.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to grizlochslaptop.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="grizlochslaptop:888694"]Truth and Consequences : Responses to Rushton and Kendler Contents 1. References By: Marvin Zuckerman University of Delaware As in previous responses to critiques of his work, Rushton (1991, this issue) restates his “truth,” ignoring or sidestepping the major criticisms and adding new “data” to clinch his case. Many of the critiques of Rushton's theory and “data” by psychologists, anthropologists, and ecologists have been published since my article (Zuckerman, December 1990) was written. Readers should consult these as well as Rushton's responses to them. I will limit my response here to the points made in Rushton's comment. “Populations that produce the fewest gametes average the largest brains” (Rushton, 1991, p. 983). This correlational statement is based on an ordering of three populations (races) on three variables: dizygotic twinning, fertility (birth rates), and brain size. Rushton interprets differences in dizygotic twinning as an index of a genetically determined gamete production rate, and says that “no known environmental variable is capable of producing the inverse relationship between gamete production and brain size” (p. 983). But twinning is affected by dietary influences on the production of follicle stimulating hormones. Twinning rates have declined by 40%–50% in Europe and Nigeria in the decades since World War II, probably reflecting improvements in diet (Weizmann, Wiener, Wiesenthal, & Ziegler, 1990). Eysenck (1991) has recently suggested that racial differences in IQ could be eliminated in large measure, or even completely by dietary aid. Changes in nutrition could also account for IQ and brain size and height increases over the last half century in economically developed nations (Lynn, 1990). Multiple births are only a very minor part of population birth rates, and it is differences in the latter that constitute the heart of Rushton's application of r−K theory to humans. Birth rates (fertility) reflect human beliefs, values, and the use of contraception as well as gamete production, and contraception is obviously a more crucial factor than gamete production. All of these, except gamete production, are known to be related to social class, which has been ignored as a variable in most of the racial comparisons. The race difference in fertility is confined to Blacks of lower education. Among Blacks with any college education and among wives of professional men, the birth rate tends to be lower for Blacks than for Whites (Weizmann et al., 1990). In regard to head and brain size, Rushton ignores the anomalies pointed out by his critics. Gross brain weight is more relevant than skull size to any hypothesis involving brain function, although it is still neurologically naive. Black Americans were shown to have heavier brains than American, French, and English Whites, and these in turn had heavier brains than Kenyan Blacks (Tobias, 1970). As with personality, the variability within the three “races” makes general comparisons among them meaningless, and aggregation only serves to hide the variability. Rushton (1991) implies that Stringer's (1990) review of the evidence for human evolution somehow supports his own theory of an evolutionary progress in intellectual capacity and social and sexual restraint going from the Black to the Mongoloid races. All that paleontology shows is that all extant human races are variants of a species that evolved in East Africa about 200,000 years ago and then spread to Asia and Europe, with racial physical features probably evolving later in response to climatic conditions. Contrary to Rushton's assertion, the tropics are regarded as more stable environments favoring K selection (Weizmann et al., 1990) and cold weather is normally an agent or r selection (Anderson, 1991). Anderson described the fallacies of Rushton's ideas from the perspectives of an ecologist. In terms of ecology alone, one could make a better case for African populations being K-selected and Asian populations being r-selected. It is still not clear why Rushton chose to analyze extraversion (E) and neuroticism (N) and ignore psychoticism (P) in his analysis of Barrett and Eysenck's (1984) cross-cultural study. Rushton's theory suggests differences in socialization (P), not in sociability (E), between the races. Lack of parental and marital investment, lack of sexual restraint, and criminality are characteristics of the antisocial personality. P and sensation seeking are related to psychopathy, and E is not (Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian, 1989). Blacks score lower, not higher, than Whites on sensation seeking, and the ordering of the races on P in Barrett and Eysenck's study is in the reverse order to that predicted by Rushton's theory. Rushton totally ignores the basic data from the study showing that overall similarity of personality does not show grouping by the racial characteristics of the countries involved. Rushton (1991) prefers to use national crime statistics, a dubious index of basic personality differences given the relation of crime rate to socioeconomic status. Rushton faults me for using national data, such as the incidence of antisocial personalities in the American population, but counters the lack of international evidence for his theory in the P dimension with a study of teachers' ratings of “social adjustment” in 4- to 6-year-old children in French Canadian preschools. The illustration of Nazi research used in my article (Zuckerman, 1990) was taken from a paper by Anne Harrington (in press) and concerned the question of whether all scientific research is beyond challenge on ethical grounds. Admittedly, this was an extreme example, because the research resulted in physical harm to the victims rather than mere derogation. But behavioral scientists also had a role in legitimization of Nazi racial ideology (Muller-Hilll, 1988). Copernicus's hypothesis was rejected on theological, not scientific, grounds. Whatever Rushton believes, his critics have sound scientific reasons for questioning his proposition. His implicit comparison of himself with Copernicus and his unshakeable belief in the absolute truth of his conclusions suggest an attitude that is immune to scientific criticism. Kendler's (1991, this issue) criticism deals with the second part of my article and is limited to the area of intelligence and abilities. Kendler says that affirmative action programs are based on the assumption of equal distribution of abilities among all “breeding populations.” Modern population geneticists do not regard Blacks, Whites, and Asians as “breeding populations,” and researchers on race do not use morphological or serological criteria for race because there are no such infallible criteria. Even if one accepts the behavior–genetic evidence that 50% to 70% of the variance in measured intelligence in Whites is based on genetics, this still leaves a substantial influence of environment. It is a common misconception that something with a strong genetic influence is not changeable by environmental manipulation. Affirmative action is not based on the assumption of equal abilities, but on an assumption of some malleability of abilities and of the motivational elements that are also important in academic and vocational achievement. Kendler (1991) cites Tay-Sachs disease and sickle-cell anemia as examples of worthwhile purposes of racial definition (are Jews a race or an ethnic group?). Genetically caused diseases are not the same as complex traits; the latter are usually polygenetic and based on complex interactions and correlations between heredity and environment that are just beginning to be studied. Kendler (1991) is correct in saying that policymakers will use congenial conclusions from behavioral scientists. Are the findings on the sources of racial differences firm enough to provide a basis for social policy? How should they be applied? Saying that a trait is 50% genetic and 50% environmental does not tell you which 50% is most influential for a given population, at a given time, in a given environment, or how modifiable the trait is, or how one might go about changing it. In the absence of sound data on interaction effects it would be best to continue to operate on the basis of policies consistent with the basic values and goals of the society. References Anderson, J. L. (1991). Rushton's racial comparisons: An ecological critique of theory and method. Canadian Psychology, 32, 51–60. Barrett, P., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1984). The assessment of personality traits across 25 countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 615–632. Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Raising IQ through vitamin and mineral supplementation: An introduction. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 329–333. Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, R. (1989). Two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implications. Psychological Assessment: Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 6–17. Harrington, A. (in press). Studying race differences, or the problem of ‘value-free’ science. Psychologische Beitrage. Kendler, H. H. (1991). Unanswered questions about racism and scientific purpose. American Psychologist, 46, 984. Lynn, R. (1990). The role of nutrition in secular increses in intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 273–285. Muller-Hill, B. (1988). Murderous science: Elimination by scientific selection of Jews, Gypsies, and others, Germany 1933–1945. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Rushton, J. P. (1991). Racial differences: A reply to Zuckerman. American Psychologist, 46, 983–984. Stringer, C. B. (1990). The emergence of modern humans. Scientific American, 263(6), 98–104. Tobias, P. V. (1970). Brain-size, grey matter, and race—Fact or fiction. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 32, 3–26. Weizmann, F., Wiener, N. I., Wiesenthal, D. L., & Ziegler, M. (1990). Differential K theory and racial hierarchies. Canadian Psychology, 31, 1–13. Zuckerman, M. (1990). Some dubious premises in research and theory on racial differences: Scientific, social, and ethical issues. American Psychologist, 45, 1297–1303.[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.003 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][