The Pseudoscience of J. Philippe Rushton

How'd your reading come along?

Did you catch the MRI study I posted before, after correcting for age, gender and educational attainment, showing Whites have a cerebrum volume 9 percentage points larger than Blacks?

Of course, Black males, on average, are only 4/10 of an inch shorter than Whites, so 'correcting' for height is not going to bridge the 9% difference in brain volume.

Isn't it interesting the children of Black parents have lower average IQ than children of White parents when both couples have the same IQ?

Also, why do you think East Asians have larger head and brain volume than Whites when historically they are shorter due to malnutrition?

Did you confirm Blacks, Whites, Mestizos, and East Asians have different puberty rates?

 

I'm still reading over sources and trying to access others. When I'm finished which might be in a few days I will address some of the topics brought up in this thread.

 

If you wish to be so obsessed that you spend months and even years going from forum to forum railing against Rushton, at least use sources that are valid, rather than repeating your small circle of attack sources that all too often make comments outside their level of expertise for which you readily accept in spite of that.

Graves is not a psychologist and his opinion means little in this subject, as we've already covered.

Don't you have something better?

- - - Updated - - -

You're one to talk.

You used the opinions of a zoologist to attack Rushton and here you're using opinions of a biologist (that admits he's agenda-driven to boot) to attack Rushton on matters of decades of psychological research.

You must have a lot of anger that drives you to do this for so long.

 

I destroyed Nisbett's credibility months ago and it was verified in that 1) he hasn't responded to his methods and sources being destroyed by critics, and 2) he never explained to EJ via email why he never responded to critics and apparently never has.

Nisbett is a fraud period. His work is shoddy.

http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf

 

Rayznack,

I am going to write a comprehensive analysis of Rushton's research using the totality of my sources as references. It's going to be a very long post and it will take me awhile to write it so I'll get back to this thread when I am done. I'm going to re-read Rushton's book, gather my sources, search for a few more sources and maybe read a few more books to prepare myself to write the most thorough article that has ever been written on an internet message board about this subject.

You're really not qualified to judge the quality of sources now are you?

We've been over this, Empress. Graves is an Evolutionary Biologist who specializes in the study of Life History Evolution.

What is Rushton's book titled?

Answer: Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective

It's not called Psychology 101. It's not called Racial topics That Only a Psychologist Can Discuss. It is a theory-based overview of his research on the subject of racial differences that covers a wide variety of fields of study most prominently biology and psychology. If Rushton can talk about biology why can't Graves talk about psychology? Graves is fully qualified to talk about all aspects of Rushton's work as it pertains to the subject of race and human evolution.

When did Graves admit that he was agenda driven?

I do. I absolutely hate racism and racist theories. That's what motivates me to keep refuting this garbage.

 

1) I cited another psychologist who addressed the grossly flawed and deceptive methods Nisbett uses. Neither you nor he have a response. 2) Of what I know of the semesters of psychology I've taken, it was very easy for me to see that Graves was completely screwed up when he tried venturing into the field of psychology, which is why he needs to keep his mouth shut. Even if his agenda says otherwise.

Exactly which is why he shouldn't be commenting on IQ studies. Not his field. And you shouldn't be quoting him on that either.

I already told you. He doesn't even have the basics of psychology and heritability that have been discovered in psychological studies down.

You previously conceded this and backed down from using Graves on matters of psychology, but unsurprisingly, I leave and here you are again citing him on a field he has no relevant expertise in, because you insist on repeatedly engaging in the appeal to authority fallacy.

This has been discussed already. He said that it was imperative to use science to debunk "racists."

No, you specifically hate what you perceive as racism against you and your people. included in that are all unequal outcomes that are not blamed on whites. You have no problem invoking racial conspiracy theories against whites and blaming them for black dysfunctional behavior and relative lack of socioeconomic progress.

If you want to "refute" what you see as "garbage," then you need to learn to use credible sources unless you want to keep being blown out of the water.

The basis of your argumentation continues to be the appeal to authority fallacy, and that proves nothing whatsoever.

This is just political rah-rah.

 

You cited it but you haven't demonstrated that any of it is actually factual. Why not give an overview of Lee's arguments as I have done with Graves vs. Rushton in this thread?

You haven't shown how Graves was wrong in anything that he said.

I quoted him in this thread on human evolution.

He certainly does have the basics down. Prove him wrong.

I didn't concede anything and never backed down from using Graves as a source.

I don't recall him saying it was imperative to use science against racists. He said he must vigorously oppose Rushtonism for all of the reasons that he cited.

On the face of it, Race, Evolution, and Behavior presented a seamless argument for
evolutionary origins of modern racial differences. However, its arguments rely on a
series of dubious, if not absurd, assumptions. First, we must question whether r- and
K-selection theory is a valid model for understanding life history evolution; secondly,
whether human populations can be legitimately grouped into the ‘racial’ categories
described in this book; and finally, whether the way Rushton collected and organized
his data actually tested genetic hypotheses concerning human life history variation.
The answer to all of these questions is no. J.P. Rushton’s program purportedly explaining
human ‘racial’ variation is a case study in how not to investigate evolutionary
explanations concerning life histories. Ironically, Rushton and his supporters have
attempted to seize the ‘evolutionary and scientific’ high ground in defending these
theories (see, for example, Rushton, 1998). Actually, we must vigorously oppose Rushtonism
due to his blatant distortion of the methods of evolutionary biology in general
and life history theory in particular. Rushton is not alone in attempting to apply r- and
K-selection to human biology. Lee Ellis, for example, utilized the same rationale to
explain the supposed greater rape potential of African and African-American males as
compared to males of other ‘races’ (Ellis, 1987, 1989).

Source: What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory Anthropological Theory 2002; 2; 131

I don't merely perceive racism I can demonstrate that what I am witnessing is racism based on sound reasoning.

I haven't advocated any conspiracy theories. Racism is real. White systemic racism against Blacks is real. Not even Rushton denied this as he freely admitted that racism can affect the environment he just believed that genetic differences were also a factor. You seem to be a radical hereditarian. Are you really of the belief that White racism doesn't contribute to any social dysfunction or change the standard of living of people of African descent? Conspiracy theories? Get real!

I do use credible sources and I haven't been blown out of the water. You have not refuted the arguments of Joseph Graves. Every time I challenge you to do so you dodge it and simply say he's not qualified to speak about Psychology.

Here's challenge for you:

Read over the OP and write a response to the arguments I presented. Stop making excuses about an appeal to authority fallacy because I've already trashed that claim. Make a proper response to the OP.

 

Indeed. That is an interesting excerpt.

So you post a 'refutation' of Rushton mocking his sources by featuring a review that shot itself in the foot?

No correlation between brain size and intelligence (ie. IQ), 'whatsoever'?

The author is either not well researched or a flat-out liar.

 

"flat-out liar" seems the likely one.

 

The author probably meant there is no relationship (correlation) between brain size and intelligence not that there is no statistical correlation between brain size and IQ which studies have found to be low to moderate. The author is obviously well-researched as they cited a multitude of studies backing up that and other comments.

 

How would the author establish no correlation between intelligence and brain size without operationalizing intelligence? Why would the author "probably mean" something different to what he said?

 

It's not different, Rayznack is simply interpreting his words incorrectly.

 

You didn't answer the first more important question.

 

Ok, tell me, based off what he actually said, how I am wrong, wrong, wrong...

 

You're basing his comment on a statistical correlation when what he means is there's no relationship (correlation) between brain size and intelligence.

I believe his comment is consistent with what Lieberman says here:

 

Err, I'm basing his comment on what he said.

As far as the Lieberman quote, it makes a conclusion Lieberman is in no position of knowing: whether brain volume may determine intelligence.

And please, spare me the google scholarship of giving me opinion posed as fact that you or some social scientist knows, contrary to the evidence, brain volume is not directly linked to intelligence.

 

[video=youtube;n9cH49pUe-I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9cH49pUe-I[/video]

 

Yeah, you wrote a period.

- - - Updated - - -

I've been working on this article:
http://right.orain.org/wiki/Life_History_theory_of_Racial_Differences
and welcome any comments.
Also this:
http://right.orain.org/wiki/Joseph_Graves

 

Joseph Graves has not been ignored by the scientific community. I'm sure that you love posting on that right-wing encyclopedia as an alternative to Wikipedia but your lies are not going to be seen by a wide audience. That stupid little cartoon at the end of the other article shows people all they need to know about the credibility of Rushton's Life History Theory.

 

I think your post shows everybody what they need to know about your ability to engage an argument. I removed it though. It's that A Wyatt Man and his images.

 

Of course if you post racist nonsense and you are Black like Derek Bell or any oof the other afrocentrists the left will love you for it.

 

I already proved that Joseph Graves has not been ignored. To repeat that charge is dishonest.

That's good. I'm glad you can see how it hurts the credibility of your article.

You're changing the subject. Do you have anything to say about Rushton's work?

 

The subject is about racist science.

I have no opinion on Rushton. I know there is a huge amount of black pseudoscience which is allowed in US universities

 

Such as?

 

I bet he's referring to so-called "Afrocentrism", which for all intents and purposes has become a catch-all pejorative for anyone who doubts "Jungle Jitters" was an accurate portrayal of pre-colonial African culture.