# J. Philippe Rushton - Links **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 23, 2002, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521 "2002-10-23T14:17:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2002, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/1 "2002-10-23T14:17:21Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![light\_strand](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a6a055/32.png) [@light\_strand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/light_strand)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/2 "2002-10-24T01:43:27Z")
Well here’s a guy who claims Rushton didn’t falsify his data, so much as cherry pick the data that supported his conclusions. [http://exn.ca/Stories/1997/03/06/02.asp](http://exn.ca/Stories/1997/03/06/02.asp) ---
**Author:** ![Hodge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Hodge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hodge)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/3 "2002-10-24T02:54:16Z")
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](http://www.sfu.ca/~wwwpsyb/issues/1996/spring/ferrari.htm) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/4 "2002-10-24T06:15:20Z")
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](http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Gould.pdf), he denounces Gould’s ad hominems, but his paper is full of them! Check out my analysis of just one section [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=140292&perpage=50&pagenumber=5). 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](http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_rghrs.html) it says > [@](#): > > For married couples in their 20s, the average frequency of intercourse per week for the Japanese and Chinese in Asia is 2.5 (Asayama, 1975; Bo & Wenxiu, 1992, Table 7), whereas for American Whites it is 4, and for American Blacks, 5 (Fisher, 1980). completely ignoring culture for a race comparason to justify Black men being horndogs that must rape and kill. > [@](#): > > They thereby sidestepped my global review of sexual behavior and AIDS. 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. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/5 "2002-10-24T06:30:19Z")
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](http://www.unfpa.org/procurement/docs/samplebid.pdf) (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.) - [www.unfpa.org/procurement/docs/samplebid.pdf+w.h.o.+1990+condoms+53mm&hl=en&ie=UTF-8](http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:jDveLgM6Ai8C:%5Burl)]Google html cache. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/6 "2002-10-24T14:05:21Z")
Is there any documentation of the shopping mall penis study, or is that just an UL? ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/7 "2002-10-24T17:15:16Z")
Thanks a lot guys. No smoking gun, though. I note that **Light Strand** ’s guy said: > [@](#): > > I want to emphasize that Rushton is certainly not guilty of falsifying data. As far as I know, the data he’s reported has been accurate," Peters said in a telephone interview. “He was selective with the data though, picking some and neglecting others. It’s a common practice amongst researchers. But it’s bad science.” This despite the fact that this person is apparently an opponent of Rushton. > [@](#): > > Some scientists, while not explicitly supporting Rushton’s claims, are wary of Peters’ motivation for conducting the research. They note that he has been ‘after’ Rushton for a long time, and cite the argument the two researchers have conducted in print over the years, as cause for some concern about Peters’ reliability. 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. > [@](#): > > It is this form of research which leads to the misinterpretation of psychometric measures. This occurs because once knowledge such as this reaches the public, [let alone Rushton him self] it is possible that persons will interpret the results of an intelligence test as a measure of all these variables even though the results remain controversial and the purpose and design of the test is solely to predict future success in school. Further, no psychometric measure has perfect predictive power or is wholly reliable or valid. This means that all results should be interpreted with caution and should not be seen as being causally related. However, most people do not possess the psychological or research background necessary to understand these limitations and thus are more prone to interpret the results as deterministic. > [@](#): > > A second statistical flaw with Rushton’s (1988) work is in his attempt to generalize his results to races even though there is more variability within races than there is between races (Peters, 1991). A close look at the data reveals that there is enormous overlap in the distributions for each race. This occurs to such an extent that it would be erroneous for anyone to base judgment about intelligence solely on the race of an individual. In direct contrast to Rushton’s theory, it is quite possible to have an individual from each of the measured races and find that their ordering of intelligence is Negroid \> Caucasoid \> Mongoloid. > [@](#): > > Another way in which psychologists’ drive to make their discipline become more scientific has aided faulty research, such as Rushton`s, is due its marginal acceptance of non-empirical research. As has already been stated, the ‘power brokers’ of discipline highly regard empirical work and consequently researchers in the field are strongly persuaded to pursue this form of inquiry if they are wishing to be acknowledged. We have seen that even in criticism of Rushton’s work, researchers have tended to dispute his numbers by calculating new numbers of their own. The main problem with this is that sometimes all that is needed to refute an empirical study is a logical examination of the data. This may not be undertaken, however, for fear that it will not be accepted for publication, or that is will not be accepted by one’s peers, since this approach is “unscientific”. **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](http://www.pioneerfund.org/speak2.html) > [@](#): > > False Charge #7: Dr. Philippe Rushton, who was funded by Pioneer, equates penis size (or gonad size) to intelligence, and he stands in shopping malls asking men how far they can ejaculate. > [@](#): > > Rushton gives official data on differences in condom size (used for the prevention of AIDS) as determined by both the World Health Organization and the United Nations International Organization for Standardization. He merely recites the available statistics, taking only about 2 pages for this purpose out of the 334 pages in the book. This might be compared to the 34 pages on racial differences in brain size and intelligence. He did not question men in a shopping mall, as falsely claimed. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/8 "2002-10-24T17:35:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\* > **Captain Amazing** , here’s what I found from an outfir calling itself [The Pioneer Fund](http://www.pioneerfund.org/speak2.html)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. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/9 "2002-10-24T17:38:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > **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. 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. > [@](#): > > **Captain Amazing** , here’s what I found from an outfir calling itself [The Pioneer Fund](http://www.pioneerfund.org/speak2.html)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 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. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/10 "2002-10-24T20:34:22Z")
Sorry about the Pioneer reference then. :o **Col** : > [@](#): > > 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. 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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=46305) & [Races don’t exist](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57840&perpage=50&pagenumber=3)). I was looking for something more - if you find it let me know. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/11 "2002-10-24T22:51:13Z")
> [@](#): > > I can’t think of any reason for a bidding document to discuss geography. 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. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2002, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/12 "2002-10-25T00:02:30Z")
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](http://www.amren.com/9810issue/9810issue.html) ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2002, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/13 "2002-10-25T00:24:44Z")
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: > [@](#): > > Condoms are made in different sizes. However, manufacturers distribute only certain sizes in certain areas of the world. The length of condoms may vary from 150mm to 180 mm and the width from 44mm to 56 mm. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2002, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/14 "2002-10-25T14:23:43Z")
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) ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2002, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/15 "2002-10-28T14:33:25Z")
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](mailto: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. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2002, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/16 "2002-10-28T17:04:46Z")
Thank you **Collounsbury**! But as a counterpoint, I would point to the following, from the [Gay Men’s Health Crisis](http://www.aegis.com/pubs/gmhc/1994/GM080106.html): > [@](#): > > In 1992, the World Health Organization found that over one-third of penises in Britain exceed the standard British government- approved 52mm (about 2 inches) width for condoms. 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. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2002, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/17 "2002-10-28T17:32:11Z")
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… ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2002, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/18 "2002-10-28T17:45:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > (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. 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. > [@](#): > > (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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2002, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/19 "2002-10-28T21:52:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > 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. 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.) > [@](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2002, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-philippe-rushton-links/133521/20 "2002-10-28T23:13:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > 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 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. > [@](#): > > (and of course the assumption that GB = White is again at issue given the non-white pop.). Well of course, but this would apply to any Western country. Still, most of the people are White. > [@](#): > > 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. Again, unless you asume that the pre-92 versions were different. > [@](#): > > (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.) 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. > [@](#): > > What I have a problem with is not bothering to look to what data are here 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](http://www.monash.edu.au/APJCN/Vol3/Num3/33p135.htm), which says: > [@](#): > > The average height was 165.3 ± 7.3 cm for males and 153.5 ± 6.3 cm for females This equates to 5’5" (in line with my earlier speculation), less than 6% less than the average height of a US male. > [@](#): > > 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 would think the amount of stretching would be proportionate to the size of the condom, so the percent differential would remain constant.