Saturday, October 6, 2012

J. Philippe Rushton (1943-2012) R.I.P.

J. Philippe Rushton. February 8, 1989 (source)

I first heard about J. Philippe Rushton in the mid-1980s. My mother would leave newspaper clippings about him on my desk, thinking I might be interested.  I didn’t know what to think. Wasn’t she a Christian fundamentalist? And why would I be interested?

A few years later, in October 1988, I actually got to meet him. This was at the founding conference in Ann Arbor,Michigan, of what would become the Human Behavior and Evolution Society (HBES).I remember talking to him briefly—something about career opportunities in psychology. I also attended his talk on “r/K reproductive strategies and the evolution of health, longevity and personality.” He was the only one there who broached the topic of psychological differences within the human species. Everybody else, including myself, held to the line that there was only one human nature and that it had assumed its present form back in the Pleistocene on the African savannah.

The following January, Rushton delivered an expanded paper on the same theme at the annual AAAS meeting in San Francisco. That paper was widely reported in the press. And the shit hit the fan. The premier of Ontario, David Peterson, called on the University of Western Ontario to fire him. When the university refused, the Attorney General ordered the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate Rushton. I couldn't believe this sort of thing was happening in my country and in "the free world." But I said nothing, not even to close friends. I was a typical Canadian, I guess.

After several months, the investigation was dropped … because no crime had been committed. He had weathered the storm, and survived. He and a few others who had stood by him.

His defiance may have inspired other academics to come out of the closet. By the mid-1990s, a sort of “Prague Spring” was under way. I remember attending a talk by Vincent Sarich about “the reality of human differences.” This was at the 1996 HBES meeting in Chicago, and his talk was the high point of the meeting. This was also the time when The Bell Curve came out, and when Internet discussion groups made their debut. It now became possible to discuss this topic on a level playing field, without threats or intimidation.  And time and again the “no difference” side got creamed.

Maybe they weren’t used to level playing fields. It was nonetheless flabbergasting to see prominent antiracist scholars, like C. Loring Brace, being reduced to silence when confronted with contrary evidence.

The Prague Spring didn’t last long. There would never be a second edition of The Bell Curve, although it sold very well. Another book on the same topic was spiked by its publisher at the last minute. For that matter, no mainstream publishing house would ever again allow anything on that topic.

It’s now a decade and a half later. With Rushton’s death, the next spring seems far away.

77 comments:

Anonymous said...

Are you hinting at a conspiracy to prevent publishing?

I wonder if the author of the spiked book retained copyright? Could they not publish it on the internet?

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the author of the spiked book retained copyright? Could they not publish it on the internet?

Pretty sure he did, unless we are talking about somebody else.

B.B.

Anonymous said...

Rushton was an anti-Semite who endorsed Kevin MacDonald's anti-Semitic views:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/023474.html

MIke Steinberg said...

@ Anonymous,

Referring to a chapter in MacDonald's book in relation to US immigration does not an anti-semite make.

btw. Lawrence Auster made the following tribute when he learned of Rushton's passing:

"Philippe Rushton, one of the pioneering researchers and writers on race in our time, has passed away at age 68. I did not know he was ill. As I said to him once in the ’90s, his fundamentally new insight about race in his book Race, Evolution, and Behavior would eventually become part of the common, accepted understanding of the nature of humanity. This was, of course (to quote Wikipedia), his application of “inter-species r/K selection theory to the much smaller inter-racial differences within the human species.

The horrible abuse and attacks that he endured over his work, including a campaign, ultimately unsuccessful, to get him fired from his university teaching job, comprise an epic. Through it all, he kept his cool.

Rushton, a Canadian, was a soft-spoken, gentlemanly man, a reminder of the purer strain of Britishness that still exists, or used to exist, north of the border. However, in my last, brief conversation with him, at the February 2009 Preserving Western Civilization conference near Baltimore where we were both speakers, I did something that inadvertently disturbed his usual equanimity. We were gathering in a hotel bar after the conclusion of the conference, and I said something to the effect that I did not believe in the Darwinian evolution of new life forms by random genetic mutations and natural selection. He immediately became very upset and ended the conversation. For the record, Phil (if I may address you in the Beyond in which you did not believe), and to put your spirit at ease on this point, I was not challenging the idea, central to your work, that intra-species differences, such as the differences between sub-Saharan Africans and Scandinavians, may occur through natural selection, but rather the Darwinian claim that entirely new species have come into existence through random mutation and natural selection."

"http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/023445.html

Mike Steinberg said...

***For that matter, no mainstream publishing house would ever again allow anything on that topic. ***

I was surprised at how open Nicholas Wade's "Before the Dawn" was on the subject of race. The point that there had been different selection pressures for different populations and evidence of this in terms of genes relating to brain development was quite clear.

Another book that comes to mind is, "The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution".

I was pleasantly surprised to find both books in my local library.

Anonymous said...

Referring to a chapter in MacDonald's book in relation to US immigration does not an anti-semite make.

He didn't just refer to it. He held anti-Semitic views, making him an anti-Semite.

btw. Lawrence Auster made the following tribute when he learned of Rushton's passing:

And then when he learned of Rushton's anti-Semitism, this is what Auster said:

"To single out Jews and say that Jews and Jews alone are seeking to “exterminate” whites takes one into loonyville, and beyond loonyville into a very dark place. I’m sorry to hear that Rushton, at least privately, subscribed to that view."

Mike Steinberg said...

@ Anonymous,

If you want to describe anyone who agrees with MacDonald's argument regarding US immigration in that manner that's fine. Agreeing with an argument doesn't warrant such a label.

And yes, I saw that Auster wrote that. Hence, I also quoted his recent tribute to Rushton - if Auster thought Rushton was some anti-semite I doubt he would have written that tribute.

@ Peter,

In terms of the "Prague Spring" I note Rushton's book Race Evolution & Behaviour and The Bell Curve both received quite fair minded reviews from the New York Times.

Mike Steinberg said...

@ Anonymous,

Sorry, I hadn't seen that was Auster's later post. Nonetheless, I still admire his bravery in pursuing the truth in relation to group differences regardless of the social stigma attached.

I often wondered how he managed, given the opprobrium that was heaped on him over the years.

Anonymous said...

If you want to describe anyone who agrees with MacDonald's argument regarding US immigration in that manner that's fine. Agreeing with an argument doesn't warrant such a label.

If he agreed with anti-Semitic arguments, that would make him an anti-Semite.

Anonymous said...

Nonetheless, I still admire his bravery in pursuing the truth in relation to group differences regardless of the social stigma attached.

Considering his obsession with penis size, he didn't seem too concerned about social stigma.

Mike Steinberg said...

@ Anonymous,

Well, if that's how you define the term. I think you can agree with an argument without holding an animus towards a group. Anyway as Joey Kurtzman noted on jewcy, the issue is whether he's right or not. Just as it


Anonymous said...

RE: Rushton and anti-semitism,

1.Do we have any evidence for this besides the statements of Greg Johnson?Johnson, after all, says that the conversation that he had with Rushton was private.

2. What bearing would such assertions, if true, have on scientific claims?

Syon

Mike Steinberg said...

***Considering his obsession with penis size, he didn't seem too concerned about social stigma.***

This sounds like the kind of snarky comment you'd expect from someone not familiar with his work.

Anonymous said...

One need only read the first paragraph of his Wikipedia entry (and its sources) to see that he was a bigot.

"Jean Philippe Rushton (December 3, 1943 – October 2, 2012) was a Canadian psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario who was most widely known for his work on racial group differences, such as research on race and intelligence, race and crime, and the application of r/K selection theory to humans in his book Race, Evolution and Behavior (1995). His work was heavily criticised by the scientific community,[seven sources cited] and it has been widely described as racist,[ten sources cited] as has the Pioneer Fund, the research foundation he has been head of since 2002.[four sources cited]"

There's more under Reception#Unfavorable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton#Unfavorable

M Steinberg said...

***One need only read the first paragraph of his Wikipedia entry (and its sources) to see that he was a bigot.***

This is a non-argument and the highlights the point Jonathan Haidt makes about how demonising destroys rational discussion. It also highlights Haidt's point about the sacralization:

"The fields of psychology, sociology and anthropology have long attracted liberals, but they became more exclusive after the 1960s, according to Dr. Haidt. “The fight for civil rights and against racism became the sacred cause unifying the left throughout American society, and within the academy,” he said, arguing that this shared morality both “binds and blinds.”

“If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html

Peter Fros_ said...

Anon,

Is the word 'conspiracy' appropriate for something that happens out in the open?

Yes, the book "The G Factor" is available on the Internet:

http://archive.org/stream/TheGFactor/GFactor_djvu.txt

Anon,

At one time, the word 'antisemite' meant someone who hated Jews simply because they were Jewish. Using that definition, Rushton wasn't antisemitic. He worked with many Jewish individuals. A large proportion of HBES members were and are Jewish.

Yes, he deeply resented certain Jewish groups and organizations. I don't blame him. In my books, that doesn't make one an anti-semite.

Anyway, so what? Suppose it could be shown that he fried kittens in his microwave. Or that he had 10 years accumulation of navel lint.
How does that disprove the veracity of his arguments?

Mike Steinberg,

Is Basic Books a mainstream publisher?

Anon,

Sure, lots of academics condemned his work and few rushed to his defence. If you condemned his work, you enhanced your career prospects. If you defended it, you reduced them.

A lot of people (like myself) were appalled by what was happening, but they never said a word. All that proves is that cowards greatly outnumber the brave.

Anonymous said...

This is a non-argument and the highlights the point Jonathan Haidt makes about how demonising destroys rational discussion. It also highlights Haidt's point about the sacralization:

This is the kind of anti-Semitic characterization MacDonald maintains and that Rushton apparently agreed with.

"The fields of psychology, sociology and anthropology have long attracted liberals, but they became more exclusive after the 1960s, according to Dr. Haidt. “The fight for civil rights and against racism became the sacred cause unifying the left throughout American society, and within the academy,” he said, arguing that this shared morality both “binds and blinds.”

“If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.”


MacDonald argues that this "sacred cause unifying the left" was created and lead by Jews. That is the thesis of his book The Culture of Critique. Rushton apparently endorsed this anti-Semitic view, making him an anti-Semite.

Anonymous said...

At the end of the day though, Peter, isn't it the case that you don't agree with his r/K theory, and that he didn't actually do anything useful to show that races are a good population model?

In addition, I recall that his last (?) racial differences paper did not actually have any evidence or citations to support a key claim - http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/rushton-is-the-spengler-of-race-realism/. And I think much of the evidence he marshalled, in the realm of physical anthropology (particularly besides his brain and penis stuff) was basically wrong.

Perhaps he was brave, at best.

Anonymous said...

Yes, he deeply resented certain Jewish groups and organizations. I don't blame him. In my books, that doesn't make one an anti-semite.

It wasn't about resenting certain Jewish groups and organizations. By endorsing Kevin MacDonald's views, he was endorsing Darwinian anti-Semitism.

Anonymous said...

At the end of the day though, Peter, isn't it the case that you don't agree with his r/K theory, and that he didn't actually do anything useful to show that races are a good population model?

Some of his major claims are obviously wrong. He posits a continuum and claims that East Asians evolved in the coldest climates, in the Arctic. But most East Asians live at lower latitudes than Europe. Southern China is not exactly covered in tundra.

Difference Maker said...

If he was an anti-Semite and if that is such a bad thing, isn't it sad that he is one of the brave few we have to acknowledge and study racial differences?

Instead of attacking him on a tangent, effort should be directed toward developing the fight against the harmful reigning orthodoxy of race denial.

Some of his major claims are obviously wrong. He posits a continuum and claims that East Asians evolved in the coldest climates, in the Arctic. But most East Asians live at lower latitudes than Europe. Southern China is not exactly covered in tundra.

Yes, so obvious. You might think it'd be helpful to know that the hmong, who are now in southeast asia, originated in the north. Indeed, one of the founding legends of China is a victory over the hmong in a battle near the Beijing (!) area. In case your geography is weak as well, that is very far north. The hmong even have legends about snow plains and following dog tracks southward to the temperate lands of China.

Anonymous said...

The Hmong aren't known for intelligence, law-abidingness, restraint, etc.

Mike Steinberg said...

***And I think much of the evidence he marshalled, in the realm of physical anthropology (particularly besides his brain and p*nis stuff) was basically wrong.

Perhaps he was brave, at best.***

Seems a tad unfair. Do you have some citations? I thought his data on cranial size withstood a lot of scrutiny?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19283594

Also, he didn't just make findings consistent with his hereditarian claims. For example, he found there was no link between the brain regulator genes MCPH1 and ASPM to variations in human brain size and IQ.

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2007BiolLetters.pdf

Peter Fros_ said...

"It wasn't about resenting certain Jewish groups and organizations. By endorsing Kevin MacDonald's views, he was endorsing Darwinian anti-Semitism."

Uh, it was precisely about that. And normally the word 'endorse' refers to a public statement of some sort. Unless I'm mistaken, you're referring to a private conversation that he allegedly made with Greg Johnson (who is hardly an impartial source). Even if that conversation is accurately reported, it seems to refer only to the immigration issue, specifically the shift to global immigration in the 1960s.

Peter Fros_ said...

Other anon,

Yes, there are problems with Rushton's use of r and K. There's also the more fundamental problem of trying to create a unified theory of human biodiversity. In my opinion, it's impossible to create such a theory because mental and behavioral traits are subject to a wide range of different selection pressures.

I'll deal with this point in a separate post. Honestly, I don't think an obituary is the proper place for a critique of his work.

Anonymous said...

Uh, it was precisely about that.

It wasn't about resentment. He wasn't asked how he felt nor did he respond by expressing how he felt. He was asked about immigration and his response indicated his Darwinian anti-Semitism:

"Rushton...stated flatly that he believed that mass non-white immigration was also driven by a conscious purpose: the extermination of the white race...He also suggested that if I wanted to know who was behind non-white immigration, and why, I needed to read chapter 7 of Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique."

Anonymous said...

Peter Frost,

I don't approve of what happened to Rushton either, but that doesn't change the fact that he was a bigot with ties to racialist organizations, which was reflected in the low quality of his work. I believe James Flynn took his studies on IQ seriously and basically demolished all of them.

Anonymous said...

Seems a tad unfair. Do you have some citations? I thought his data on cranial size withstood a lot of scrutiny? - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19283594

The brain size data is pretty well attested outside Rushton and Lynn, which is why I give it credit (a result has to be basically reproduceable outside one researcher, as much as I dislike the prevailing academic climate, that is still a standard).

Although I think it has problems as a causal variable (rather than a signal of the relative investment in brain in the 3 different groups) insofar as there are large intraregional fluctuations when populations that make up races are compared and has much less significance once the arctic populations are not include (and the biggest gap in IQ is arctic, non-arctic).

It's Rushton's other laundry lists of physical anthropology traits that purport to show an r/K cline, and which he used to support his actual theory itself, with Negroids and Caucasoids being more "ape-like" than Mongoloids, that are a lot more dodgy. And his other physical anthropology data does not scale to include populations outside the Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid set (which is a problem for any "grand unified theory" as he was attempting to construct). And they also did not scale and explain differences for the evolutionary history of Homo and primates in general.

Another thing is (although perhaps he can't really be blamed for this), some of his readers seem to have acquired from him (although perhaps this is more Lynn, as they tend to conflate the two) an odd theory whereby "the latest race to "split off" from Africans is the most advanced (Mongoloids) except where it isn't (Native Americans and Oceanians)".

But given Peter is likely due to discuss this in future, and probably will talk about it better than I can, I will leave to to him.

Also, he didn't just make findings consistent with his hereditarian claims. For example, he found there was no link between the brain regulator genes MCPH1 and ASPM to variations in human brain size and IQ. - http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2007BiolLetters.pdf

Yes. My feeling is that he was likely to be very strongly tendentious about his own theory, and was unfortunate in that as a pariah he had no serious physical anthropology rivals to check more wild readings of the data, not that he was a complete fraud.

Although, in that specific case, one of those derived variants peaked in the Middle East and Europe and the other showed basically no difference between Europe and East Asia. And both show recent selection rather than the deep time depth Negroid-Mongoloid-Caucasoid split that he seemed happiest with. And there is no explicit link to the kind of development and maturation patterns and brain size he liked talking about. How strongly does that really support his theory in particular (which it is what he's interested in primarily)?

Mike Steinberg said...

***I believe James Flynn took his studies on IQ seriously and basically demolished all of them.***

And I believe you have not bothered to read any papers on the subject .

If you want to read a reasonable debate on the subject, see the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2. .

Peter Fros_ said...

Anon,

Life is getting interesting when an antiracist quotes Greg Johnson as a credible witness. Please, can you point to something that Rushton actually wrote?

And remember, we're talking here about the shift to global immigration in the 1960s, and the crass lobbying that led to it. If current trends continue, the U.S. population will reach the half-billion mark by mid-century. Current immigration policy is not sane by any reasonable measure. It is a product of seedy power politics and ideology of the worst sort. And, yes, part of that ideology is anti-white racism.

"he found there was no link between the brain regulator genes MCPH1 and ASPM to variations in human brain size and IQ"

Later studies have shown a link between these microcephaly genes and variation in brain size, see:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982210000862

Anonymous said...

I don't see why Johnson would lie about this. If anything, people like Greg Johnson tend to be critical of scientists like Rushton for not being ideological or "hardcore" enough.

We're not talking immigration per se. We're talking about Rushton's Darwinian anti-Semitism being revealed in the context of discussing immigration.

Anonymous said...

So if the guy didn't like Jews, based on one alleged remark made to a neo-Nazi, that's grounds for throwing out everything he wrote. Yeah, that makes sense.

Sean said...

Anon, said "Darwinian anti-Semitism", three times.
He's pushing the intelligent design argument that 'Darwinism=Holocaust', as used in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

Even MacDonald doesn't give Jews all the credit, he admits WASP intellectuals long had their own 'culture of critique'(eg Transcendentalism).

Current immigration policy is in that 'Puritan' style of thinking; if one believes rich Western states ought to bring about a cosmopolitan world society, the current immigration policy makes perfect sense. As does the suppression of human biodiversity science.

The West can't remove the controls on thought. Any attempt at 'Perestroika' would halt progress to a world of generic humanity, all existing for each other.

Mike Steinberg said...

***Later studies have shown a link between these microcephaly genes and variation in brain size, see:***

Thanks Peter. Yes, I just wanted to note that Rushton also published research that did not necessarily support his supposed pre-determined views. In other words, he was a credible researcher.

I recall that there was this also this paper discussing the role of those genes

"One particularly interesting feature of this new discovery is that the strongest links with cortical area were found in regulatory regions, rather than coding regions of the genes," said Andreassen. "One upshot of this may be that in order to further understand the molecular and evolutionary processes that have determined human brain size, we need to focus on regulatory processes rather than further functional characterization of the proteins of these genes. This has huge implications for future research on the link between genetics and brain morphology."

They also received some attention recently in Psychology Today.

Here's a pic
of Rushton entering his office surrounded by protesters. In the article Barry Mehler notes "he was very photogenic" and "never got flustered".

Rushton pictured in the late 60's/early 70's?

The first time I saw Rushton speaking was in 2006 on TV about gender differences. He was completely different to how I pictured him and struck by how mild mannered and personable he seemed (not the ogre I imagined).

Anonymous said...

More old pics

Anonymous said...

Even MacDonald doesn't give Jews all the credit, he admits WASP intellectuals long had their own 'culture of critique'(eg Transcendentalism).

MacDonald is the leading contemporary theoretician of Darwinian anti-Semitism. He does blame the Jews completely. He wrote an article or two about a possible indigenous "culture of critique" involving things like Transcendentalism, but ultimately he doesn't actually blame it for anything. This is clear in his debate with Eric Kaufmann:

http://www.toqonline.com/blog/kevin-macdonald-debates-eric-kaufmann/

Anonymous said...

RE: Rushton and anti-semitism,

Again, is there any evidence for this beyond Johnson's alleged recollection of a private conversation?Anything that he published?Any colleagues/friends/acquaintances who recall similar statements?

Syon

Mike Steinberg said...

@ Anon,

I note that Lawrence Auster has removed the reference from his site as it was based on hearsay not on Rushton's own words.

Anonymous said...

I note that Lawrence Auster has removed the reference from his site as it was based on hearsay not on Rushton's own words.

Again, I think it's unlikely that Johnson would lie about this.

Anonymous said...

"And I believe you have not bothered to read any papers on the subject .
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2010%20Editorial%20for%20Intelligence.pdf"

I believe you haven't, because just as I said, that paper was demolished by James Flynn.

chuck said...

That said,

Pete,

To what degree do you take a racial genetic hypothesis for IQ seriously? You continually post as if you consider such a hypothesis to be highly plausible. What do you make of the UK results I posted on previously? And the more recent colorist results?

I'm having considerable trouble reconciling some of this with a genetic hypothesis.

Sean said...

Anon has offered no rejoinder to my assertion; we must conclude he is indeed an intelligent design advocate interested in discussing Rushton only as a way to discredit Darwinism. I won't be responding to him any more.

"He was the only one there who broached the topic of psychological differences within the human species. Everybody else, including myself, held to the line that there was only one human nature and that it had assumed its present form back in the Pleistocene on the African savannah. "

Taking this seriously, wouldn't it follow that selection for the putative universal genetic potential for intelligence had been greatly relaxed in the most technologically advanced countries for hundreds of generations. And that the gene pool in the West for these capacities had degenerated as a result? Logically, the average modern Bushmen would have more genetic potential to develop, and would develop, higher intelligence than the average modern European, given that they had the same environment.

Why did no one express surprise that modern Bushmen, when given a 'European' environment, did not attain IQ superior to Europeans?

Sean said...

Re. intelligent mothers, Group Differences in IQ (and maternal inheritance).




Anonymous said...

Chuck,

You appear to agree with me that MacDonald is a Darwinian anti-Semite, and that by implication, Rushton was as well.

Sean said...

Josiah Wedgwood

Ben10 said...

".... The premier of Ontario, David Peterson, called on the University of Western Ontario to fire him. When the university refused, the Attorney General ordered the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate Rushton..."

I greatly doubt the Premier and the AG had any knowledge or even interests into the psychology of the human ethnic group of the pleistocene. They were lobbied by a few individuals with an agenda: Deans, Presidents of University, supporters of Affirmative Action, etc. What you have to find out, Peter, is WHO were these individuals. Do you know them?

Mike Steinberg said...

***I believe you haven't, because just as I said, that paper was demolished by James Flynn.***

Thanks, sorry for being snarky. I hadn't in fact read that paper. Although it doesn't address all the arguments made by Rushton regarding IQ differences so I think you were too dismissive. Also, Flynn's response isn't necessarily correct.

Jprezy87 said...

Haven't been on here in a while so...

Well, the old guy ( J. Rushton) finally kicked the bucket eh? It sure is taking the HBD world a long time to get the memo..neither Dienekes or Razib have posted the news about his death on their blogs..though I'm sure Steve Sailer has written something to commemmorate him (haven't checked it yet).

Peter Frost,

"And remember, we're talking here about the shift to global immigration in the 1960s, and the crass lobbying that led to it"

Hmm..mass lobbying you say? I'm pretty sure the shift to global immigration beginning in the 1960s was mainly the result of American society becoming less racist and more inclusive..the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 repealed the old racist immigration quotas (which as you know heavily favored Europeans, especially Northern Europeans) and set in a system that looked at an immigrant's skills rather than the color of their skin as criteria for being granted entry into this country.

"If current trends continue, the U.S. population will reach the half-billion mark by mid-century"

Well hell we got plenty of room..you know the entire world population can be fit comfortably into the state of Texas?

Oh..and overpopulation is BS..

http://lewrockwell.com/north/north986.html

"Current immigration policy is not sane by any reasonable measure"
How so?
I mean don't get me wrong I'm all for immigration control..I'm for securing our borders..making English the national language..I oppose amnesty but I am for creating a clear path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. However I'm not for closing the border all together to 3rd world immigration...is that what you're for Peter?

"It is a product of seedy power politics and ideology of the worst sort. And, yes, part of that ideology is anti-white racism"

Ehh....

Peter Fros_ said...

Anon,

"Again, I think it's unlikely that Johnson would lie about this."

Uh, it seems to me that he's strongly motivated to portray Rushton as a "soulmate."

Rushton has written tons of stuff that's considered controversial. Yet here you are obsessing over an unverifiable remark made in a single private conversation.

Chuck,

There are levels of evidence on the heritability of IQ:

High level - IQ tests conducted by an outside observer in relation to twin studies, adoption studies and, eventually, studies on specific alleles

Medium level - IQ tests conducted by an outside observer without the above controls

Low level - IQ tests conducted by an inside observer (i.e., a teacher) without the above controls

Lowest level - educational performance assessed by an inside observer (i.e., a teacher) without the above controls

The British data fall into the lowest level of evidence. It isn't just that there's a high probability of conscious bias. There's also an even higher probability of unconscious bias. Teachers are under a lot of pressure to eliminate "the gap." There have been a number of cases in the U.S. of outright meddling with student marks.

Ben,

My impression is that David Peterson believed in the rightness of what he was doing. There were pressure groups, yes, but they were kicking in an open door.

Jprez,

"you know the entire world population can be fit comfortably into the state of Texas?"

No, I didn't know that. Perhaps you're trying to be funny?

Mike Steinberg said...

***"Current immigration policy is not sane by any reasonable measure"
How so? ***

1. Low skill immigration is expensive. See the NAC estimate for the cost of low skilled immigration (see The New Americans Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration). As Tino Sanandaji notes
, the NAC estimate is that the total net cost of each low-skilled immigrant for the US. State is $120,000 in 2009 dollars.

2. Apparently, subsequent hispanic generations are not assimilating at the rate of previous waves of migrants. California for example is expected to substantial decline in per capita income"
due to the lower educational achievement amongst its population.

***Oh..and overpopulation is BS..***

Well, it is a problem if cities run out of water.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_111186.html

Anonymous said...

Uh, it seems to me that he's strongly motivated to portray Rushton as a "soulmate."

Rushton has written tons of stuff that's considered controversial. Yet here you are obsessing over an unverifiable remark made in a single private conversation.


I don't think Johnson is lying about this. And there is no motivation or incentive for him to do so. Johnson writes for a small audience of like-minded people who are already familiar with Rushton and his work. Their views aren't going to change or become stronger just because of this.

Rushton has obviously written much controversial stuff, but up until now, there's been no indication of Rushton being associated with Darwinian anti-Semitism and the theories of Kevin MacDonald, which are more controversial than IQ or racial difference stuff.

Chuck said...

Pete,

Can you delete my first comment? It was written in haste and in a moment of frustration. Thanks.

I'll comment on your reply to my second comment at another time.

Kiwiguy said...

***For that matter, no mainstream publishing house would ever again allow anything on that topic. ***

Yes, well it seems even Steve Hsu's musings about race and work on the genetic basis of cognitive ability has been enough to raise the hackles of some. An article about his appointment at Michigan State reports:

"Shortly after the start of classes this fall, Daniel HoSang, a professor of political science and ethnic studies at the University of Oregon, sent an email to a handful of faculty. Hsu, he wrote, “has taken a keen personal and professional interest in projects with strong Eugenicist overtones.” Because of Hsu’s position of authority at MSU, he said, he felt compelled to warn them."

Hsu in his post post on the article reveals this extraordinary comment by HoSang:

"Then Assistant Professor HoSang once publicly stated (during a social science seminar at Oregon I attended) that he would "do everything in his power" to oppose another (Sociology) faculty member's effort to explain recent genetic results to the broader field. I found this statement so odd that it stuck in my memory. The paper that elicited the threat is published here. The story behind the publication of the paper (which took something like 4 years; I have read the actual referee reports), by a faculty member who has held tenured positions at both Oregon and Dartmouth, is shocking and contributed to my comments in the last paragraph above."

Jprezy87 said...

"No, I didn't know that. Perhaps you're trying to be funny?"

No..just pointing out the absurdity of the overpopulation movement :).

Sean said...

Maybe people like Rushton are just 'born that way'.
The genetics of politics. On the other hand, Rushton and Jensen were both trained by Eysenck.

Discussion of HBD is interesting, for those of us afflicted with curiosity. But I'll never understand why anyone thinks public knowledge of HBD facts (which it's considered malevolent to mention) might affect policies that are being justified on moral grounds.

Most of those who are implementing an anti-white ideology are white themselves. That's why they're so self-righteous about their actions; you can't get less racist than sticking it to your own people.

Peter Fros_ said...

Anon,


"I don't think Johnson is lying about this. And there is no motivation or incentive for him to do so."

People seek scientific validation for their personal beliefs. Johnson is no exception. So he's highly motivated to make Rushton look like a friend and fellow traveller.

Jprez,

Interesting. So if you make yourself look absurd, everybody else starts to look absurd. Must be a new theory of relativity

Sean said...

I don't believe for one moment that Johnson was innocently inquiring about immigration when Rushton burst out about a Jewish plot to exterminate whites. It's unreasonable for Johnson to claim certainty about exactly what Rushton said. People like Johnson are almost totally ignored, he has plenty of incentive to kid himself, and he's quite capable of lying. He believes white people are victims of genocide, and that anything is justified in self defense.

Here's Greg on his 'respect' for Breivik. "Morally speaking, there is simply no valid argument against political violence per se, particularly in resistance to genocide. The justification of a particular act of violence depends entirely upon whether or not it actually is necessary to serve a moral end."

Kiwiguy said...

OT.

Peter,

An interesting paper
which has caused controversy despite the authors apparently completely missing work/ideas of people like Greg Clark or yourself on genetic pacification. I see that comments are allowed on the Nature site.

The Out of Africa Hypothesis, Human Genetic Diversity, and Comparative Economic Development
Quamrul Ashraf and Oded Galor:

"While intermediate levels of genetic diversity prevalent among Asian and European populations have been conducive for development, the high diversity of African populations and the low diversity of Native American populations have been detrimental for the development of these regions."

Jprezy87 said...

Peter,

Very funny. But um..what are your thoughts on my positions on immigration?

Peter Fros_ said...

Sean,

Even in the best of circumstances, recollections tend to be imperfect. People read more into what others say than what is actually said. In any case, Rushton was not someone who shunned controversy. If he had wanted to endorse Kevin MacDonald's work, he would have. If I had to guess, I'd say he agreed with parts of it, but not with others.

Kiwiguy,

Frankly, I can't agree with much in that paper. Africans have more genetic diversity because (a) they've stayed put in the same place longer than other populations and (b) they've intermixed more with archaic hominins. But most of this diversity is nonadaptive. It largely involves junk DNA. If we look at morphology or physiology, we don't see more variability in Africa than anywhere else.

Jprez,

What do I think about immigration? It will level the U.S. down to the social and material conditions that prevail in most of the world. The U.S., like the West in general, is an outlier. Remove all the barriers, and the outlier will disappear.

Is a population of half a billion sustainable in the U.S.? It might be, if Americans were Japanese or Germans. Even then, there'd be serious shortages of water and other basics of life. At best, it would be a high-risk gamble. At worst ...

Anonymous said...

People seek scientific validation for their personal beliefs. Johnson is no exception. So he's highly motivated to make Rushton look like a friend and fellow traveller.

It's true that confirmation bias exists, but it also goes both ways. People who don't want Rushton to be associated with anti-Semitism will be highly motivated to believe that Johnson is lying about his encounter with Rushton.

For Johnson and his audience, Rushton is a long familiar character and already is considered a fellow traveler. There isn't anything to gain from making up anecdotes like this, so I don't think Johnson would be highly motivated to do so.

If I had to guess, I'd say he agreed with parts of it, but not with others.

Yes, it was reasonable to suspect before ever hearing about Johnson's recollection that someone like Rushton would agree with at least "parts" of MacDonald's work. Which is why it's reasonable to believe that Johnson's anecdote is likely true. Basic Bayesian reasoning.

Vox Neminis said...

It's odd how, when Rushton is accused above of blasphemy, no evidence is offered that the alleged blasphemous belief is false. The inquisitor making the accusation seems to believe that the label of blasphemy suffices. This is religion, not science. But it's been very successful at crippling science.

Sean said...

Anon, a Darwinian perspective would be that people's actions are motivated (whether they know it or not) by drives to survive and reproduce.

But you can't say that a Darwinian must have certain political views. Any more than you can say that an anti Darwinian's internet activity is not, at bottom, motivated by the deep seated genetic impulse to survive and reproduce.

Anonymous said...

But you can't say that a Darwinian must have certain political views.

I didn't say Rushton had "certain political views." I said that he appears to have been a Darwinian anti-Semite.

Peter Fros_ said...

Anon,

I can't help but agree with the previous commenter. You sound like an inquisitor. If a person agrees with parts of what Kevin MacDonald wrote, he/she is guilty. Case closed. It doesn't matter whether those parts are true or not. That thought doesn't seem to cross your mind.

I remember that we had a long debate about Kevin's trilogy on the HBES discussion group. The consensus was that parts of it were right and that others were wrong. I have trouble imagining how someone could totally disagree with it, since much of it consists of quotes from mainstream historians.

Tom Beckett said...

Rushton's peers, including many critics, awarded Rushton the Guggenheim Fellowship, a most prestigious award for scholarship. Rushton continued to publish in in top-flight journals, again peer-reviewed by critics before publication. With over 300 papers to his name and over 8,000 citations, and considering his numerous distinctions including the Guggenheim Fellowship, from what perch do any of the critics here feel they are qualified to assail his research, let alone his character?
Tom Beckett

Sean said...

Anon, What you're saying about Rushton is a political opinion. You're identifying him as a likely anti Semite on the basis of his having applied a self consciously Darwinian logic to human ethnicity.

You're taking a stand against Darwinism, but that stand is itself motivated by biological drives (the unconscious logic of Darwinism). And that's because Darwinian logic happens to be a truth about the natural world.

FredR said...

"I remember that we had a long debate about Kevin's trilogy on the HBES discussion group."

I suppose this sort of thing is private, and unavailable to anonymous internet readers?

Anonymous said...

If a person agrees with parts of what Kevin MacDonald wrote, he/she is guilty. Case closed.

It depends on which parts of MacDonald's writing. Not every utterance of MacDonald is about Darwinian anti-Semitism.

I remember that we had a long debate about Kevin's trilogy on the HBES discussion group. The consensus was that parts of it were right and that others were wrong. I have trouble imagining how someone could totally disagree with it, since much of it consists of quotes from mainstream historians.

If people agreed with parts of MacDonald's Darwinian anti-Semitism, then they would be Darwinian anti-Semites themselves, at least in part.

Sean said...

That would depend on their motives and whether the particular parts of MacDonald's work they agreed with happened to be correct.

Vox Neminis said...

It's also odd how one can read character in brief postings. I can easily imagine Anon working for a communist secret-police force, torturing and executing "blasphemers". Their guilt or innocence, the scientific truth or falsehood of their ideas, wouldn't actually matter: terrorizing the population is all part of the Lord's work. MacDonald would be one of the first into the torture-chamber, then one of the first up against the wall.

Sean said:

That would depend on their motives and whether the particular parts of MacDonald's work they agreed with happened to be correct.

"Correct" is not something Anon is worried about. That belongs to science and objective reality. Anon is interested in something more important: power and censorship.

Sean said...

Vox, I'm not so sure the truth of a claim is an absolute defence, if the motives for making it are questionable. MacDonald's trilogy attracted very little criticism at first. Once he began to espouse white nationalist positions, his scholarly work was viewed in a very different light.

Vox Neminis said...

Vox, I'm not so sure the truth of a claim is an absolute defence, if the motives for making it are questionable.

I don't claim it's a defence: I do claim it's relevant. Scientific rationalists generally do, when they're looking at claims about the world.

Once he began to espouse white nationalist positions, his scholarly work was viewed in a very different light.

Yes, extremist and unacceptable white nationalism -- the same kind of rabid, foam-flecked moonbattery Winston Churchill and the Founding Fathers believed in. The moderate, acceptable centre ground has been gradually pushed further and further left, until Marxism is the ruling ideology. But some "adjustments" are ahead.

fnn said...

"The justification of a particular act of violence depends entirely upon whether or not it actually is necessary to serve a moral end"

Terrorist Nelson Mandela(see Church Street Bombing)is today the world's most beloved man. It doesn't matter what you do as long as you have the support of the "international community."

Sean said...

Vox, a scientific rationalist would have no motive to stick his neck out like MacDonald has; once you've shown yourself to be motivated by something other than rationality in the use that you put your work to, it becomes tainted no matter how true it is.

Vox Neminis said...

a scientific rationalist would have no motive to stick his neck out like MacDonald has; once you've shown yourself to be motivated by something other than rationality in the use that you put your work to, it becomes tainted no matter how true it is.

How can "rationality" be a motive? It's like saying a hammer is a carpenter's motive for making a chair, or maths was Euclid's motive for writing The Elements. Rationality is a tool. No-one is motivated by rationality to understand the world, but rationality is the best tool for doing so.

"Tainted", again, is a crypto-religious term, not a scientific one. If we're going to put morality (defined by whom?) before rationality, let's stop pretending we're doing science and appoint an Inquisitorial Panel (the Gould Squad) to examine all areas of research and decide whether they can continue or not. To me, as a scientific rationalist, what is important first of all about McDonald's claims is whether they are true. If they are true, all the name-calling in the world will not alter that fact. What conclusions flow from a set of facts is another matter, but MacDonald reaches the same conclusions from his beliefs about reality as the Founding Fathers and Winston Churchill did from their very similar beliefs. As I said, Anon doesn't care about truth: he cares about power and censorship. So who has the "tainted" motives and who is being truer to science? Anon, or MacDonald? MacDonald isn't trying to suppress anything at all: his reasoning and his conclusions are all out in the open.

Hugh Cipher said...

I have written an analysis on Rushton’s theory regarding brains size and mental ability of the varied races. I believe my analysis shows the fallacies in Rushton’s line of thought and approach towards his conclusions. The fact African Americans on the average score lower on IQ test cant be put into question. The reasons Rushton gives most definitely can. I'd would appreciate peoples thoughts on my break down of Rushton’s theory
http://hucipher.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/the-big-brain-cipher-brain-size-iq-and-the-fallacies-in-j-phillippe-rushtons-theory/