First, what are the merits of both? Rushton does seem to do a good job of dismantling many of Gould’s claims. But part of Rushton’s theory is that the colder the climate, the more intelligent the people evolve. As Africans moved north, to colder climates, they had to become more intelligent to survive. This raises questions, for me at least: what about Indians/Middle Easterners? They live in climates as warm as parts of Africa, and are still considered generally intelligent. Also, where do Eskimos come into play? They aren’t often considered intellectual powerhouses, are they? Perhaps man moved into northern Europe, then descended back into the Middle East and India? Or are there other factors? Here’s a link to Rushton’s essay on Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man”: http://www.ziplink.net/~bright/papers/rushton.html
Unfortunately, I have not read either edition of Gould’s Mismeasure of Man, and I only skimmed Rushton’s review. However, backtracking through the link provided, it turns out that the ‘real’ homepage is this one. It would appear that Mr. Rushton is a supporter of eugenics, which may very well bias his review (given that Gould is unabashedly against eugenics). What follows is a quote from another of Rushton’s articles (“The New Enemies of Evolutionary Science”), to provide a frame of reference for his views:
As for the whole intelligence correlating to climate thing, I would think it would take a good deal of intelligence to survive in desert regions as well. Does Rushton feel that people who live in moderate mid-latitude regions, then, are less intelligent overall, compared to those dwelling in cold climates?
He has not, in fact done any such thing.
Gould is a respected scientist who continues to publish in peer-reviewed literature. While I personally do not agree with some of his work, he is a world-class scientist and I don’t beleive anyone without a political agenda has ever found fault with his work per se.
Rushton is a fraud. He was busted a few years back by critics for fabricating data on \penis length/ between ‘races’. He claimed to have research from, as memory serves, the WHO on penis length. However, when this was checked no such documents existed – he had fabricated the reference(s). A racist with the agenda to prove non-white “races” are inferior and willing to fabricate data to support his crusade.
Eugenics and similar pseudo-sciences have no place in modern science --they are bad misunderstandings of how genetics actually works. You may consult the eugenics thread in great debates for a variety of comments in this regard.
Utterly meritless and false on its facts:
We know that final stage Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and the key transition to advanced culture (upper paleolithic) occured c. 50k years ago in Africa. Rushton simply ignores modern paleoanthropology which long ago discredited his fairy-tales and has moved on to more productive endeavors. The New York Times article below provides a nice journalistic summary.
There is no basis for this theory and it is fundamentally contradicted by the history of human evolution. The fact that Rushton clings to such a pitifully outdated and racist theory illustrates the bankruptcy of his thought. In fact, his “theories” look like locker room speculation and racist jokes dressed up in dodgy statistics and even dodgier science.
If you wish to read about current research you should consult articles such as:
Mark Seielstad, Endashaw Bekele, Muntaser Ibrahim, Amadou Touré, and Mamadou Traoré "A View of Modern Human Origins from Y Chromosome Microsatellite Variation " Vol. 9, Issue 6, 558-567, June 1999
Online at:
http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/9/6/558
Summarizes many of the issues in population genetics in its introduction, and discesses current theories of human origins in terms of the genetics and paleoanthropological issues.
Similar issues are discussed in:
Francis S. Collins,1 Lisa D. Brooks,1,3 and Aravinda Chakravarti2 “A DNA Polymorphism Discovery Resource for Research on Human Genetic Variation”
Online at:
http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/8/12/1229
Kenneth M. Weiss “PERSPECTIVE: In Search of Human Variation” Vol. 8, Issue 7, 691-697, July 1998
Online at:
http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/7/691
Robert Foley “PERSPECTIVE: The Context of Human Genetic Evolution” Vol. 8, Issue 4, 339-347, April 1998
Online at:
http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/8/4/339
As for the different groups mentioned being “smarter” or not, that is a subjective culturally determined standard (what is smart?). Intelligence is not a simple product of genes but a complex result of environment, genetic heritage and personal effort.
I have read Gould’s “Mismeasure of Man” and
Rushton’s book - I think it’s called “Race, Evolution, and Behaviour”
IMHO, both books are basically advocacy pieces. Both have a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty.
Collounsbury,
> Gould is a respected scientist who continues to publish in peer-reviewed literature. While I personally do not agree with some of his work, he is a world-class scientist and I don’t believe anyone without a political agenda has ever found fault with his work per se. <
I don't like Gould at all because he is a politician masquerading as a scientist. He is not a "respected" scientist. In fact, he is a laughingstock among scientists. He gives science a bad name. Scientists are by nature very apolitical. Gould tries to control scientific research by threatening scientists with being dragged into a political turmoil (something few scientists are able to cope with) if they explore the forbidden. These scientists are sitting ducks for politicians like Gould. Here's an example:
I wonder if it is possible to judge a theory by the supporters it attracts. . . .
My God, is Phillippe Rushton still around?
When he first started this at Western he was laughed out of every peer review process in Canada. His methods were about as scientific as Ouija boards and tea leaves.
He’s a crank; his popularity is entirely a product of imbeciles who will believe anything anyone says that backs up their idiotic racism. Sadly, Western can’t fire him because he’s tenured.
JDT…perhaps you could try reading some…you know…scientific literature. Gould is far from being a laughing stock in scientifc circles, and is quite well respected. Scientists are, by their nature, human, not apolitical robots. Study some history, and you will see that science has always been influenced by politics. It is not a crime for Gould, or any other scientist, to be opinionated.
Scientists who a poor scientists, or more typically, racists masquerading as scientists, are sitting ducks for scientists like Gould, et al.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mauve Dog *
**
This sentence would, of course, make much more sense if you substitute ‘are’ for ‘a’:
Scientists who are poor scientists…
Staying out of the debate over Rushton and Gould (although I am familiar with both works originally referred to), I think Rushton was not arguing that it was cold climates that resulted in an evolutionary increase in brain size/intelligence, but the novel problems encountered in these new environments (Europe and Asia). That is, the necessity of solving the previously unencountered problems associated with colder climates (including finding/making shelter, clothing, food, raising children in harsher conditions, etc) resulted in an increase in general intelligence/problem solving abilities over time. That’s how I interpreted Rushton’s explanation, anyway. To my knowledge, Rushton has only looked at the broad ethnic groups of Africans (and their descendants), Asians ("), and Europeans (").
I see a lot of problems with this theory. The first one that jumps to mind is Egypt, which had a very technologically advanced civilisation out there in Africa (developed by peoples of a dusky-skinned persuasion) while northern Europeans were painting themselves blue and building homes of hide and mud. Same can be said for China and quite a few places in the Mediterranean. You can’t tell me that just because Northern Europeans jumped ahead recently that this makes them more intelligent than any other group of humans. We are all the same species with a few very minor cosmetic differences. To argue that one group’s brains have become more intelligent than another group’s on the basis of who has the most technologically advanced civilisation this year smells like cow manure to me. Not to mention that if you use that criteria, one could argue that the Japanese are now the most intelligent race/ethicgroup/nationality.
That’s just one problem - I don’t have time to get into the issue of the difficulty in quantifying intelligence at all. I’ll leave that to the more erudite and better educated dopers.
What I found most amusing about the linked essay was probably the way the author referred to himself in the third person throughout it.
“Such an evolutionary scenario fits the data from Rushtons (1995b) review of the international literature on race differences”
and
“Rushton (1995b) and others have proposed that”
etc.
JDeMobray believes that sounds kind of silly. JDeMobray wouldn’t submit a scholarly paper which used that phrasing.
JDeMobray has proposed that possibly it is the nature of the tests themselves that accounts for the purported differences in “intelligence” that Rushton and others of a similar bent dwell on.
JDeMobray: Just as a point of correction - Although I personally think Rushton is a hack, his method of self-citation is pretty common in academic literature 
. Although I agree it looks kind of weird sometimes 
.
JDT: I don’t really wish to get drawn into a debate on the subject, but my own anecdotal experience suggests that SJG remains hugely respected among professional biologists. Even those that have problems with some of his work ( many Systematists were less than enthralled with Wonderful Life, for example ).
leaving aside the wholly false biololigical dichotomies between Africans, Asians and Europeans that Rushton proposes, his model is laughable. Item one, our best archaeological and genetic evidence all point to homo sapiens development in Africa, including the paleolithic cultural revolution c. 50 to 80 k years before present. Clearly the driving force for intelligence was in sub-Saharan African environments. There has not been enough time for fundamental differentiation among populations since the Out of Africa exit about this time, population flows have been continuous and sustained, making Rushton type theories laughable at their face. Never mind the fact that we find that sustained socially complex civilizations did not, as Rushton’s absurd theory, arise in colder climates first. See Jared Diamond’s work for a good resume of the complexity of the development of settled civilization. The idea that somehow colder climates are more challenging that warmer climates is an old and baseless conciet, in simply highlights the fact that Rushton’s working with late 19th century concepts of race and evolution which are just too stupid for words.
Why? He’s an avowed racist wedded to a baseless worldview.
As for Gould, he is not perfect, but he’s one of the most respected men in his field and his works have stood up to peer review. I’ll leave the comments of the peni obsessed alone.
And what of Rushton’s disses on Gould’s claims that brain size/weight do not determine intelligence, that Asians and Europeans have on average larger/heavier brains (according to MRIs), and so on? Are his statistics distorted or false? Part of Rushton’s claim is that some races are generally more intelligent, and the studies to which he refers seem to support that view…?
I’ll put it this way, Rushton was busted (in the figurative sense) for having fabricated data on penis size. The WHO document he cited to did not in fact say what he claimed it said (i.e. that race X had bigger schlongs than race Y). Fabrication, pure and simple. The kiss of death for academic respectability in my book.
So, you have the answer as to his statistics.
As for his intelligence claims, they’re absurd and hardly worth dealing with. All part of an entirely baseless Victorian view of the human race.
There are much more interesting topics in the world, like the implications of genetic engineering or some such. Rushton simply regurgitates old, discredited ideas.