Quite open…
This is simply outrageous. :mad:
How much longer will this censorship continue? 
I thought liberals believed in self expression. :dubious:
As soon as someone accuses someone else of being a racist, I know the accuser is in trouble. Such an accusation is an appeal to emotion that has no place in a scientific discussion.
I do, and once again, that is not credible, How many times I have seen controversial researchers be refused for more technical reasons than political ones? Too many to count, and many times the ones refused then go running to their fans to report how mean scientists were to them. By general rule one has to assume that there were other reasons why this researcher’s paper was refused.
And research can still be done, or I have to assume that the Pioneer Fund is running out of money to fund it. 
Funny, I did not said that, the reviewer of the book did. But that it was a racist book, there is little doubt.
And after one checks the pit thread there is no need to claim emotion, racist ideas are clearly being pushed in books like the one mentioned.
So what? What matters is whether or not Rushton’s assertions are true or not.
I’d like to point out Darwin hated the term evolution because it carries with it the implication of advancement. Nothing could be further from the truth and Darwin continually went out of his way to say so. Creatures don’t get better, they just get picked off until the ones left are better at a specific niche. Darwin preferred the term ‘Speciation through natural selection’, but because it’s harder to say and requires more effort from the reader to determine the entire meaning it got left behind.
It appears Darwin’s intent didn’t survive the evolutionary process. Ironic.
And the other reviewer showed why it was not good research.
So yeah.
You’ve been trying to make genetic arguments, but you don’t understand the basic fact that human populations are much closer together genetically than breeds of dogs. This is fundamental human genetics. If you don’t get this, you can’t really go any further.
Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective is a controversial evolutionary psychology book (first unabridged edition 1995, third unabridged edition 2000) written by J. Philippe Rushton, a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, and the current head of the Pioneer Fund.
Rushton argues that race is a valid biological concept and that racial differences frequently arrange in a continuum across 60 different behavioral and anatomical variables, with Mongoloids (Orientals, East Asians) at one end of the continuum, Negroids (blacks, Africans) at the opposite extreme, and Caucasoids (whites, Europeans) in the middle.[1]…
The book argues that Mongoloids, on average, are at one end of a continuum, that Negroids, on average, are at the opposite end of that continuum, and that Caucasoids rank in between Mongoloids and Negroids, but closer to Mongoloids. His continuum includes both external physical characteristics and personality traits…
Citing genetic research by Cavalli-Sforza, the African Eve hypothesis, and the out of Africa theory, Rushton writes that Negroids branched off first (200,000 years ago, Caucasoids second 110,000 years ago, and Mongoloids last 41,000 years ago)…Rushton argues that this evolutionary history correlates with, and is responsible for, a consistent global racial pattern which explains many variables such as worldwide crime statistics or the global distribution of AIDS…
Rushton argues that the survival challenges of making warm clothes, building durable shelter, preserving food, and strategically hunting large animals all selected genes for greater intelligence and social organization among the populations that migrated to cold climates…
Rushton and Templar in a 2009 study argued that violent crime (murder, rape, and serious assault) was lower in countries with higher IQs, higher life expectancies, lighter skin color, and lower rates of HIV/AIDS. Higher national incomes or higher rates of infant mortality did not affect the results. Differences in testosterone was suggested as one possible explanation for some of these differences, as well as for differences in aggression and some measures of sports performance between different races.[38][39]…
In Race, Evolution, and Behavior Professor Rushton argues that whites and blacks divided racially 110,000 years ago. I wonder if he still believes that. According to most recent theories based on DNA evidence, modern humans evolved in Africa over 100,000 years ago. About 50,000 years ago 100 to 200 of these modern humans left Africa. Everyone who is not a Negro is descended from them. In other words, the division between Negroes and everyone else happened 50,000 years ago. The non Negro races divided after then. I have read that the separation between whites and Orientals happened about 30,000 years ago.
Also, Rushton’s theory that whites and Orientals owe their higher average IQs to evolving in a colder climate is unconvincing to me. Neanderthals lived in Europe during several ice ages, but remains of their camp sites indicate that they were less intelligent than the Cro Magnons who replaced them.
In The 10,000 Year Explosion Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending claim that the differences between Negroes on one hand, and whites and Orientals on the other can be explained by the number of generations each race has practiced agriculture and urban living. However, agriculture and urban living developed two or three thousand years later in the Far East than in the Near East. Cochran and Harpending do not explain why Orientals tend to be more intelligent and less promiscuous and prone to crime than whites.
Dogs were domesticated about 15,000 years ago in what is now China. Most dog breeds are only several hundred years old. Negroes and everyone else separated about 50,000 years ago. Whites and Orientals separated about 30,000 years ago.
I doubt very seriously that dog breeds are more dissimilar genetically than human races.
In my comment #150 I posted two areas where I disagree with Ruston’s explanation of racial differences. Nevertheless, those differences do exist, they have been noted throughout history, and they persist. I think Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending provide a more convincing explanation of how the differences evolved.
This means that you don’t understand the basic science.
Explain it then.
What matters is that Rushton is right about racial differences. These differences do not seem to change as the result of social changes and social welfare spending.
Given that Rushton is an established liar, it does Cochran and Harpending no favors to link their work to that of Rushton.
The book may or may not explain some aspects of the development of some populations or societies, but since what you pretend are “races” would not be uniformly affected by their claims, your point is meaningless. By your odd way of creating “races,” the agricultural peoples of the Sahel are lumped in with hunter/gatherers of the Congo River basin and the pastoralists to the south while the pastoralists East of the Caspian Sea and between the Indian Ocean and the Himalayas get lumped in with the farmers of Ukraine and France and the urban industrialists of Germany and Britain.
What you claim that “everyone knows” is little more than your own preconceived biases that I suspect Messrs. Cochran and Harpending would just as soon you not try to link to their work.
= = =
On the matter of the other topic of this thread, I am curious as to whether the Quebecois also score significantly higher on IQ tests than the Canadian population, given that Tays-Sachs is endemic to some portion of that population, (ironically, with an affiliation with mental retardation), and that there appears to be a connection to (French) Norman ancestry unrelated to the Ashkenazi.
What has he lied about?
Agriculture did not exist in sub Saharan Africa until 5,000 years ago, if that long ago. It did not begin to spread throughout sub Saharan Africa until about 2,500 years ago.
Agriculture entered Europe about 8,000 years ago, and existed everywhere by 5,000 years ago.
Why not? It seems that you’re just disagreeing for the hell of it. You have already cited people explaining why it is controversial. It was obviously difficult, for those reasons, to simply get the paper about the hypothesis published. Why is it so difficult to consider there would be resistance to it being researched? As Pinker commented:
Also, another researcher quoted in the LA Times decided not to pursue it because it was too controversial:
Yet, you still find it impossible to believe there might be resistance to such research. Seriously GIGObuster? This from the person who is always bringing up the policy implications and social impact of these issues?
I have no faith in Rushton’s explanations of of the origins of various racial differences, but his account of the actual existing differences is substantially correct. For example, average cranial capacities do differ significantly between different human populations. By about two standard deviations, from the lowest to highest groups: maybe 3 stds, considering Eskimos vs Australian Aborigines. Measured IQs vary by at least three standard deviations from highest to lowest groups. The groups with smaller average cranial capacities all have low average IQ scores. The groups with larger average brain sizes generally score higher, but the Eskimos, with the largest brains of any known population, only score around the world average (about 90).
Gould and others made a big to-do about how hard it is to measure cranial capacity (which is silly, of course), and how researchers in the 1800s (Morton) put their thumb on the scale to get the desired answer. Of course whether someone did a bad job of measurement in 1880 or whatever has no relevance at all to whether such a measurement is possible, or whether a particular modern measurement is accurate. In fact, people have re-examined Morton's work, and remeasured skulls from his collection: although he made math errors, there is nothing wrong with the cranial measurements he made. But as I said, it would not matter if there had been. In classical times, astronomers rejected a heliocentric solar system because it implied stellar parallax - they couldn't find any. But later, using telescopes instead of the naked eye, we did indeed observe parallax.
What you really want to do is measure brain volume in healthy subjects, rather than skull capacity. And we can do that now: we use MRI. The results are much the same as before: there is a black-white difference in overall cerebral volume of just under 1 standard deviation. Here's a nice free reference: Variability in Frontotemporal Brain Structure, PLOS One, Oct 26 2010.
People have done more work checking for a relationship between brain volume and IQ. In the old days they used skull capacity and got correlations of .1 to .2.
Gould argued there was really no relationship between brain volume and intelligence at all - a surprising thing to say, if one really believed in evolutionary theory.
A number of better studies have been done using MRI: they typically find a correlation of about 0.4. Quite a few of these studies showing a significant correlation between brain size and IQ scores were published between the first publication of Gould’s book The Mismeasure of Man and the second edition, but he neglected to cite any of them in that second edition.
Zimran is a damn nice guy, primarily concerned with therapy for his patients rather than evolutionary biology. We able to look at anonymized records of his clinic, which has most of the Gaucher patients in Israel. They had a very unusual occupational pattern, with a far larger fraction in occupations like engineers, scientists, MDs, etc than the general Ashkenazic population of Israel. Gaucher disease is special in that homozygotes are not mentally retarded or dead, as would be the case for the other sphingolipid diseases like Tay-Sachs. And people with illness, you can find: carriers are generally anonymous.