Race, Evolution, and Behavior

The book grew out of Rushton's 1989 paper, "Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits (With Reference to Oriental-White-Black Difference)".[5] The 1st unabridged edition was published in 1995, the 2nd unabridged edition in 1997, and the 3rd unabridged edition in 2000.

Rushton argues that Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid populations fall consistently into the same one-two-three way pattern when compared on a list of sixty distinctly different behavioral and anatomical traits and variables.[6]

Rushton uses averages of hundreds of studies, modern and historical, to assert the existence of this pattern. Rushton's book is focused on what he considers the three broadest racial groups, and does not address other populations such as Southeast Asians and Australian Aborigines. 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.[1]

Citing genetic research by the Italian geneticist Luigi Luca 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), arguing that throughout all of evolution, more ancient forms of life (i.e. plants, bacteria, reptiles) are less evolved than more recent forms of life (i.e. mammals, primates, humans) and that the much smaller variation in the races is consistent with this trend. "One theoretical possibility," said Rushton "is that evolution is progressive and that some populations are more advanced than others". 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.

In specific terms, Rushton argues that the three broad racial groups that he's defined have fundamental biological differences going back through evolutionary history that cause clear-cut distinctions in modern everyday life, as well stating that generalizations about these broad groups are justified given the large nature of the gaps. He generally describes the differences as largely negative in the case of "Negroids" while being neutral or positive in the case of non-"Negroids". He writes in particular, "Whites and East Asians have wider hips than Blacks... because they give birth to larger brained babies." He also argues that "hormones that give Blacks an edge at sports makes them restless in school and prone to crime".[1]

According to Richard R. Valencia, the response to the first edition of Rushton's book was "overwhelmingly negative", with only a small number of supporters, many being, like Rushton, Pioneer Fund grantees, such as psychologists Arthur Jensen, Michael Levin and Richard Lynn.[10]

Valencia identified the main areas of criticism as focusing on Rushton's use of "race" as a biological concept, a failure to appreciate the extent of variation within populations compared with that between populations, a false separation of genetics and environment, poor statistical methodology, a failure to consider alternative hypotheses, and the use of unreliable and inappropriate data to draw conclusions about the relationship between brain size and intelligence. According to Valencia, "experts in life history conclude that Rushton's (1995) work is pseudoscientific and racist."

A more favorable review of the book came from American psychologist Linda Gottfredson, who wrote in Politics and the Life Sciences that the book "confronts us as few books have with the dilemmas wrought in a democratic society by individual and group differences in key human traits".[11] Another favorable review of the book appeared in the National Review.[12]

Richard Lewontin (1996) argued that in claiming the existence of "major races", and that these categories reflected large biological differences, "Rushton moves in the opposite direction from the entire development of physical anthropology and human genetics for the last thirty years. Anthropologists no longer regard "race" as a useful concept in understanding human evolution and variation."[13] The anthropologist C. Loring Brace (1996) concurred, stating that the book was an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy of 'racialism'".[14] Similarly, anthropologist John Relethford (1995) criticized Rushton's model as "faulty at many points."[15]

It has been argued that the predictions based on the differential K theory "are supported by selective citation and misrepresentation of the research literature and by the use of unreliable sources"[8] and that Rushton's methodology "indicates a lack of familiarity with ecological thinking and scientific method in general."[16] Additional criticism of the theory has come from Edward M. Miller, who has argued that contrary to the theory, unpredictable environments select for K, not r, characteristics.[17] In contrast, Donald Templer has reported evidence in support of the theory's prediction of a "K factor" that accounts for numerous life-history traits, such as "birth rate, infant mortality, HIV/AIDS, general intelligence, and life expectancy."[9] A 2012 study analyzing self-reported data found inconsistent evidence in support of the theory.[18] A 2013 study found some support for the theory in regards to the correlation between IQ and two such traits: parental investment and fertility rates.[19] A 2014 study found differences in the General Factor of Personality across races that were not compatible with differential K theory.[20] Another 2014 study reported evidence against the theory with respect to the association between male sexual behavior, social capital, and the favorability of environments. The authors of this study concluded that its results "corroborate previous findings regarding relationships between reproductive onset and reproductive behavior, but do not provide strong evidence to suggest that these relationships are part of a general 'K-dimension' as predicted by Differential K theory."[21] Some researchers have also tried to combine differential k theory with Terrie Moffitt's developmental theory of crime to create what they call a "unified crime theory".[22]

The 1st special abridged edition published under the Transaction Press name in 1999 caused considerable controversy when 40,000 copies were "mailed, unsolicited, to psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists, many of whom were angered when they discovered that their identities and addresses had been obtained from their respective professional associations' mailing lists."[23] The director of Transaction Press Irving Louis Horowitz, although he had defended the original edition of the book, "condemned the abridged edition as a 'pamphlet' that he had never seen or approved prior to its publication."[23] A subsequent 2nd special abridged edition was published in 2000 with a rejoinder to Horowitz's criticisms under a new entity called The Charles Darwin Research Institute.[23]

According to Tucker, many academics who received the book unsolicited were outraged at its content, calling it "racial pornography" and a "vile piece of work"; at least one insisting on returning it to the publisher.[3] Hermann Helmuth, a professor of anthropology at Trent University, said, "It is in a way personal and political propaganda. There is no basis to his scientific research."[24]

Race, Evolution, and Behavior has been cited as an example of the Pioneer Fund's activities in promoting "Scientific racism". Valencia notes that many of the supportive comments for the book come from Pioneer grantees like Rushton himself, and that a 100,000 copy print-run of the third edition was financed by Pioneer.[10] The book is cited by psychologist William H. Tucker as an example of the Pioneer Fund's continued role "to subsidize the creation and distribution of literature to support racial superiority and racial purity." The mass distribution of the abridged third edition he described as part of a "public relations effort", and "the latest attempt to convince the nation of 'the completely different nature' of blacks and whites." He notes that bulk rates were offered "for distribution to media figures, especially columnists who write on race issues".[3]

• What is Intelligence and Who has it?, The New York Times’ review of Race, Evolution, and Behavior, The Decline of Intelligence in America, and The Bell Curve.
• The Return of Racial Science, by Glayde Whitney, published in Contemporary Psychology, December 1996, pp. 1189–1191.
• Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior, by Henry Harpending, published in Evolutionary Anthropology, 1995.
• The Race-Research Funder, discussing the links of the Pioneer Fund to the distribution and positive reviews for Race, Evolution and Behavior.
• Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior, by Irving Louis Horowitz in Society, Jan-Feb 1995 v32 n2.

• Behavioural genetics
• Behavioral neuroscience
• Evolutionary neuroscience
• Gene–environment interaction
• Human behavioral ecology
• Race and intelligence

• Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective - Copy of the 2nd Special Abridged Edition that the author put on his personal website