I could not agree more with Robert Moore - this debate with John Baker 
appears to be futile. I wish Richard Dawkins luck should he be unwise 
enough to reply to this 'scientific racist' drivel

Best wishes

Dave


Robert Moore wrote:

> I though Flynn's demolition of the evidential basis of Rushton's r-K 
> hypothesis had laid the sorry tale to rest. Are we to be forced to 
> rehearse the arguments against these 'racial' analyses every six 
> months? I, for one, am not prepared to be drawn into this yet again, I 
> have better things to do. We should draw a line under it - the issues 
> have been closed down and finished with. End of story.
>
> Ny next contribution - not to this 'debate' - will come from the 
> Sardar Patel University, Gujarat, where I am working until Christmas.
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --On 14 November 2004 14:32 +0000 John Barker 
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> To all members,
>>
>> I am having big problems with my computer.It took me ages to persuade it
>> to send e-mails out of this batch. But this particular e-mail, while my
>> computer says it was sent, has not returned to me after a long time. I
>> will try now to send it again. Although it is not the longest e-mail of
>> the set, it is long, so that may be the problem. If it does not go
>> through now I will cut it in two and attempt to send separate halves. If
>> any of you get this e-mail more than once, I apologise. That is not my
>> intention, but I must try to ensure you do get the e-mail.
>>
>>
>>
>> Value of racial classification and the r-K hypothesis
>>
>>
>>
>> Summary
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) While I agree with Prof. Dawkins (see e-mail1) that human racial
>> classification is of taxonomic value, I disagree with his implicit view
>> that such classification is now universally accepted to have no social
>> value (in his new book “The ancestor’s tale”). An argument can be made
>> for the social value of racial classification.
>>
>> 2) This argument brings up a discussion of what I think is a very
>> powerful evolutionary hypothesis, the r-K hypothesis, and its 
>> application
>> to man.
>>
>> 3) According to some authors, this hypothesis leads to the conclusion
>> that three major racial groupings of man may be arranged on a scale:
>>
>> Oriental (Mongoloid) - Caucasian ? Black, for a variety of linked
>> characteristics. If this view is correct, human racial classification 
>> has
>> social value.
>>
>>
>>
>> I explored these ideas very recently in a letter to Prof. Dawkins. Here
>> is the first part of that letter (the second part deals with the Nature
>> Genetics supplement that I am now treating in a separate e-mail)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Professor Dawkins,
>>
>>
>>
>> I write first to comment on something you wrote in your new book “The
>> Ancestor’s Tale”, and second, to share my view of a recent 
>> publication by
>> Nature Genetics and ask your opinion in turn. Both matters concern race.
>>
>>
>>
>> (1) Your Book, Race, and Social value
>>
>>
>>
>> You wrote “ We can all happily agree that human racial classification is
>> of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human
>> relations”.
>>
>> I am not happy first of all about the “all”. I think there are people 
>> who
>> would strongly disagree with you, and I think you will be aware of this.
>> You may not like their views, and from your knowledge of these people
>> you may possibly think their views are such that they are people 
>> unworthy
>> of attention (Homo sapiens inferiores?), and you may even detest them 
>> (as
>> I might possibly also). But we are not Gods. To exclude anyone puts one
>> on a dangerous slippery slope. Very ironic, when you consider how 
>> persons
>> of a very different persuasion to you and me got on this slope in the
>> middle of the recent century.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then again, I was puzzled by the fact that you treat of human races 
>> quite
>> late in your book. The logic of the whole book is to go back in time 
>> step
>> by step to the various meeting points. To be consistent with this I 
>> think
>> human races would have been better in the first chapter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Leaving such considerations on one side, I want to focus on the bit of
>> your statement: " human racial classification is of no social value". I
>> think an argument can be made that racial classification does have 
>> social
>> significance, that is to say different races of mankind may differ in
>> their impact on society and that this difference is in part genetically
>> determined. But I would go further. In investigating the state of any
>> society, positive features and malaises, it is important to try to
>> identify all causal factors and their interrelationships, and assess the
>> relative importance of each. This is the logical way to investigate a
>> society and the way which will ultimately provide the best way to try to
>> improve the condition of the whole society. For social scientists to
>> deliberately ignore some possible causal factor is not only 
>> unscientific,
>> but, ultimately dangerous. Any classification of a society which 
>> helps to
>> elucidate causal pathways is therefore of social value. That misuse of
>> knowledge can be destructive, is not I believe the point. It is the
>> misuse that should be controlled, not any attempt at analysis. So the
>> question arises, have mainstream social analysts in our country been
>> ignoring something of value by ignoring racial classification?
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, I think that an argument can be made that racial classification
>> has social value. Whether or not the argument is valid is a different
>> matter. But that very uncertainty makes me want to put the case for the
>> opposition, so to speak.
>>
>>
>>
>> For some time now I have been studying books by J.P. Rushton (2000)
>> Race, evolution, and behaviour. A life history perspective Third
>> Edition.Transaction Publishers, Charles Darwin Research Institute and by
>> R. Lynn, and T. Vanhanen, (2002) IQ and the wealth of nations, Praeger,
>> together with references therein, and Rushton, J.P. & Rushton, E.W.
>> (2003) Brain size, IQ, and racial-group differences: Evidence from
>> musculoskeletal traits Intelligence 31: 139-155.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now Lynn and especially Rushton have been much criticized. One reviewer
>> of Rushton’s book said “?a pious hope that by combining numerous little
>> turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; 
>> but in
>> fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit” (Barash,
>> Animal behaviour 49,4: 1131-1133). However, such language I think shows
>> deep-seated ideological convictions rather than a spirit of scientific
>> enquiry.
>>
>> I have myself reservations on some aspects of the work of these authors.
>> . For example, for some of his work Rushton makes use of Kinsey data, 
>> and
>> you will know how Kinsey’s methodology has been strongly criticized. 
>> Also
>> my understanding of statistics is inadequate to assess the more
>> sophisticated statistical analyses, so this leaves me with a number of
>> question marks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Despite my reservations, I think there may well be some truth in the
>> argument which they develop, and which I regard as an argument that
>> racial classification has social value. While you may be familiar with
>> the argument, I think it useful to briefly rehearse it here.
>>
>>
>>
>> Intelligence ( using IQ).
>>
>>
>>
>> Intelligence has a high heritability, maintain both Lynn and Rushton
>> (Lynn pages23-25, Rushton pages 52-55). Lynn argues intelligence is a
>> significant determinant of earnings among individuals, and intelligence
>> measured in childhood or later is strongly correlates with socioeconomic
>> status achieved in adulthood. Studies in the USA and Europe comparing
>> districts within cities and regions of countries show a positive
>> correlation between intelligence, and educational attainment and
>> earnings, and sometimes a negative correlation with such things as
>> prevalence of poverty, unemployment, welfare dependency, and juvenile
>> delinquency.
>>
>> The simplest hypothesis to explain differences in intelligence between
>> populations in different districts of a city or regions of a country is
>> that these differences arose through a segregation of intelligence over
>> several generations. A positive feedback mechanism enhances between
>> district or regional differences in intelligence: Groups with high per
>> capita income provide a better environment for the nurture of children ?
>> good nutrition and other healthcare, better education ? factors known to
>> influence the development of intelligence in children.
>>
>>
>>
>> Three major races of man as classically defined, both Lynn and Rushton
>> maintain, differ in intelligence, even after correcting for 
>> environmental
>> influence on intelligence (however, as they acknowledge, the 
>> intelligence
>> of any group shows a distribution pictorially roughly like the normal
>> distribution, the so-called ‘bell curve’; and the overlap of the curves
>> for the different races is very considerable).
>>
>> Their key conclusion is that for Orientals, Whites and Blacks, the range
>> of intelligence has Orientals highest, Blacks lowest, and Whites in
>> between (Rushton seems to use the words Mongoloid and Oriental
>> interchangeably).
>>
>>
>>
>> Since the intelligence of a population is obviously relevant to the
>> condition of a society, it could be argued (me speaking here) that
>> changing racial composition in countries like the UK may have social
>> significance.
>>
>>
>>
>> Lynn further argues, since the proportion of different races varies
>> between countries, intelligence should vary between nations, and 
>> there is
>> evidence that this is so. I point out here that Lynn recognises (his
>> Appendix 1) that the IQs of economically developed nations have been
>> increasing since the 1930s. This appendix gives in detail how he used
>> this fact to adjust intelligence scores for the different countries.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since intelligence is positively correlated with economic success and
>> negatively associated with some indicators of social health within
>> developed nations (see later my discussion on r-K), one might expect 
>> that
>> there would be a correlation between national intelligence, and economic
>> development between nations. And there is evidence for such a between
>> nation correspondence.
>>
>>
>>
>> Various theories have been advanced to explain the different levels of
>> economic development attained by different peoples. And hitherto,
>> theories of economic development have been based on the presumption that
>> the present gaps between rich and poor countries are only temporary and
>> due to various environmental factors, which could be changed by aid from
>> rich countries to poor countries and by poor countries adopting
>> appropriate policies and institutions. “We believe that while some of
>> these theories may provide partial explanations for the disparities
>> between countries in economic development, there is another factor that
>> has not been considered hitherto. This is the intelligence of the
>> populations” (L and V. p.18). Further, differences in national IQs mean
>> that there will be a continuance of economic inequalities between
>> nations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Conclusion to this section of my e-mail
>>
>>
>>
>> If there is anything in this argument, racial classification has social
>> significance.
>>
>>
>>
>> (I note myself that both sub-Saharan Africa and East Asian countries
>> (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia). were
>> very undeveloped in the first half of the recent century. But while East
>> Asian countries have become economic success stories (and have mostly
>> managed to reduce population growth rates considerably), most 
>> sub-Saharan
>> African states remain in a parlous state economically (and have shown
>> less progress on reducing population growth rates). However, I am aware
>> of American influence in the Far East, so that might explain the
>> difference at least partly)
>>
>>
>>
>> Intelligence correlated with brain size
>>
>> The between race variation in intelligence is correlated with 
>> differences
>> in brain size as estimated by various methods Mongoloids largest, Blacks
>> smallest, Caucasoids in between). Rushton in his book gives this
>> information in his Table 1.1. The four columns of his table are headed
>> Variable ? Orientals ? Whites - Blacks, and his first variable is Brain
>> size:
>>
>> Autopsy data (cm3equivalents) 1,351, 1,356, 1,223
>>
>> Endocranial volume (cm3) 1,415, 1,362, 1,268
>>
>> External head measures (cm3) 1,356, 1,329, 1,294
>>
>> Cortical neorons (billions) 13.767, 13.665, 13.185
>>
>> (Sorry, I don't know how to do superscripts in e-mails)
>>
>>
>>
>> Now during hominid evolution, increase in brain size, is correlated with
>> changes in various musculoskeletal traits, for example, the widening
>> brain case led to widening bichondylar breadths of the mandible. Rushton
>> provides evidence which he claims shows that these trait changes
>> continued in the differentiation of races (the 2003 joint paper). He 
>> also
>> provides evidence (his book) that racial variation in intelligence is
>> correlated with variation in a whole suite of other characteristics. And
>> this leads me to my next section.
>>
>>
>>
>> r-K strategy
>>
>>
>>
>> Rushton’s approach is based on the r-K evolutionary ‘strategy’
>> hypothesis, a hypothesis which was developed, as you know, in relation
>> to the animal and plant kingdoms (cf. MacArthur and Wilson’s 1967 paper,
>> later work by Pianka and others)( no implication of any conscious
>> action (strategy) by the animals and plants involved). Rushton 
>> summarises
>> his own view of the r and K strategies, in his book in Table 10.1 page
>> 203. Here are the characteristics listed in this table (for each
>> characteristic, r followed by K):
>>
>> Family characteristics
>>
>> large litter size ? small litter size
>>
>> short birth spacing ? long berth spacing
>>
>> many offspring ? few offspring
>>
>> high infant mortality - low infant mortality
>>
>> little parental care - much parental care
>>
>> Individual characteristics
>>
>> rapid maturation - slow maturation
>>
>> early sexual reproduction - delayed sexual reproduction
>>
>> short life - long life
>>
>> high reproductive effort - low reproductive effort
>>
>> high energy utilization - efficient energy utilization
>>
>> low encephalization - high encephalization
>>
>> Population characteristics
>>
>> opportunistic exploiters - consistent exploiters
>>
>> dispersing colonizers - stable occupiers
>>
>> variable population size - stable population size
>>
>> lax competition - keen competition
>>
>> Social system characteristics
>>
>> Low social organisation - high social organisation
>>
>> low altruism - high altruism
>>
>>
>>
>> Rushton discusses mammalian evolution, referring to the work of 
>> Eisenberg
>> (1981).
>>
>> Competition for resources selected for longer lives, smaller litters and
>> trends towards iteroparity, which, if the resource base then varied
>> predictably within years, selected for an increased proportion of the
>> life span spent on social learning. The increased need for social
>> learning selected for higher encephalisation, a longer gestation period
>> and continued growth after birth. “Larger brains in turn led to delayed
>> sexual maturation and the creation of a complex interdependent social
>> grouping with high degrees of altruism”.
>>
>> I imagine that you might question some of these causalities.
>>
>>
>>
>> All Primates are at the K end of the r-K continuum. However, Rushton
>> argues, following on the work of Lovejoy and others, that life phases
>> (infancy, sub-adult etc.) and gestation times “display a natural 
>> scale of
>> prolongation going from lemur to macaque to gibbon to chimp to early
>> humans to modern humans” and most life-history measures are positively
>> correlated, although not perfectly (he is not of course suggesting that
>> lemurs evolved into macaques which in turn evolved into gibbons, etc.).
>> Discussing hominid evolution he comments:
>>
>> “With increasing complexity of social organization would have come the
>> social rules necessary to keep the individuals personal drives and
>> emotions concerning jealousy, fear, sex, and aggression under control.
>> (he also describes the business of r-K selection and length of time
>> between births and dangers of extinction , referring to Lovejoy’s 1981
>> work).
>>
>>
>>
>> Rushton goes on to say the principles of evolution should mean that the
>> r-k hypothesis applies within species, and he gives examples from the
>> plant and animal kingdoms. It is reasonable to suggest then, that during
>> the evolution of modern man, between group differences in r-K strategy
>> may have developed. As populations out of Africa radiated to colder
>> climes they would have experienced new challenges, to increased 
>> cognitive
>> demands, which could have led to changes in r-K strategy. And Most of
>> Rushton’s book in fact, is devoted to possible differences between 
>> races.
>> He summarises his conclusions near the beginning of the book in Table 
>> 1.1
>> page 5. I gave the information on brain size earlier
>>
>> Table 1-1 has four columns, from left to right Variable ? Orientals ?
>> Whites - Blacks. I do not know how to reproduce columns in e-mails.
>>
>>
>>
>> Intelligence
>>
>> IQ test scores 106 100 85
>>
>> decision times faster intermediate slower
>>
>> cultural achievements higher higher lower
>>
>> Maturation rate
>>
>> gestation time ? intermediate earlier
>>
>> skeletal development later intermediate earlier
>>
>> motor development later intermediate earlier
>>
>> dental development later intermediate earlier
>>
>> age at first inercourse later intermediate earlier
>>
>> age at first pregnancy later intermediate earlier
>>
>> life span longer intermediate shorter
>>
>> Personality
>>
>> activity level lower intermediate higher
>>
>> aggressiveness lower intermediate higher
>>
>> cautiousness higher intermediate lower
>>
>> dominance lower intermediate higher
>>
>> impulsivity lower intermediate higher
>>
>> self-concept lower intermediate higher
>>
>> sociability lower intermediate higher
>>
>> Social organisation
>>
>> marital stability higher intermediate lower
>>
>> law abidingness higher intermediate lower
>>
>> mental health higher intermediate lower
>>
>> adminstrative capacity higher higher lower
>>
>> reproductive effort
>>
>> twoegg twinning (per 1,000 births) 4 8 16
>>
>> hormone levels lower intermediate higher
>>
>> size of genitalia smaller intermediate larger
>>
>> secondary sex characteristics smaller intermediate larger
>>
>> intercourse frequencies lower intermediate higher
>>
>> permissive attitudes lower intermediate higher
>>
>>
>> sexually transmitted diseases lower intermediate higher
>>
>>
>>
>> Successive chapters of the book then discuss in detail, the evidence
>> which leads him to these conclusions. And later in his book (p.215) he
>> gives his overall conclusion:
>>
>> “In summary, when the pattern of traits summarized in Table 1.1 are
>> evaluated against the attributes of Table 10.1, they suggest that the
>> Mongoloids are more K-selected than Caucasoids, who in turn are more
>> K-selected than Negroids”
>>
>>
>>
>> Rushton has a whole chapter (Chapter 3) devoted to Behavioural genetics.
>> He prefaces his section on the heritability of behaviour:
>>
>> “It may come as something of a surprise to learn the range of traits 
>> that
>> studies have shown to be genetically influenced”. He then goes on to
>> provide the evidence in detail. I will not try to review the evidence on
>> this particular point here.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nor can I, obviously, go through all the traits listed in Rushton’s 
>> table
>> 1.1, but here is a flavour of it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Consider twinning.
>>
>> Rushton says the production of two-egg twins has been related to several
>> r-K traits. Mothers of dizygotic twins he argues, can be considered to
>> represent the r- strategy. Their characteristics contrast with 
>> mothers of
>> singletons, representing the K-strategy. “Predictably, the mothers of
>> dizygotic twins are found to have, on average, a lower age of menarche,
>> a shorter menstrual cycle, a higher number of marriages, a higher 
>> rate of
>> coitus, more illegitimate children, a closer spacing of births, a 
>> greater
>> fecundity, more wasted pregnancies, a larger family, an earlier
>> menopause, and an earlier mortality. Further, twins have a shorter
>> gestation, a lower birth weight, a greater incidence of infant 
>> mortality,
>> and a lowered IQ”.
>>
>> Partly based on the work of Bulmer, Rushton asserts the following racial
>> differences in the number of two-egg twins per 1,000 births, caused by
>> the production of two eggs in the same menstrual cycle:
>>
>> Mongoloids, less than 4.
>>
>> Caucasoids, approximately 8.
>>
>> Negroids, greater than 16. Indeed some African populations have rates as
>> high as 57.
>>
>> (And Rushton claims that the incidence of non-monozygotic triplets and
>> quadruplets shows the same ranking order)
>>
>> Rushton comments:
>>
>> “The pattern occurs because the tendency to double ovulate is inherited
>> largely through the race of the mother, independently of the race of the
>> father, as observed in Mongoloid-Caucasoid crosses in Hawaii and
>> Caucasoid-Negroid crosses in Brazil (Bulmer, 1970)”.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now Rushton argues:
>>
>> “Populations adopting the lesser K-strategy to egg production (i.e. more
>> eggs) are predicted to also allocate a larger percentage of bodily
>> resources to other aspects of reproductive effort” .Whether or not one
>> accepts this argument, based on twin frequency, he claims that his
>> Chapter 8 discussion, on reproductive effort and sexual investment, 
>> shows
>> Mongoloids and Negroids were consistently at opposite extremes, with
>> Caucasoids intermediate. This applied to:
>>
>> 1.Intercourse frequencies (premarital, marital, extramarital)
>>
>> 2.Development precocity (age of first intercourse, age of first
>> pregnancy, number of pregnancies)
>>
>> 3.Primary sexual characteristics (size of penis, vagina, testes,
>> ovaries).
>>
>> 4. Secondary sexual characteristics (salient voice, muscularity,
>> buttocks, breasts).
>>
>> 5. Biological control of behaviour (length of menstrual cycle,
>> periodicity of sexual response, predictability of life history from 
>> onset
>> of puberty).
>>
>> 6. Sex hormones ( testosterone, gonadotropins, FSH)
>>
>> 7. Attitudes (permissiveness to pre-marital sex, expectation of
>> extramarital sex).
>>
>> (This tabulation is given on page 214 in his later Chapter 10 on
>> life-history theory).
>>
>>
>>
>> Apart from Intelligence, perhaps the most controversial variables are
>> connected with “Law Abidingness” and Crime, dealt with in Chapter 8.
>>
>> In an earlier Behavioural Genetics chapter he had reviewed evidence on
>> criminality based on twin and adoption studies, some of it done by
>> Eysenck and collaborators (this was not about racial differences). He
>> concludes that these studies do show a strong genetic influence.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now in Chapter 8, pages 157 -160, he reviews evidence bearing on 
>> possible
>> racial differences, and concludes that such differences do exist, but he
>> specifically point out that there is nothing here to support the idea of
>> pure races, and there is a great variation within races.
>>
>>
>>
>> Conclusion relating the matters I have discussed in this r-K section of
>> my e-mail.
>>
>>
>>
>> Quite simply, if there is any truth in the analysis I have very briefly
>> reviewed, racial classification has got a social value”.
>>
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************** Please note that
>> if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender
>> of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your
>> mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to
>> [log in to unmask]
>> *******************************************************
>
>
>
>
> Professor Robert Moore
> Department of Sociology,Social
> Policy and Social Work Studies
> University of Liverpool
> L69 7BZ
>
> 44 (0) 1352 714456
>
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> to [log in to unmask]
> *******************************************************
>

-- 
Dave Gordon
Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research
University of Bristol
8 Priory Road
Bristol BS8 1TZ, UK

E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel: (44)-(117)-954 6761
Fax: (44)-(117)-954 6756 

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************