I gather from comments made in the current White Nationalism thread (as well as previous race/genetics threads) that this man has been accused of fabricating or fudging his data. I looked around a bit and couldn’t find anything about this. I wonder if anyone can link me to an online source detailing these accusations. Thanks.
Well here’s a guy who claims Rushton didn’t falsify his data, so much as cherry pick the data that supported his conclusions.
Rushton is quite the poster boy for the apologists so there are plenty of links to fawning write-ups but it’s much more difficult to find unbiased reviews. Here’s an interesting one from Mark Ferrari at Simon Fraser University. Again, it focuses more on flawed methodology than on outright falsification of data.
I know this subject came up on SDMB ~12 to 18 months ago in a GD race thread. Perhaps a search on Rushton’s name will bring up something more relevant. Also, I know our esteemed colleague, Collounsbury, knows something about this. Perhaps, if he does vanity searches, he will stumble across this thread.
How am i supposed to find this when it is GQ? jeez!! 
Rushton does the cherry picking, as Gould points out, and in Rushton’s rebuttal, he denounces Gould’s ad hominems, but his paper is full of them! Check out my analysis of just one section here. Now that i am at home, i can go to the Nazi sites without fear of the IT gestapo coming to the lab.
From here it says
completely ignoring culture for a race comparason to justify Black men being horndogs that must rape and kill.
Yes, according to him, Blacks being violent rapemasters is why Africa is burning with AIDS, completely ignoring that it came from there, and culture in general. Ever wonder why gay men had AIDS up the wa-zoo? Were they small brain big penised violent rapists? Hardly! (though i am sure Esprix will agree he has a big penis ;))
There are some other rebuttals to Rushton in the WN threads. Rushton seems to be manipulating data to support his thesis, which is bad science. He is not going to admit what he is doing, for he would be fired, lose his funding, and have to get a job at Wal-Mart. He is in too deep to get out, but the more he talks, the further he digs himself in. He must own someone at his school to be keep on the faculty.
In his 1995 book, Race, Evolution and Behavior, Rushton claimed on page 167, that the World Health Organization had, in 1991, specified (in the battle against AIDS) condoms with flattened widths of 49mm for use by Asians, 52mm for use by whites, and 53mm for use by blacks. As presented, he claimed that this (along with other data) supported his contention that Asians were less “sexual”, blacks were more “sexual” and whites occupied the good balance between oversexed and too brainy, but undersexed.
I recall reading a statement in the mid 1990s from a W.H.O. spokesman that they had never ordered condoms in that fashion and that Rushton had invented his facts.
Unfortunately, that was years before I owned a computer and I did not clip out the newspaper article for posterity.
The best that I can find, today, is this 2001 document from the WHO specifying Bidding Documents for the supply of Condoms and Itrauterine Devices (pdf format*, for Google-cashed html) for prospective vendors of condoms that mentions 49mm and 53mm condoms–but with no indication that either is to be targeted at any particular geographic location.
(It should be noted that even if Rushton’s WHO claim is true, it is a distortion of the data to claim that it indicates anything other than general body mass. One would expect larger people to have larger body parts and Asians, while growing rapidly with the advent of Western cereal crops and meats, still tend to average less height and mass than Africans or Europeans or Americans.)
Is there any documentation of the shopping mall penis study, or is that just an UL?
Thanks a lot guys. No smoking gun, though. I note that Light Strand’s guy said:
This despite the fact that this person is apparently an opponent of Rushton.
I looked at Hodge’s link. Best I can tell, that guy is attacking ways in which Rushton’s research might be misused, not any actual claims by Rushton.
Tars, it would seem to me that your criticisms fall well within the bounds of normal scientific give and take. This also seems to be implied from the earlier critic cited (Peters). Correct me if I am wrong in this.
Tom, I can’t think of any reason for a bidding document to discuss geography. It’s a bit odd with someone as controversial as Rushton if one can’t find a basis for an allegation like that. If you happen to come across a source for the WHO statement, please post it. (Maybe col has a source - I believe he has posted similar allegations). See also my response to CA below.
Captain Amazing, here’s what I found from an outfir calling itself The Pioneer Fund
Of course it could well be that this Pioneer Fund is itself some sort of crank outfit - I’ve never heard of it until I came across it in the course of searching for info about Rushton.
The Pioneer Fund is an orginization set up to promote studies on eugenics and studies supporting white supremacy, and also funds lobbying groups to restrict non-white immigration. They’re not neccesarily the most respected grants organization out there.
You’re wrong, although there is little novelty value in that. Rushton is accused of manipulating data to force it to say something to prove his white supremacist pseudo-science. I believe there is enough ample evidence to indicate his work is well outside the normal bounds of scientific give and take, although it escapes as to how you would pretend to judge that. This has, in any case been discussed before. Simply search the SDMB on Rushton and myself.
The Pioneer Fund is a eugenics and white supremecist organization. You can rely on it if you so desire.
You may of course consult the work, The Science and Politics of Racial Science for a more in depth treatment of this. (title from memory, it is packed away somewhere in one of my boxes)
In re the WHO documention, I will look for something accessible and understable to you when I get free time. The issue was discussed many years ago on the Anthro-L listsev, and resulted in one professor in England puting up a page of scanned correspondence. Regretably I am no longer able to locate that page.
The substance of the matter was, I report directly from the original documentation that was put up, was that the WHO does not in fact report differntial use in condom size btw “Whites” and “Blacks” or between Europe and Africa (although East Asia yes) - Rushton’s “cited” documentation simply did not exist. In other words, he lied.
Now, I shall try to locate the primary source on that, perhaps the prof is accessible at another university.
Sorry about the Pioneer reference then. :o
Col:
I was referring to the specific criticisms of Tars, which seem to deal with the way Rushton dealt with exceptions to his general rules. These are common, in science and elsewhere.
I found a couple of places where you’ve discussed Rushton, but you’ve essentially asserted your opinion about him. (Gould vs. Rushton and questions & Races don’t exist). I was looking for something more - if you find it let me know.
True–and I had acknowledged that I had not yet been able to find the citation. The point, however, is not that the bidding instructions fail to mention geography, but that they list only two sizes, rather than the three that Rushton needs in order to wedge whites in between Asians and Africans.
Note, also, that he claimed only a single millimeter size difference for two of the sizes. A single “flat width” millimeter translates to two millimeters of circumference–less than .65 millimeter diameter difference. Seems a bit odd that they would bother ordering a separate batch with such a negligible difference in pre-expanded sizes.
At any rate, it does appear that Rushton is some sort of WN, and that his work has a political agenda. See: Another Successful AR Conference
Well, this seems like a pretty good way to test whether Rushton is a fraud. If he invented a document about three different condom sizes, then yeah, I would say he’s a fraud.
If not, then, I would suggest that his severest critics ask themselves if they are too eager to accept criticism of Rushton.
For what it’s worth, I’ve read Rushton’s famous book, and I would concede that (1) he overstates the case and (2) the book is something of an advocacy piece.
I have also read Gould’s Mismeasure of Man and would make the same criticism, although perhaps not as extremely.
Anyway, let’s see the evidence!!
P.S. I checked on the WHO web site, and found the following passage, which obviously doesn’t decide the issue:
I am pleased to say that I made some long distance phone calls and some emailing and am now in touch with the English researcher, Dr. Alexander Hall who is presently at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine(*), who busted Rushton. When I obtain permission I will share with you the documentation etc.
At that point you all owe me reimbursements on my telephone charges.
;^)
(*: I’ll check on the capacity and CV when I get permission)
Very well, as I believe time is drawing night, let me share with you. This is correspondence from the British researcher who uncovered Rushton’s fabrication. As I mentioned, I and others noted the webpage and the scanned correspondence documenting this. Regrettably as Hall notes, this appears to have been lost when Hall left Warwick, although one can find reference to the pages one the Anthro-L (where Rushton himself was arguing at the time) listserve including content discussion. It is online at University of Buffalo as I recall. As the essential matter, the fabrication of the citation went unchallenged, I trust that cross-referencing this with the content of the Anthro-L discussion will serve. I have, with Hall’s permission, reproduced most of his message to me – omitting only the end where he discusses the general observations on genetic utility of race that we have discussed ad nauseum here, as well as some personal notes between he and I.
Hi Well, I’ve done a check and the page died in 1998 when I left Warwick University. But I can remember the details of it.
Basically one of Rushton’s claims was in different penis sizes. This was to support his theory that white people had a different strategy in bringing up children to black people. Essentially there are two strategies in reproducing, one is called R and one is called K, although I can’t remember which is which at the moment. Basically one of the strategies involves producing lots of offspring and basically the strongest survive. Fish use this type of thing, so do turtles.
The second strategy is to invest a lot of care and effort in bringing up one or fewer offspring and so guarantee survival. Like higher primates and mammals. Rushton argued there was a scale between the two strategies and this applied in higher animals too, and also to different races. Rushton argued that black people basically employed the first and white people employed the second. You don’t need to be a genius to see where this is going.
Essentially any system which supports black children is going against the grain of black reproductively and creating swamping situations. Its the “they will out breed us” argument. White people invest more care in their children and black people just breed, creating criminals etc.
As part of this Rushton examined evidence that black women become reproductive earlier, have greater rates of dizygotic twins etc, and evidence that black men were able to ejaculate further than white men (he did a survey in a mall in Canada for this evidence - without any realisation that such questions when answered will be subject to a great deal of boasting or modesty!) - and of course the crucial point that black men were able to deliver semen nearer to the ovaries than white men.
I.e. less distance for the sperm to travel means greater chance of conceptoin means more black people. It was, essentially the big dick argument all over again. He made reference to some extremely questionable sources from the 18th century and, as a coup de grace - a document from the World Health Organistion called “Specification and Guidelines for Condom Procurement”
This is a technical document, which describes quality standards for condoms used around the world. In particular Rushton said that the document recommended three different sizes of condom, and that these sizes of condom were recommended for different geographical areas around the world - i.e. for different races.
The sizes were: 49mm flat width 90mm length condom for Asia 52mm flat width 100mm length condom for North and South America, the Middle East and Europe 53mm flat width 110mm length condom for Africa. Essentially he implied that the World Health Organisation purely on technical grounds said that black people should have bigger condoms. Now, I asked the WHO for clarification of this. They emailed me back and said no such claims were made in this document. To clarify, they even sent me a pack of everything they had on condoms, including the document “Specification and Guidelines for Condom Procurement”. In this document I found no such reference to these condom measurements.
Indeed, they only specified two types of condom these were: a 49mm flat width 90mm length condom for China a 53mm flat width 110mm length condom for the rest of the world. Now, dick size is going to be related to body size. Taller, bigger men have bigger brains. Taller, bigger men have bigger dicks too.
Your size is generally a product of your diet, especially when growing up. Which is why Asians brought up in America with their high carb, calcium-rich, vitamin enriched protein and fat rich diets are taller - in one generation - than their immediate parents. In China the diet is different, which is why Chinese men are generally smaller than their western counterparts in stature and, also, dick size. So I don’t think the WHO recommendation, as it is, is necessarily wrong. But I put it to Rushton in an email that he had fabricated this evidence, that I had got the document, and checked his reference and found it to be false.
I got some shitty replies from him, then it all went silent, especially as he soon found that I was posting the correspondence on the internet and students from University of Western Ontario were generating 6,000 hits in a month on the site. And it’s so much nonsense.
[End portion of email on general racial issues and some personal correspondence omitted to save space]
Alexander Hall
nospamalex.nospamhallnospam@nospamtransparencyresearch.nospamco.uk or
nospamALEXANDER.nospamHALL@lshtmnospam. nospamac.nospamuk
If the primitive masking of his email address (shared w/ permission in order of preference) is too confusing, you may always feel free to mail my yahoo account at my user name.
Thank you Collounsbury! But as a counterpoint, I would point to the following, from the Gay Men’s Health Crisis:
So apparently the notion of the standard size for a Caucasian being 52mm is not concocted out of thin air by Rushton. And further, the WHO was aware of this measurement, and used it as a reference point. So the thought occurs to me that just maybe it is possible that the WHO relied on the standard British government-approved size (or similar such) until they researched it themselves in 1992 and made the findings noted above. In which case, all documents after 1992 would no longer reflect the 52mm size. And since Tomndebb says Rushton was referencing a 1991 WHO document, one cannot conclude that he fabricated his evidence based on post-1992 WHO documents.
A bit off topic for this thread, but since it has been raised, I find the notion that difference in size between Asians and others to be the result of the general difference in size, and hence nutrition based, to be wholly unconvincing. The differences in size being discussed here are 14.5% width (area) and 18% length - 30% total mass. I don’t think the differences in body size are even remotely approaching these levels.
Goddamn bastard posting logouts.
Well, briefly then, as I lost my goddamn reply:
The excuse is interesting but easily falsifiable. You can contact Hall I suppose but you miss the essential point:
(a) Not the 52 mm but the fabricated claim in re the 53mm, per Hall and my recollection of the scanned correspondence from all sides, there was never such thing on the WHO part. Pure fabrication by Rushton, so 1991 versus 1992 is meaningless.
(b) As to your assumptions on nutrition and size differences, well why don’t you, instead of making assumptions based on ignorance, do some dammned research on it? WHO and other documents I am sure can help you out, rather than assuming in ignorance as is so often the wont. I tire of carrying all the water from the well. Remotely approaching these levels…
I don’t understand you here. What is the “fabricated claim in re the 53mm”? (Is it the difference between “China” and “Asia”?) Best as I can tell - and your first post indicates the same - the only problem he has is in showing Caucasians as being an intermediate range, smaller than Africans. This being the 52mm size. Please clarify.
Reason is because it is blindingly obvious. If there is a 14.5% difference in height, this would make the average Chinese male 4’11". An 18% difference means 4’9". No need for great research to show that these are way off base. I don’t need to know if the correct number is 5’5" or 5’6" or thereabouts to make my case here. What exactly do you disagree with here?
My apologies I misread the numbers. The essential point remains the WHO indicated they had never, in the knowledge of the correspondant - you can verify this with Hall - made such a tripartite distinguishing assertion (and of course the assumption that GB = White is again at issue given the non-white pop.).
There then being no “intermediate” range as supported by WHO. One can speculate all one wants of course that somehow there was confusion, but the point remains the document Rushton claimed to say one thing, did not.
(I might add that Rushton did not advance the explanation you have concocted, I would presume he would have otherwise. Of course you can write to him and suggest it to him post-facto. I am sure he’d enjoy the assistance.)
What I have a problem with is not bothering to look to what data are here and the assumption that the gross differentials in standard condom size are supposed to be reflective of actual size difference - condoms stretch so there is a range of coverage.
I don’t see that they said they had never had such a size - Hall’s e-mail does not make this clear - unless he told you something else in another e-mail. It is possible that the idea that there may have been a change did not occur to Hall and he did not emphasize the matter. It would also depend on who he contacted at the WHO - if he hit up with some beaurocrat, the guy may just have sent him the most recent document.
Well of course, but this would apply to any Western country. Still, most of the people are White.
Again, unless you asume that the pre-92 versions were different.
I was wondering about this as well. But I don’t know how much you can make of it. It is unclear what Rushton actually replied - all we have is the word of Hall that his replies were “shitty”. It is possible that Rushton simply did not know that there had been a change in ordering specifications. And it is also possible that Rushton blew the guy (who clearly held him in contempt) off.
If someone says “there is more light by day than by night and therefore…” he does not have to back up his assertion with source data indicating the exact brightness by day and by night - he might assume that all sides will agree on this, and at most quibble over the inferences of such. And in such circumstances it is poor form to demand proof of this, especially if one is unwilling to commit to a position on the matter. The case at hand is similar. I made my point not knowing the exact height of Chinese males, but I have encountered enough people who were raised in China to know that the average height is nowhere near 4’11". And I suspect that you have too, for which reason you decline to make any assertions to the contrary. But, in the hope of putting this silly issue to rest, I direct you to Asia Pacific J Clin Nutr, which says:
This equates to 5’5" (in line with my earlier speculation), less than 6% less than the average height of a US male.
I would think the amount of stretching would be proportionate to the size of the condom, so the percent differential would remain constant.