AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR Volume 21, pages 463468 (1995)

Book Review RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR, by J.P. Rushton. New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Publishers, 1994, 334 pp.

That intelligence and other behavioral attributes are heritable has been the prevailing view since the foundations of Western society were laid in the philosophy of ancient Greece. Ample expression of this belief is given in Plato’s “Republic” where the breed- ing of the guardians of the republic reflects the firm conviction that their good qualities are heritable. Subsequent emphases on the quality of “blood” are variations on the same theme which culminated in the scientific formulation of the tenets of social Darwinism. I would like to point out at the outset that Rushton’s view, from a historical perspective, has been the dominant view for several thousand years. The alternate view, which puts much greater emphasis on sociocultural environment and is historically recent in its most developed philosophical form, has only had a significant impact on a minority of the world’s population for some 70 years, and already shows a waning influence.

Thus, Rushton’s effort to show that races can be ranked in terms of behavioral as well as physical variables is in strict historical continuity with a dominant world view. Rushton feels that differences observed in contemporary groups can be accounted for in terms of differences in recent evolutionary history, and appears to suggest that living representa- tives of a single species can be ranked on some sort of evolutionary scale.This, in itself, is a point of contention.

The variables addressed by Rushton are so diverse that an adequate consideration of all of these, within the framework of a book review, is not possible. For this reason I shall focus on what I believe to be a central thesis: that the races differ in intelligence and that a different set of evolutionary circumstances for the races produced the rank- ings suggested by Rushton. It is necessary to consider Rushton’s race classification in order to proceed. Rushton uses a tripartite classification of race in terms of “Caucasoid,” “Mongoloid,” and “Negroid.” Here, anthropology and psychology clash. While anthro- pology continues to battle the problem of how to classify different human groupings (note the most recent efforts by Cavalli-Sforza and colleagues), Rushton uses a psycho- logical approach: offer an operational definition and see how far it goes. This approach is not at all uncommon in psychology and it would be unfair to criticize Rushton for using this strategy as an initial step. However, in experimental psychology, initial coarse operational definitions tend to be discarded in favor of more refined definitions when it is realized that within-category variation makes adherence to the original simplified scheme pointless. Rushton seems determined to stay with the initial categories and he closes himself off to the possibilities of further refinement or qualification.

0 1995 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

464 Book Review

In particular, he attempts to offer the practice of aggregation of means as an adequate method of dealing with variation within categories. Aggregation is a valid strategy when averaging across similar categories; when categories differ qualitatively or when there is a possibility that they do, aggregation is inappropriate.

But let us take Rushton’s race classification at face value and accept its opera- tional usefulness. In the following I shall adopt Rushton’s terminology in order to simplify communication. The most striking assertion made by Rushton concerns the IQ of “pure” African Negroids. At this point, I have to declare my position on IQ tests. Unlike some other critics, I do not reject IQ tests out of hand because, properly applied, they can be useful [Woodridge, 19941 and I believe that there is a significant genetic component which interacts with environmental conditions, even though this interaction term is often not treated with the care it deserves [Wahlsten, 19941. Also, I do not think it is impossible, in principle, that there are some stable group differences in psychometric measures. In addition, I will not even quibble about the somewhat confusing admixture of IQs from different tests with different metric characteristics on which Rushton bases his arguments, in- cluding tests which do not yield IQ scores [cf. Kamin, 19951. Such specifics are better left to psychometrists, such as Blinkhorn [1994].

However, I am not convinced that the IQ data mean what Rushton thinks they mean and this is best illustrated with reference to what Rushton says about IQs of Black Africans. Rushton appears to accept R. Lynn’s suggestion that the average IQ of this group is close to 70, and he backs the point with reference to Owen’s [ 19921 findings with Raven’s matrices, where “pure” Negroids were found to have scores some 1.5-2.7 standard deviations below the “white” reference population (Rushton, p. 138).

Let me spell out the difficulties that arise if Rushton’s and Lynn’s description of Black Africans having a mean IQ of 70 is accepted at face value. Using Rushton’s arithmetic, and assuming a normal distribution of the IQ scores, some 50% of the Black African population can be described as mentally retarded if one adopts the common cut-off point of IQ 70. In North America, close to 3% of the Caucasoid population would be expected to lie below an IQ of 70.Those who work with the mentally retarded know that properly administered IQ tests allow a reasonable prediction as to what lev- els of social adaptive and intellectual performance can be expected at given IQ ranges [Baroff, 19861.

If the IQ of 70 means what Rushton suggests it means, and he does not offer any qualifying statement on this point, only the top few percent of the bottom half of “pure” Black Africans are capable of something approaching independent function. Language skills would be marginal and abilities of abstraction would be rare. Numerical manipu- lation beyond simple addition and subtraction would be out of reach for just about all of this population; the mental age equivalent of this top portion of the bottom half would range from mental age 8 to 10. The remaining portion would be expected to be moder- ately, severely, or profoundly retarded. Reproductive success of any kind, in terms of successful courtship and raising of children would be largely out of the question for anything from 30 to 40% of the population.

It is at this point that I have trouble following Rushton’s reasoning. Rushton insists that the IQ characteristics of present pure African Black populations are the reflection of past genetic selection. But pre-Colonial African societies would not have had the resources to provide for such a vast proportion of individuals incapable of self-support.

Book Review 365

We can reject out of hand any claim that life in the preindustrial society made so little demands on human social and cognitive skills that substantially retarded individuals would have been able to compete reproductively, to the extent of making up half of the population. The argument of an easier environment does not wash here: if conditions are such that survival is possible without great effort and ingenuity, population levels will rise rapidly, to the point where very hard selection enters the picture. In addition, the slow rate of maturation of humans is such that substantial and extended social sup- port both in terms of immediate supervision and societal resources is needed to raise children successfully.

In a more fundamental sense, Rushton’s “out of Africa” thesis also poses problems for sociobiological approaches. One of the strengths of sociobiology is its emphasis on selection at the level of the individual rather than at the group level. Why should selec- tion at the individual level in Africa not have led to the general set of potential abilities as in other regions? Whether the environment is harsh or not, reproductive competition at the individual level will have selective power in all settings.

There is really only one way out.And that is a way ignored by Rushton: IQ scores for these populations do not mean what they seem to mean in terms of the link between scores and expected cognitive capacity. An especially problematic aspect of Rushton’s presentation is that he appears to think that Black African children and adults live and have lived under conditions which have no impact on test performance, and which are sufficiently similar to those encountered by, e.g., African White populations, to allow a straight comparison. The long-term studies by Chavez and coworkers which began to be published in the late 1970s [e.g., Rodriguez et al., 19791 can best illustrate why such a view is questionable at best. These researchers chose infants in a Mexican village as participants in a quite unparalleled study. The only experimental manipulation con- sisted of providing nutritional supplements to some individuals early in life, while oth- ers had the normal diet in that village. The important aspect was that the participants did not differ in any regard other than that of nutritional supplements. Because of this inbuilt control it was possible to conclude that even mild malnutrition had significant physical and psychological consequences, a conclusion which could not be made with confi- dence in conventional designs. Eysenck [ 19911, who is highly sympathetic to Rushton’s view (as per Eysenck’s comments on the jacket of Rushton’s book), stresses the same point as Chavez’ group and argues, on the basis of his own data, that some rather re- markable changes can be observed in response to simple nutritional supplements. Rushton does note alternate explanations (i.e., he cannot be accused of ignoring them) but chooses not to pursue their legitimate implications. An example of the neglect of alternate ex- planations is given in the context of nutrition. Rodriguez et al. [ 19791 comment on the somewhat faster developmental rates in their malnourished group. Rushton interprets speed of maturation as K-selected characteristic in Blacks. The term r/K selection de- rives from population ecology, where “r” stands for species which produce large num- bers of offspring and invest little parental effort while “K” stands for species which produce small number of offspring, with high parental investment. Whether or not r/K terminology is applicable to within-species comparisons is another open question, but it is clear that the faster maturation rate does not have to be interpreted in terms of the r/ K concept. Rodriguez et al. point out that faster maturation rates are a general result of poor nutrition in whatever group and offer a speculation about its adaptive role under these circumstances.

466 Book Review

Just as a balance of interpretation is missing for data related to “Negroids,” a similar problem is obvious when statements are made about “Mongoloids.” Once Rushton com- mitted to the idea that brain size and IQ in the various races are related, he had to show that Mongoloids have larger brains than other groups because he feels that they have higher IQs.The claim of larger Mongoloid brains can only be maintained if brain size is expressed relative to body size because in absolute terms, Caucasoid brains are larger than Mongoloid brains (using Rushton’s own data). However, there is good agreement that for within-species and within-sex comparisons, there is no rational basis of correct- ing for body size; the slope relating brain size to body size for within-species compari- sons is close to zero [cf. Harvey, 1988; Jerison, 1979; Reed and Jensen, 1993; Wickett et al., 1994; Willerman et al., 19921.

The conclusion is that Mongoloids have smaller brains but higher IQs than Caucasoids, once again using Rushton’s own data. But even the IQ comparisons are problematic; just as IQ values and social adaptive functioning are out of alignment for Black Afri- cans, the credo of higher Mongoloid IQs also lacks meaningful correlates of the kind one would wish to see. To illustrate the point, the reader may ask which of the following contributions, to name a few, which shaped rhe modern industrial world, were made by Mongoloids: steam engine, calculus, the periodic table of elements, electricity and elec- trical engines, telephone, internal combustion engine, radio, television, airplanes and jet engines, x-rays, radar, nuclear power (splitting the atom, practical and conceptual), molecular genetics, plastics, computers both in terms of transistors and the conceptual aspects of computer programming?The answer is that none of these was contributed by Mongo1oids.Assuming that the list of contributions given above represents some of the highest levels of human intellectual attainment, does this mean that Mongoloids are not capable of creative accomplishment at this level? By no means. What it does mean is that cultural environment and social structure play a strong role in the expression of human cognitive activities, just as cultural emphases on certain modes of learning and scholastic performance will interact with measured IQ. We are thus faced, at both ends of Rushton’s spectrum, with complex interactions between environmental givens and intellectual activities, which complicate IQ score interpretation. Here, too, Rushton is aware of, but does not develop alternate explanations. For instance, he cites Flynn [ 19871 but chooses to ignore the very clear implications of Flynn’s paper. Flynn showed very drastic changes in IQs for different age cohorts of comparable populations, taken over time spans much too short to involve genetic change.

One of the major problems with Rushton’s approach is that he tries to base conclu- sions about heritable differences on the current status of the groups to be compared. That can be a reasonable approach with some animals, but in the human context one has to understand current conditions in a historical context. Let me draw an example from Rushton’s race characterizations of sexual behavior. Here, he compares Mongoloid sexual proclivities with those of Negroids. He draws on a number of studies that cover sexual behavior in the Chinese, and among these he sees nothing wrong with referring to work coming out of the People’s Republic of China, a political system which exercises pow- erful control over the sexual behavior of its citizens (cf. also the state manipulated prudery of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany). Can one really use data from such a society as basis of comparisons with sexual behavior of North American Blacks who live, most commonly, under the decayed conditions of inner cities? Naturally, the con- trast is stark. But even a little reading would have to change Rushton’s perceptions.

Book Review 467

When the Jesuit Matteo Ricci visited China in the 16th century, his penetrating obser- vations were recorded in his “Historia.” Spence [ 1984, p. 2191 quotes Ricci’s observa- tions. Ricci comments on the sensual nature of the Chinese, and remarks that males, unwilling to wait for maturity, often have their first sexual experiences in the teens. Ricci, as did other contemporary observers, comments on the enormous number of public prostitutes in China, with some 40,000 being registered in Beijing. Ricci’s com- ments have all the more weight because he was well aware of the contemporary condi- tions in Rome, and did not judge China from the perspective of monastic ignorance. Altogether, this gives a rather different picture than would surveys from the People’s Republic. How does this relate to Rushton’s story about selection of reproductive strat- egies in Mongoloids? Here, as in other cases, Rushton offers sociobiological specula- tions about past scenarios on the basis of current conditions, without acknowledging the powerful and quick-acting effects of sociocultural environments and without tak- ing into account conditions in the known historical past. The same comment can be made about law abidingness, where Rushton would have only to juxtapose the com- ments about current behaviors of Negroids with turn-of-the-century descriptions of the underbelly of Caucasoid Victorian London or Czarist Petersburg to realize the pit- falls of basing race differences in law abidingness on current observations.

In summary, this book provides information about group differences on various as- pects of behavior. Many of the statistics which attest to the marginalization of Negroids in various societies merit close study and serious attention by social psychology. It would be a mistake to ignore this information simply because one disagrees, as I do, with its interpretation. While my own impression is that Rushton operates somewhat like a modern Procrustes, chopping and stretching facts to fit his thesis, he is by no means isolated in his convictions. On the jacket of his book, high praise for his work is expressed by Jensen, Eysenck, Bouchard, Gross, R. Lynn, and Levin.

I think that Rushton’s text would lend itself very well to the purpose of a critical exploration of important general issues in psychology with senior and graduate psy- chology students. What better way is there to discuss the debate about the significance of the general factor “g” in intelligence than with reference to attempts of measuring intelligence across different groups? What better way to introduce the strengths and weaknesses of the sociobiological approach to human social behavior than with refer- ence to the analyses presented in this book? And finally, what better way to illustrate how the interpretation of psychological research and its funding can become inextrica- bly linked with the political philosophies of the scientists engaged in debate [cf. Barkan, 1992; Gottfredson, 1994; Jensen, 1982; Lane, 1994]?

Finally, Rushton’s book raises an issue of substantial importance for contemporary social psychology. In accounting for race differences, all parties would agree that the bone of contention is not “nature or nurture’’ but rather the relative importance of each of these. Rushton makes his position very clear in that he places the principal emphasis on nature. Thus, he would predict that even given ideal conditions (what would these be?), Negroids would not score as highly on IQ tests as, e.g., Caucasoids. Part of his argument is that other immigrant groups in North America have faced similar odds to those faced by Negroids but were able to adapt to or shape the social environment so as to prosper. The challenge for social psychologists who reject Rushton’s emphasis on nature is to discern exactly what dynamics in the sociocultural environment create a different situation for Negroids than for other groups. On the way to an explanation

468 Book Review

they might well find that more attention has to be paid to biological underpinnings of the relations between races; while Rushton underplays the social psychology of race relations, conventional social psychology has neglected the sociobiology of race relations.

Michael Peters Department of Psychology University of Guelph, Guelph, N1G 2W1 Ontario, Canada

REFERENCES Barkan E (1992): “The Retreat of Scientific Rac-

ism.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baroff GS (1986): “Mental Retardation.” New York:

Harper & Row. Blinkhom S (1994): Willow, titwillow, titwillow.

Nature 372:417419. Eysenck HJ (1991): Raising IQ through vitamins and

mineral supplementation: An introduction. Jour- nal of Personality and Individual Differences

Flynn JR (1987): Massive gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin

Gottfredson LS (1994): Egalitarian fiction and col- lective fraud. Society 31:53-59.

Harvey PH (1988): Allometric analysis and brain size. In Jerison HJ, Jerison I (eds): “Intelligence and Evolutionary Biology.” Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp 199-210.

Jerison HJ (1979): The evolution of diversity in brain size. In Hahn ME, Jensen C, Dudek BC (eds): “Development and Evolution in Brain Size.” New York: Academic Press, pp 29-57.

Kamin L (1995): Behind the curve. Scientific Ameri-

Lane C (1994): The tainted sources of the “Bell Curve.” The New York Review of Books 41:14-19.

Owen K (1992): The suitability of Raven’s Stan-

12:329-333.

101:171-191.

can 272:99-103.

dard Progressive Matrices for various groups in South Africa. Personality and Individual Differ- ences 1 3: 149-1 59.

Reed TE, Jensen AR (1993): Cranial capacity: Ncw Caucasian data and comments on Rushton’s claimed Mongoloid-Caucasoid brain-size differ- ences. Intelligence 17:423-431.

Rodriguez R, Donnadien FR, Martinez C, Chavez A (1979): Nutrition and development of children from poor rural areas. VIII. The effect of mild malnutrition on children’s neurological devel- opment. Nutrition Reports International

Spence JD (1985): “The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci.” London: Penguin.

Wahlsten D (1994): The intelligence of heritability. Canadian Psychologist 35244-260.

Wickett JC, Vernon PA, Lee DH (1994): In vivo brain size, head perimeter, and intelligence in a sample of healthy adult females. Personality and Indi- vidual Differences 16:831-838.

Willerman L, Schultz R, Rutledge NJ, Bigler ED (1992): Hemisphere size asymmetry predicts relative verbal and nonverbal intelligence dif- ferently in the sexes: An MRI study of structure- function relations. Intelligence 16:3 15-328.

Woodridge A (1994): “Measuring the Mind: Educa- tional Psychology in England.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1 9 ~ 3 15-326.