The Pseudoscience of J. Philippe Rushton

http://youtu.be/_eRtjgKlt8s?t=1h31m20s

Note here the charlatan Graves asserts that the race concept, referencing Ashley Montague (Israel Ehrenberg) was developed by Europeans in America among Negroes Whites and Ameridians. In reality it was developed by Blumenbach from skull analysis of various Eurasians.

 

That old quote? I don't recall seeing it since I responded to it ages ago.

This is the comment by Darwin that Graves was referencing:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1063121&postcount=216

 

What he most likely means there is that race got its social significance from interactions in America.

 

Graves is obviously confused between "some points of similarity" and "the same". But it's never too late to go back to kindergarten.

- - - Updated - - -

So he "means" something different to what he said? How convenient.

Besides your invention of what Graves "means" is false too. The race concept was developed in Europe.

 

Go back and watch the video again. He said that Darwin observed similarities in temperament which is exactly what Darwin said. Darwin observed similarities in mental traits leading him to believe that the races of man had a common origin.

Watching the video again what Graves actually said was that Europeans tried to scientifically classify races of man after traveling the world and encountering diverse groups. He didn't even say that the race concept started in America.

 

Rushton said Galton observed talkative Negroes and taciturn Amerindians.
Graves said Darwin observed the opposite.
Darwin said he observed talkative Negroes and taciturn Amerindians, but that there were other points of similarity, among other points of difference.
Graves is full of crap.

 

Graves was correct that Darwin observed similarities in mental characteristics between different races but it was inaccurate to say that Darwin observed the exact opposite as Galton. They made the same observations of different races. This is true. However Graves point to Rushton was that conclusions on temperaments depended on the observer. When he said "Darwin observed the exact opposite" he meant that in reference to Rushton's argument that races were fundamentally different in temperament, referencing Galton's observation.

Context means a lot here.

 

In the context Graves was 100% false and dodged the question with a lie.

 

I was able to obtain the Tobias article from Graves and after reading it I now have a clearer understanding of the problems with the many studies that Tobias cited which claimed that there were differences between the brains of Whites and Blacks.

You can view the study at the following link:

Brain-size, grey matter and race —fact or fiction? American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 32, Issue 1, pages 3–25, January 1970

 

http://youtu.be/_eRtjgKlt8s?t=1h43m3s

Completely false. He stated they branched off from Mongoloids but were genetically distinct (which is correct) and should be classified separately.

 

Moderator: Is there any reason for excluding Native Americans?

Rushton: It is a big omission on my part. And something I mean to address in the future, because it's a fascinating little puzzle. Native Americans are, racially speaking, if they have to be classified in to one of three groups would in fact be called Mongoloids, because their genetic origins are along Chinese, Japanese and Koreans but they branched or split from that group maybe 25 or 40,000 years ago so in other words I'm in favor of the early migrations rather than a more recent one but they are genetically distinct from Asians and could be considered a 4th race among themselves.

That quote is transcribed as best as I could get it given the bad audio quality. Rushton then goes on to talk about Native American temperaments being similar to East Asians. I'm clearly correct here that while he says they branched off and are distinct from East Asians he is conflicted about whether to consider them to be Mongoloids or a completely different race. As it is he omits them from his data which means that his racial generalizations (3 race model) does not represent the totality of human genetic variation and the categories themselves are arbitrary. Depending on the criteria one could split up Africans, Europeans and Asians into different racial groups as well. Rushton does not have a concrete definition of race. His racial classification scheme is based on recent continental ancestry and his conception of racial characteristics is essentialist. His research really isn't scientific at all even when it comes to racial classification itself.

 

Of course it doesn't "capture all variation" it's a first order model. The fact the means differ shows it captures variation. Explain how Rushton is "essentialist" (he isn't). How are the categories "arbitrary"? Could we have a South /South-East Asian race? Look at the PCA I posted above.

 

The essentialist conception of race maintains that there are natural essences to races which are not susceptible to change. Rushton claimed that human life history features showed that there were immutable evolutionary differences between races which is essentialist.

The categories used by Rushton are arbitrary because they are not scientifically defined, thus he can make any grouping that he wants and call it a race. His categories are arbitrarily defined, his racialist model is essentialist and his methodology is pseudoscientific. His theory is false and was motivated by racist ideological bias.

 

http://new.bostonreview.net/BR23.3/pinker.html

"Rushton claimed that human life history features showed that there were immutable evolutionary differences between races which is essentialist."

Back that up.

 

It's a known fact to anyone familiar with his work.

 

No it's just a strawman lie. Essentialism is a Platonic concept positing immutable "forms" that entities are variations on. Rushton subscribes to a population genetic model, where change is possible at any time. Nothing in the quote from Rushton suggests otherwise. Your position is essentially spurious name-calling.

 

Can you provide any quote from Rushton where he says that his model of human racial variation is susceptible to change?

 

No I can't be bothered.

 

What my quotes from Rushton and Graves respectively show is that Rushton believed that human life history features were fixed at an early time period in human evolution (the Pleistocene Epoch) which indicates that he believed in immutable, evolutionarily determined racial differences. There's no evidence that he believed in a population genetic model that could see change in biological characteristics at any time as you put it. Rushton believed that human races evolved at an early time depth to exhibit physical and behavioral traits that were not susceptible to change. In the video he calls these characteristics racially ordained behavior. He clearly believed in an essentialist model of human variation which is unscientific and demonstrably invalid.

 

No that's just a lie.

 

Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature by Steven Rose, Leon J. Kamin and R.C.Lewontin (Pantheon Books, 1985)
Reviewed by Richard Dawkins in "Sociobiology: the debate continues", New Scientist 24 January 1985

 

http://www.mediafire.com/download/5...+Edition]+(1997)+by+John+Philippe+Rushton.pdf

 

It's the truth. We're not going to agree on practically anything pertaining to this subject and honestly I'm getting bored of it.

 

That would be because you are wrong about everything.

 

No, it's because I recognize the futility of arguing with racists. This is like a religion for you people. You have an ideological axe to grind and nothing I say is going to change that.