many violent crimes per person as do European countries and three times as many as do the Asian Pacific Rim countries like Japan and China.

 

Q: Aren’t Black Americans really the victims of crime, not the cause?

A: Many Blacks are indeed victims of crime. And there are many White and Oriental criminals. Nevertheless, the criminals are disproportionately Black. U. S. Department of Justice statistics report that Blacks are 60 times more likely to attack Whites than Whites are to attack Blacks. For the 20% of violent crimes that are interracial, 15% involve Black offenders and White victims; 2% involve White offenders and Black victims.

[Page 45]

Is the Relationship Between Race and Reproduction Valid? (Chapter 3)

 

Q: Doesn’t the evidence on race and penis size come from 19th Century stories by racist Europeans in colonial Africa?

A: The earliest findings come from the Arabic explorers in Africa and one study by a French army surgeon originally published in 1898. More up-to-date information comes from the World Health Organization. Their studies show the same three-way race pattern as do all the other studies.

 

Q: Isn’t the material on race and sex a kind of pornography? Isn’t race controversial enough without bringing sex and AIDS into the picture?

A: One World Health Organization study I mentioned in the previous answer examined penis size in order to provide the right size condoms to slow the spread of AIDS. Finding out which groups are most at risk for sexually transmitted diseases can help slow their spread and save lives.

 

 

Is the Genetic Evidence Flawed? (Chapter 5)

 

Q: How can you talk about a genetic basis for intelligence, criminality, or sexuality? No one has ever found a gene responsible for any of these. Brain size and structure may be genetic, but we still do not know exactly which genes are important for IQ or how they work.

A: New research is providing the answer. Every day the newspaper or TV reports that someone has just found a gene for alcoholism, intelligence, impulsivity, aggression, longevity, or other human behavior. When the Human Genome Project has finished mapping all our genes, we will know even more about the genetic basis of behavior.

 

Q: Isn’t this Genetic Determinism?

A: I never claimed that race differences are 100% genetic. Obviously, environmental factors are important. The scientific argument is really between “hereditarians and “egalitarians.” Hereditarians, like myself, think the best explanation of why the races differ involves both genes and environment. Egalitarians claim the races differ for 100% cultural reasons and some of them feel so strongly about it that they try to stop even discussion or research on the genetics of race.

 

Q: You use twin studies to show how much is caused by genes and how much is caused by environment. Isn’t it really the interaction of the two that matters?

A: Of course, every trait is the result of the interaction of heredity and environment. But if interaction is so important, why do identical twins who are brought up in different homes grow to be so much alike? It is because heredity plays a big role in development. The older we get, the more our genes, rather than our childhood environments, take control.

 

Q: Even if heredity is important for individuals, does that really tell us anything about race differences?

A: The evidence in Chapter 5 shows that genes do contribute a lot to race differences. Evidence comes from trans-racial adoption studies. Oriental, Mixed-Race (Black-White), and Black children adopted into middle-class White homes grow to resemble their true biological parents, not the White families who raised them. Mixed-Race (Black-White) infants grow up to have IQs between the IQs of pure Black and pure White children. Oriental children raised in White homes obtain IQs higher than White children, even if they were malnourished in infancy.

[Page 46]
Q: But don’t most experts believe that the cause of race differences in IQ is environmental, not genetic?

A: A survey done by Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman in the 1987 American Psychologist found that a majority (52%) of scientists said the Black-White IQ difference was partly genetic. Only 17% said it was entirely cultural. More recently, a special task force of the American Psychological Association agreed that there was a three-way pattern of race differences in brain size and IQ. Perhaps because of political correctness, the Task Force threw up its hands about the causes and decided to play it safe by saying “no one knows why” (see the 1996 and 1997 issues of the American Psychologist.).

 

 

Is r-K Theory Correct? (Chapter 6)

 

Q: You use r-K Life History Theory to explain race differences. You claim that Blacks are less K than Whites who are less K than Orientals. Haven’t you twisted r-K theory to fit your own ideas about race differences?

A: Not at all. The key for understanding K-selection is the predictability of the environment. Tropical areas like Africa are less predictable because of parasites and sudden droughts. Therefore they select for an r-strategy rather than a K-strategy.

 

Q: Doesn’t the r-K theory apply only to differences between different species, not to races within the same species?

A: It applies to both. Humans are very K compared to other species. Still, some people are more K than others. Highly K-selected men, for example, invest time and energy in their children rather than the pursuit of sexual thrills. They are “dads” rather than “cads.” The r-K theory was first used to explain differences within species. I have applied it to race differences within humans.

 

 

Aren’t Environmental Explanations Sufficient? (Chapter 5)

 

Q: Couldn’t the life-history differences you talk about just be the best response to cultural conditions? Since Blacks live in poor environments doesn’t the r-strategy make sense? How can you invest if you have nothing to invest?

A: That could be, but the facts say no. Well-to-do college-educated Black women have more sexual intercourse at an earlier age and suffer greater infant mortality than do poorer White women who haven’t gone to college. That fits with the r-K theory of race differences, but not with an environmental r-K theory. Orientals who have a poorer environment than Whites, have less sexual intercourse, start at a later age, and have lower infant mortality. Again, that fits with the r-K theory of race differences, but not with an environmental r-K theory.

 

 

Is Race Science Immoral? (Chapter 1)

 

Q: Why haven’t I read this information on race differences in newspapers or seen it on TV? Isn’t studying race differences immoral?

A: In the 1950s the liberation movements in the Third World and the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. convinced many people, including journalists and politicians, that it was wrong to look at race differences. The goal of equal rights seemed to require not just political, but biological sameness. Many people wanted to believe that race differences were not at all genetic, and some were willing to distort the social sciences by separating them from the biological sciences. This book tries to put all the behavioral sciences back together again.

[Page 47]
Q: Can any good come from your theory of race differences, even if it is true? Weren’t theories about race differences the reason for racism, genocide and the Holocaust?

A: The Nazis and others used their supposed racial superiority to justify war and genocide. But just about every idea — nationalism, religion, egalitarianism, even self-defence — has been used as an excuse for war, oppression or genocide. Science, however, is objective. It can’t give us our goals, but it can tell us how easy or difficult it will be to reach our goals. Knowing more about race differences may help us to give every child the best possible education and help us to understand some of our chronic social problems better.

 

Q: Wouldn’t we be better off to ignore race and just treat each person as an individual?

A: Treating others as we would like to be treated is one of our highest ethical rules. So is telling the truth. The fact is that each of us is influenced by our genes and our environment. Treating people as individuals does not mean we should ignore or lie about race differences. Scientists have a special duty to examine the facts and report the truth.

 

Q: Why did the Charles Darwin Research Institute publish this Y2K [2000] version of the abridged edition? What happened to the original publisher?

A: Transaction Publishers printed 100,000 copies under their copyright. They sent 35,000 to scholars around the world — members of the American Anthropological Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, and the American Society for Criminology. Then the Progressive Sociologists, a self-proclaimed radical group within the American Sociological Association, along with some other “anti-racist groups, threatened Transaction with loss of a booth at its annual meetings, advertising space in journals, and access to mailing lists if they continued to send out the abridged edition. Transaction caved in to this pressure, withdrew from publishing the abridged edition, and even apologized. They claimed that the Transaction copyright should never have appeared on the book and that it had “all been a mistake.

 

These events sadly confirm what I wrote in the first abridged edition — that some vocal groups in academia and the media forbid an open discussion of race. They fear any open discussion of race research, all of which has appeared in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Truth, however, always wins out in the long run.

 

Closing Thoughts

 

The information in this book shows that the races differ in important ways. They differ, on average, in brain size, intelligence, sexual behavior, fertility, personality, maturation, life span, crime and in family stability. Orientals fall at one end of the three-way pattern of differences, Blacks fall at the other end, and Whites usually fall in between. Only a theory that looks at both genes and environment in terms of Darwin’s theory of evolution can explain why the races differ so consistently throughout the world and over the course of time.

Both science and justice call for us to seek and tell the truth, not to tell lies and spread error. While the research in this book first appeared in peer-reviewed academic journals, many in the media, the government, and unfortunately even in the universities and colleges, skillfully avoid all such evidence. Hopefully this abridged edition will help set the record straight and make the latest scientific findings on race, evolution, and behavior open to all.

[Page 48]

If we want to understand human behavior, the social sciences must get back together with the biological sciences. This book is a step in that direction. When we look at both genes and environment we may be able to understand human problems. With that knowledge, society can then go about trying to solve them. The first step is for all of us to be as honest as we can be about race, evolution, and behavior.

Additional Readings

 

Levin, M. (1997). Why Race Matters. New York: Praeger.

Rushton, J. P. (2000). Race, Evolution, and Behavior (3rd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

[Page 49]

Bulk Rate Ordering for 

2nd Special Abridged Edition of 

Race, Evolution, and Behavior 

If you enjoyed reading this 110-page special abridged pocketbook, which summarizes important social and behavioral science research on race and race differences, you can order additional copies. Bulk rates are available for seminars, workshops, or for distribution to media figures (especially columnists who write about race issues), professors, teachers, and anyone interested in this vital subject.

Single copy $5.95

Bulk Rates 

10 copies $25.00
25 copies $50.00
50 copies $75.00
100 copies $100.00
500 copies $300.00
1000 copies $400.00

All prices include postage & handling.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

CHARLES DARWIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE

P.O. Box 611305, Port Huron, MI 48061-1305 

Please send me copies of the abridged pocketbook edition of Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Enclosed is my check or money order for $ . Name Address City/State/Zip

Country (if not USA).

[Page 50]

Third Unabridged Edition of Race, Evolution, and Behavior

This 400-page new (Y2000) edition contains over 1,000 references to the scholarly literature, a glossary, complete name and subject indexes, and 65 charts, maps, tables, and figures. It is an essential reference book for professionals and students of anthropology, psychology, sociology, and race relations. The hardcover unabridged Race, Evolution, and Behavior ($24) is especially appropriate for donation to public libraries, colleges and universities. The softcover unabridged edition ($14) provides a more economical way to order as a college or graduate school text.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

CHARLES DARWIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE

P.O. Box 611305, Port Huron, MI 48061-1305

Please send me copies of the hardcover ($24) unabridged edition of Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Or,copies of the softcover ($14) unabridged edition. Enclosed is my check or money order for $ Add $4.50 postage and handling for 1st copy; $1.00 more for each additional book.

Name

Address

City/State/Zip

Country.

======================================

 

Click here for Race, Evolution and Behavior >>>

Part 1: Preface; Race is More Than Skin Deep

Part 2: Maturation, Crime, and Parenting

Part 3: Sex, Hormones, and AIDS

Part 4: Intelligence and Brain Size

Part 5: Genes, Environment, or Both?

Part 6: Life History Theory

Part 7: Out of Africa

Part 8: Questions and Answers

 

 

 

 

 

 

PDF of this blog post.
Click to view or download (1.0 MB). >>   Race, Evolution, and Behavior – Part 8 Ver 2

 

 Race, Evolution and Behaviour - COVER

 

 

PDF of all 8 parts, i.e., complete booklet (clean text PDF).
Click to view or download. (3.0 MB) >>

 

Race, Evolution and Behaviour - COVER

 

 

 

Version History

 

Version 4: Aug 13, 2015 — Added Cover page; improved  formatting; expanded Contents page; added updated PDFs (ver 2).
 

 

Version 3: Added full booklet download here. Apr 8, 2015

 

Version 2: Added note that full booklet available Jun 27, 2014

 

Version 1: Published Jun 25, 2014

Read Full Post »

Race, Evolution and Behaviour - COVER

 

 

RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR:

 

A Life History Perspective

 

 [Part 7]

 

2nd Special Abridged Edition

By Professor J. Philippe Rushton

 

 Race, Evolution and Behavior - Rushton

 

University of Western Ontario

London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2

 

Author

J. Philippe Rushton is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. He is also a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience. Rushton has published six books and nearly 200 articles. In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 22nd most published psychologist and the 11th most cited. Professor Rushton is listed in Who’s Who in Science and TechnologyWho’s Who in International Authors, and Who’s Who in Canada.

 

[Page 5]

Contents

 

Preface 6

1. Race is More Than Skin Deep 7

Race in History
Race in Today’s World
Why Are There Race Differences?
Conclusion
Additional Readings

2. Maturation, Crime, and Parenting 13

Maturation
Crime
Personality, Aggression, and Self-Esteem
Parenting and Out-of-Wedlock Births
Longevity and Population Growth
Conclusion
Additional Readings

3. Sex, Hormones, and AIDS 18

Sexual Behavior and Attitudes
Sexual Physiology and Anatomy
AIDS and HIV
Conclusion
Additional Readings

4. Intelligence and Brain Size 22

Culture Fair Tests
Intelligence and Brain Size
Race Differences in Brain Size
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Brain Weight at Autopsy
Measuring Skull Size
Measuring Living Heads
Summarizing Brain Size Differences
Conclusion
Additional Readings

5. Genes, Environment, or Both? 28

Heritability Studies
Adoption Studies
Race and Heritability
Trans-racial Adoption Studies
Heritabilities Predict Racial Differences
Regression to the Average
Conclusion
Additional Readings

6. Life History Theory 34

r-K Life History Theory
Race Differences and r-K Strategies
Testosterone — The Master Switch?
Conclusion
Additional Readings

7. Out of Africa 39

The Evidence
Geography and Race
Conclusion
Additional Readings

8. Questions and Answers 42

Is Race a Useful Concept? (Chapter 1)
Are the Race Differences Real? (Chapters 2 through 5)
Is the Relationship Between Race and Crime Valid? (Chapter 2)
Is the Relationship Between Race and Reproduction Valid? (Chapter 3)
Is the Genetic Evidence Flawed? (Chapter 5)
Is r-K Theory Correct? (Chapter 6)
Aren’t Environmental Explanations Sufficient? (Chapter 5)
Is Race Science Immoral? (Chapter 1)
Closing Thoughts
Additional Readings

[Page 6]

 

 

[Page 39]
 

 

 

7: Out of Africa

 

The latest theory of human origins — Out-of-Africa — provides the final piece to the puzzle. It explains why r-K theory accounts for race differences in body, brain, and behavior. As races moved out of Africa they evolved away from r-type behaviors and toward K-type. Moving out of Africa meant increasing brain size and IQ, but lowering reproduction, aggression and sexual activity.

 

Based on his theory of evolution, Charles Darwin thought Africa was “the cradle of mankind. He did not have any fossils from Africa to support his theory but he concluded that humans came from Africa based on watching the chimpanzee and the gorilla. If the African apes were our closest living relatives, it made sense that humans first evolved on the only continent where all three species lived.

 

Evidence from genetics, the fossil record, and archaeology have since all proved Darwin correct. The human line began with the African fossil species called Australopithecus. Later human ancestors Homo erectus and then Homo sapiens also appeared first in Africa.

 

Homo sapiens were fully human. They were in Africa less than 200,000 years ago. Moving to the Middle East about 100,000 years ago, they then spread out across the world. They replaced the Neanderthal and Homo erectus groups they met either by fighting or competing for food.

 

When modern humans left Africa they began to develop the racial traits we see today by adapting to the new regions and climates. The first split in the human line took place about 100,000 years ago between groups that remained in Africa (ancestors to modern Blacks) and those who left Africa. Then about 40,000 years ago the group that left Africa divided once again, into the ancestors of today’s Whites and Orientals.

 

This history of moving first out of Africa into Europe and then later into East Asia explains why Whites fall in between Orientals and Blacks on the life history variables. The split between Africans and non-Africans happened first, almost twice as early as the split between Orientals and Whites.

 

The Out of Africa theory explains the good fit between the r-K life history traits and race differences. It is hard to survive in Africa. Africa has unpredictable droughts and deadly diseases that spread quickly. More Africans than Asians or Europeans die young — often from tropical disease. In these African conditions, parental care is a less certain way of making sure a child will survive. A better strategy is simply to have more children. This tilts their life history toward the r-end of the r-K scale. A more r-strategy means not only more offspring and less parental care. It also means less culture is passed from parent to child, and this tends to reduce the intellectual demands needed to function in the culture. And the process continues from one generation to the next.

 

In contrast, the humans migrating to Eurasia faced entirely new problems — gathering and storing food, providing shelter, making clothes, and raising children during the long winters. These tasks were more mentally demanding. They called for larger brains and slower growth rates. They permitted lower levels of sex hormones, resulting in less sexual potency and aggression and more family stability and longevity. Leaving the tropics for the northern continents meant leaving the r-strategy for the K-strategy — and all that went with it.

 

[Page 40]

 

 

The Evidence

 

How can we know if the Out of Africa theory is true? To answer that question, we have to look at the evidence from genetics, paleontology, and archaeology.

 

The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues looks at thousands of genetic DNA comparisons of the races. Geneticists count the number of gene mutations in each group to measure which groups are most closely related and when the groups split from one another. These DNA studies support the Out of Africa theory that the split between Africans and all other groups was the first to take place.

 

Fossils of prehistoric humans tell us that early steps in our evolution took place in Africa. Homo sapiens lived in Africa between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, but they only reached the Middle East about 100,000 years ago. Earlier hominids such as the Neanderthals were very different from modern humans. They had faces that jut further forward and they had larger front teeth than any living Europeans, Africans, or East Asians. Neanderthals had denser bones, thicker skulls, and more pronounced brow ridges than any modern humans. By comparison, all living humans are alike, despite our race differences.

 

Archaeology tells us the same story. The crude, Early Stone Age culture (termed Lower Paleolithic) of Homo erectus, existed more than one million years before Homo sapiens appeared. The Early Stone Age tool kit had hand-axes, choppers, and cleavers, all very similar in shape. However, the Middle Stone Age tool kit of the Neanderthals (termed Middle Paleolithic) included more advanced stone tools and the use of bone.

 

When modern humans first appeared on the scene 100,000 years ago, things started to change in major ways. The Late Stone Age tool kit (termed Upper Paleolithic) was highly specialized. It consisted of thinner blades struck off of stone cores to make knives, spear barbs, scrapers and cutters. Standardized bone and antler tools appeared in the tool kit for the first time, including needles for sewing fur clothes. The Late Stone Age tool kit contained tools made of several parts tied or glued together. Spear points were set in shafts and ax heads in handles. Rope was used to make nets to trap foxes, rabbits, and other small animals. Advanced weapons like barbed harpoons, darts, spear-throwers, and bows and arrows gave Late Stone Age people the ability to kill animals from a safe distance.

 

Survival in Northeast Asia about 40,000 years ago also required warm clothing. Archeologists have found needles, cave paintings of parkas, and grave ornaments marking the outlines of shirts and trousers. We know that warm furs were worn. Fox and wolf skeletons missing their paws tell us that these animals were skinned to make fur clothes. Houses were dug into the ground to provide insulation. These large dwellings were marked by post holes and had walls made from mammoth bones. Fireplaces and stone lamps were used to light the long Arctic winter night.

 

 

Geography and Race

 

Africa is warmer than the northern continents, but it is a less stable habitat. Droughts, storms, and diseases from viruses, bacteria, and parasites cause high death rates, even today. Without modern medical care, insuring survival in Africa means having many young (r-strategy). In the more stable environments of Europe and Asia, survival is insured from having fewer young, but caring for them very well (K-strategy).

 

The environment of Eurasia produced physical differences between the races. Northern Europe’s cloudiness meant less sunshine. This decreased the intake of vitamin D, so lighter skin and hair were needed to let more sunlight get in. As a result, Europeans born with lighter skin and hair were healthier. They had more chance of having children who would survive and reproduce.

 

East Asia was even colder than North Europe, but with less cloud cover and more sunlight. There a thicker layer of fat helped to insulate against the cold. This gives many Orientals a so-called “yellow” complexion because it reduces the visibility of red blood vessels close to the skin. Meanwhile in Africa melanin gives the skin a black color to protect it from the scorching rays of the sun.

 

[Page 41]

 

Climate differences also influenced mental abilities. In Africa, food and warmth were available all year round. To survive the cold winters, the populations migrating northwards had to become more inventive. They had to find new sources of food and methods for storing it. They needed to make clothing and shelters to protect against the elements. Without them the people would have died. Both parents had to provide more care to help their young survive in the harsher climates.

 

Whites and Orientals in Eurasia had to find food and keep warm in the colder climates. In the tropics, plant foods were plentiful all year round. In Europe and Asia they were seasonal and could not be found during many winter and spring months.

 

To survive the long winters, the ancestors of today’s Whites and Orientals made complex tools and weapons to fish and hunt animals. They made spearheads that could kill big game from a greater distance and knives for cutting and skinning. Fires, clothes and shelters were made for warmth. Bone needles were used to sew animal skins together and shelters were made from large bones and skins.

 

Making special tools, fires, clothing and shelters called for higher intelligence. Moving “Out of Africa meant moving into a K-type life-history strategy. That meant higher IQ, larger brains, slower growth, and lower hormone levels. It also meant lower levels of sexuality, aggression, and impulsive behavior. More family stability, advanced planning, self-control, rule-following, and longevity were needed.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Fossil records, archaeology, and genetic DNA studies of the living races support Charles Darwin’s insight that we evolved in Africa. Humans then spread to the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Australia, and then to the Americas. As humans left Africa, their bodies, brains and behavior changed. To deal with the colder winters and scarcer food supply of Europe and Northeast Asia, the Oriental and White races moved away from an r-strategy toward the K-strategy. This meant more parenting and social organization, which required a larger brain size and a higher IQ.

 

 

Additional Readings

 

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P., & Piazza, A. (1994). The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 

Stringer, C. & McKie, R. (1996). African Exodus. London: Cape.

======================================

 

Click here for Race, Evolution and Behavior >>>

Part 1: Preface; Race is More Than Skin Deep

Part 2: Maturation, Crime, and Parenting

Part 3: Sex, Hormones, and AIDS

Part 4: Intelligence and Brain Size

Part 5: Genes, Environment, or Both?

Part 6: Life History Theory

Part 7: Out of Africa

Part 8: Questions and Answers

 

 

 

 

 

 

PDF of this blog post.
Click to view or download (1.0 MB). >>   Race, Evolution, and Behavior – Part 7 Ver 2

 

 Race, Evolution and Behaviour - COVER

 

Version History

 

Version 2: Aug 13, 2015 — Added Cover page; improved  formatting; expanded Contents page; added updated PDF (ver 2).
 
Version 1Published Jun 23, 2014

Read Full Post »

Race, Evolution and Behaviour - COVER

 

 

RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR:

 

A Life History Perspective

 

 [Part 6]

 

2nd Special Abridged Edition

By Professor J. Philippe Rushton

 

 Race, Evolution and Behavior - Rushton

 

University of Western Ontario

London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2

 

Author

J. Philippe Rushton is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. He is also a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience. Rushton has published six books and nearly 200 articles. In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 22nd most published psychologist and the 11th most cited. Professor Rushton is listed in Who’s Who in Science and TechnologyWho’s Who in International Authors, and Who’s Who in Canada.

 

[Page 5]

Contents

 

Preface 6

1. Race is More Than Skin Deep 7

Race in History
Race in Today’s World
Why Are There Race Differences?
Conclusion
Additional Readings

2. Maturation, Crime, and Parenting 13

Maturation
Crime
Personality, Aggression, and Self-Esteem
Parenting and Out-of-Wedlock Births
Longevity and Population Growth
Conclusion
Additional Readings

3. Sex, Hormones, and AIDS 18

Sexual Behavior and Attitudes
Sexual Physiology and Anatomy
AIDS and HIV
Conclusion
Additional Readings

4. Intelligence and Brain Size 22

Culture Fair Tests
Intelligence and Brain Size
Race Differences in Brain Size
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Brain Weight at Autopsy
Measuring Skull Size
Measuring Living Heads
Summarizing Brain Size Differences
Conclusion
Additional Readings

5. Genes, Environment, or Both? 28

Heritability Studies
Adoption Studies
Race and Heritability
Trans-racial Adoption Studies
Heritabilities Predict Racial Differences
Regression to the Average
Conclusion
Additional Readings

6. Life History Theory 34

r-K Life History Theory
Race Differences and r-K Strategies
Testosterone — The Master Switch?
Conclusion
Additional Readings

7. Out of Africa 39

The Evidence
Geography and Race
Conclusion
Additional Readings

8. Questions and Answers 42

Is Race a Useful Concept? (Chapter 1)
Are the Race Differences Real? (Chapters 2 through 5)
Is the Relationship Between Race and Crime Valid? (Chapter 2)
Is the Relationship Between Race and Reproduction Valid? (Chapter 3)
Is the Genetic Evidence Flawed? (Chapter 5)
Is r-K Theory Correct? (Chapter 6)
Aren’t Environmental Explanations Sufficient? (Chapter 5)
Is Race Science Immoral? (Chapter 1)
Closing Thoughts
Additional Readings

[Page 6]

 

 

[Page 34]

6: Life History Theory

 

The theory of r-K life histories explains the worldwide three-way pattern in race differences. The r-strategy means being very sexually active and having many offspring. The K-strategy means having fewer offspring, but with both mother and father giving them more care. Humans are the most K strategists of all species. Among humans, Orientals follow the most K-strategy, Blacks the most r-strategy, and Whites fall in between.

The previous chapters showed that there are important race differences in brain size, hormone levels, even bone and tooth development, as well as sexual behavior, aggression, and crime. The three-way pattern in which the races differ — Orientals at one end, Blacks at the other, and Whites in between — is true all around the world. A look at history shows that the race differences we see today were also seen in the past.

Why do the races differ? Of course, poverty, nutrition, and cultural factors are important. But so too are the genes. Culture theory alone cannot explain all the findings.

 

 

r-K Life History Theory

 

Harvard University biologist E.O. Wilson was the first to use the term r-K Life-History Theory. He used it to explain population change in plants and animals. I have applied it to the human races.

A life-history is a genetically-organized group of traits that have evolved together to meet the trials of life — survival, growth, and reproduction. For our purposes, r is a term in Wilson’s equation that stands for the natural rate of reproduction (the number of offspring). The symbol K stands for the amount of care parents give to insure that their offspring survive. Plants and animals have different life history strategies. Some are more r and others are relatively more K.

The r and K strategists differ in the number of eggs they produce. The r-strategists are like machine-gunners. They fire so many shots that at least one of them will hit the target. The r-strategists produce many eggs and sperm, and mate and give birth often. The K-strategists, on the other hand, are like snipers. They put time and effort into a few carefully placed shots. K-strategists give their offspring a lot of care. They work together in getting food and shelter, help their kin, and have complex social systems. That is why the K-strategists need a more complex nervous system and bigger brain, but produce fewer eggs and sperm.

This basic law of evolution links reproductive strategy to intelligence and brain development. The less complex an animal’s brain, the greater its reproductive output. The bigger an animal’s brain, the longer it takes to reach sexual maturity and the fewer offspring it produces (see Chart 10). Oysters, for example, have a nervous system so simple that they lack a true brain. To offset this they produce 500 million eggs a year. In contrast, chimpanzees have large brains but give birth to one baby about every four years.

In different species of plants and animals we find a consistent pattern between these two variables — intelligence and reproductive rate. The number of offspring, the time between births, the amount of care parents give, infant mortality, speed of maturity, life span, even social organization, altruism, and brain size all fit together like pieces of a puzzle. The complete puzzle forms a picture biologists call the r-K Life History Strategy.

 

[Page 35]

 

Chart 10

 

 

The r-type life history involves higher levels of reproduction, while the K-type strategy requires greater parental care and use of mental attributes. Since larger brains need more time to be built, all the stages of development are also slowed down. The gestation period for some smaller-brained primates (like lemurs and monkeys) is 18 weeks. But for bigger-brained primates (like chimpanzees and gorillas) it is 33 weeks. Some monkeys have their first pregnancy at the age of nine months. Gorillas, which have bigger brains and greater intelligence, have their first pregnancy at ten years.

Monkeys are born with a brain very nearly 100% its adult size, while chimpanzees and gorillas are born with about 60% of adult brain size. Human babies are born with a brain that is less than 30% of its adult size. For the first few months of life, monkeys are better than apes in most tests of sensory-motor behavior. And infant apes are superior to infant humans on these tasks. The r-K relationship is true for different species and also applies to humans.
 

Chart 10 shows where various animals fall on the r-K scale. Different species are, of course, only relatively r or K. Rabbits are K-strategists compared to fish. But they are r-strategists compared to primates (monkeys, apes, and humans, who are the best K-strategists among mammals). Humans may be the most K species of all. And some humans are better K-strategists than others.

 

Chart 11 lists traits typical of r and K reproductive strategies. Every species and every race has a certain life history that we can describe in terms of r-K. The position of each species (or race) on the r-K scale shows the strategy that gave its ancestors the best chance to survive in their habitat.

 

Chart 12 shows the life phases and gestation times (conception to birth) for six different primates. They show a scale of increasing K, from lemur to macaque, to gibbon, to chimp, to early humans, to modern humans. Each step in the scale means that the species puts more time and energy into caring for its young and insuring their survival. Each step also means not having as many offspring. Note the different sizes of each of the phases for the different species in Chart 12. Only humans have the post reproductive (i.e., after menopause) phase.

 

[Page 36]

 

Chart 11

 

The differences in r-K strategies that exist even in primates are important. A female lemur is an r- strategist for a primate. She produces her first offspring at nine months and has a life expectancy of only 15 years. A female gorilla is a K-strategist. She has her first pregnancy at about age 10 years and can expect to live to the age of 40. The lemur may mature, have a number of young, and die before the gorilla has her first baby.

 

[Page 37]

 

Chart 12

Race Differences and r-K Strategies

 

How do the three races fall along the r-K scale? Look back at the pattern of racial differences in Chart 1 (page 19). Compare them to the r-K traits in Chart 11 (page 77). Orientals are the most K, Blacks are the most r, and Whites fall in between.

 

Being more r means:

* shorter gestation periods

* earlier physical maturation (muscular control, bone and dental development)

* smaller brains

* earlier puberty (age at first menstruation, first intercourse, first pregnancy)

* more developed primary sexual characteristics (size of penis, vagina, testes, ovaries)

* more developed secondary sexual characteristics (voice, muscularity, buttocks, breasts)

* more biological than social control of behavior (length of menstrual cycle, periodicity of sexual response, predictability of life history from start of puberty)

* higher levels of sex hormones (testosterone, gonadotropins, follicle stimulating hormone)

* higher levels of individuality (lower law abidingness)

* more permissive sexual attitudes

* higher intercourse frequencies (premarital, marital, extramarital)

* weaker pair bonds

* more siblings

* higher rates of child neglect and abandonment

* greater frequency of disease

* shorter life expectancy

 

[Page 38]

 

 

Testosterone — The Master Switch?

 

Testosterone may be a master switch that sets the position of the races on the r-K scale. We know that this male sex hormone affects self-concept, temperament, sexuality, aggression and altruism. It controls the development of muscles and the deepening of the voice. It can also contribute to aggression and problem behavior. A study of over 4,000 military veterans found high testosterone levels predicted greater criminality, alcohol and drug abuse, military misconduct, and having many sex partners.

We can now see how different testosterone levels among the three races might explain the r-K behavioral differences. With higher testosterone levels, Blacks are more likely to put time and energy into having offspring. On the other hand, Asians and Whites with lower testosterone levels put more time and energy into caring for a few offspring and making long term plans. But, how did this happen? And why? For the answers we must turn to human origins and the Out-of-Africa theory of racial evolution.

 

 

Conclusion

 

r-K Life History Theory, a basic principle of modern evolutionary biology, explains the three- way pattern of differences in brain size, IQ, and behavior, described earlier. Every species of plant or animal can be placed on the r-K scale. The r end of the scale means having more offspring, maturing earlier, having smaller brains and providing less parental care. The K end of the scale means having fewer offspring, maturing later, having larger brains, and providing more parental care. Humans are the most K species of all. Among humans, Orientals are the most K, Blacks the most r, and Whites fall in between.

 

 

Additional Readings

 

Johanson, D. C. & Edey, M. A. (1981). Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. New York: Simon & Schuster.

 

Lovejoy, C.O. (1981). The origin of man. Science, 211, 341-350.

 

======================================

 

Click here for Race, Evolution and Behavior >>>

Part 1: Preface; Race is More Than Skin Deep

Part 2: Maturation, Crime, and Parenting

Part 3: Sex, Hormones, and AIDS

Part 4: Intelligence and Brain Size

Part 5: Genes, Environment, or Both?

Part 6: Life History Theory

Part 7: Out of Africa

Part 8: Questions and Answers

 

 

 

 

 

 

PDF of this blog post.
Click to view or download (2.0 MB). >>   Race, Evolution, and Behavior – Part 6 Ver 2

 

 Race, Evolution and Behaviour - COVER

 

Version History

 

Version 2: Aug 13, 2015 — Added Cover page; improved  formatting; expanded Contents page; added updated PDF (ver 2).
 
Version 1: Published Jun 20, 2014

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »