Post by zarahan on Jun 24, 2010 12:54:49 GMT -5
EXCERPT:
On the Similarities of American Blacks and Whites: A Reply to J. P. Rushton
Author(s): Zack Z. Cernovsky
Source: Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 25, No. 6 (Jul., 1995), pp. 672-679
------------------------------------
The history of science teaches us that many ambitious racists
attempted to manufacture scientific evidence for their beliefs.
Sooner or later, their charlatan style methodology (e.g., the use of
skull circumference measurement by Nazi "scientists" during the
World War II) and logical inconsistencies resulted in their rejection
by the scientific community. A contemporary example of this trend
is the work of J. Philippe Rushton. He recently wrote a large number
of repetitive articles in which he revived the old-fashioned Nazi
method of skull circumference measurement and claimed that
Blacks are genetically less intelligent, endowed with smaller brains,
oversexed, and more prone to crime and mental disease than
Whites. Only some of the numerous methodological flaws in his
work are discussed in the present article.
Although Rushton (1988, 1990a, 1991) implied that Blacks are
consistently found to have smaller brains than Whites, some of the
studies listed in his reviews actually show opposite trends: North
American Blacks were superior to American Whites in brain weight
(see Tobias, 1970, p. 6: 1355 g vs. 1301 g) or were found to have
cranial capacities favorably comparable to the average for various
samples of Caucasians (see Herskovits, 1930) and number of
excess neurons larger than many groups of Caucasoids, for exam-
ple, the English and the French (see Tobias, 1970, p. 9). In general,
skulls from people in countries with poverty and infant malnutrition
are smaller regardless of race. This trend is apparent even in
Rushton's (1990b) tabularly summary of Herskovits's review: Cau-
casoids from Cairo had far smaller crania than North American
Negroes (see more details in Cernovsky, 1992). In this respect,
Rushton (1990a, 1990b, 1990c) also repeatedly misrepresented
findings by Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) on cranial capacity.
Rushton implied that Beals et al. presented large-scale evidence for
racial inferiority of the Blacks with respect to cranial size. De facto,
extensive statistical analyses by Beals et al. showed that cranial size
varies primarily with climatic zones (e.g., distance from the equa-
tor), not race. According to Beals et al., the correlations of brain
size to race are spurious: smaller crania are found in warmer
climates, irrespective of race.
And, although Rushton misleadingly reported Tobias's (1970)
and Herskovits's (1930) surveys of cranial data as confirming his
theory, their data are more consistent with the model presented by
Beals et al. As already mentioned, in their reviews, cranial size and
number of excess neurons of North American Blacks compared
favorably to those of Caucasoids. It is only by pooling their data
with data for Negroids from countries in hot climatic zones (noto-
rious for famine and infant malnutrition) that Rushton obtained an
illusory support for his postulates.
Rushton's (1988, Table 1) use of brain and cranial size as
indicators of intelligence in humans is statistically absurd:
Rushton's (1990a) own data showed that brain size and intelligence,
in Homo sapiens, are only weakly related (average Pearson r = .18)
and the highest correlations reported by Rushton were only .35,
implying only 12.3% of shared variance (see critique by Cernovsky,
1991). In the past decades, even some persons with extremely small
cerebral cortices were found by Lorber to have IQs in the superior
range (> 120) and performed well in academic settings (Lewin,
1980). Rushton's pseudoscientific writings perpetuate lay public's
misconceptions and promote racism.
Rushton (1990a, 1990c, 1991) also misrepresents the evidence
for racial differences in brain/body size ratio. For example,
Herskovits's (1930) data suggest that there is no consistent Black/
White difference with respect to stature or crania. And, with respect
to Rushton's claim about the relationships of the brain/body size
ratio to intelligence, this conceptual framework is suitable for some
species of animals but not necessarily for the restricted range of
data. The comparison of gender differences on three different
brain/body indices by Ho, Roessman, Straumfjord, and Monroe
(1980) led to inconsistent results (see their tabularly summaries on
p. 644). Further empirical data in this field are necessary: Authori-
tarian statements "about the reality of racial differences," based on
conveniently selected trends in the data, do not qualify as a scien-
tific contribution.
Contrary to Rushton's speculations on race and crime, skin color
would be a poor predictor of crime rate due to low base rates and
very large intragroup variance. His own data (summaries of Interpol
statistics, Rushton, 1990c, 1995) can be reinterpreted as showing
that relying on race as an indicator of crime leads to 99.8% of false
positives (Cernovsky & Litman, 1993a). The average correlations
between race and crime are too low and inconsistent to support
genetic racial speculations and, in fact, might point to the opposite
direction than Rushton postulated (see higher crime rates in Whites
than in Blacks in Interpol data analyses, Cernovsky & Litman, 1993b).
To demonstrate that Blacks are less intelligent and, perhaps, to
allege that this is genetically given, with only minor environmental
modifications, Rushton (1988, 1991) refers not only to his own
biased review of brain size studies but also to Jensen's work.
Yet, it has been shown that the theories favoring hereditarian over
environmentalist explanations tend to be based on poor methodol-
ogy (see Kamin, 1980) and that Jensen's estimates of "hereditabil-
ity" are based on too many assumptions, which hardly could all be
met (Taylor, 1980). Some applications of the heritability estimates
were shown to have absurd consequences (Flynn, 1987a). Simi-
larly, Jensen's recent claims about racial differences in reaction
time are biased and might lack in scientific integrity (Kamin &
Grant-Henry, 1987). There is no solid evidence in favor of herita-
bility over environmental influences with respect to the develop-
ment of intelligence (see a review in Kamin, 1980, and Flynn,
1987a, 1987b).
In a similar vein, some of Rushton's references to scientific
literature with respects to racial differences in sexual charac-
teristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semipornog-
raphic book and to an article in the Penthouse Forum (see a review
in Weizmann, Wiener, Wiesenthal, & Ziegler, 1991). Rushton's
claims thatfertility rates are higher in Blacks disharmonize with
well-known high figures for some Caucasoids such as North Ameri-
can Hutterites (a group of Swiss-German ancestry, see a review in
Weizmann et al., 1990, 1991). Rushton's claims about racial differ-
ences with respect to brain, intelligence, crime, sexuality, and
fertility (and also twinning rates; see Lynn, 1989a, 1989b;
Weizmann et al., 1991) are based on an extremely biased and
inadequate review of literature.
Erroneously relying on data based on hospital admission rates,
Rushton (1988) concluded that mental disease is more frequent in
Blacks than Whites. Members of the lower socioeconomic class are
overrepresented in official hospital admission statistics because the
private and more confidential treatment resources are not accessible
to them. More adequate epidemiological studies by Robins et al.
(1984) based on random sampling show no significant link of
lifetime prevalence to race except for simple phobias. There were
no significant differences with respect to major psychiatric illness
or substance abuse (see a more detailed criticism of Rushton's
assumptions in this area in Zuckerman & Brody, 1988).
Rushton (1988, 1991) implies that "racial differences in behav-
ior" are genetic and relatively immutable: He ignores the plasticity
of human beings as shown in secular changes and in the intragroup
variance (see more detailed criticisms in Weizmann et al., 1990,
1991). The armamentarium of clinical psychologists was shown by
a host of empirical investigations to induce desirable behavioral
changes in various populations (see, e.g., Turner, Calhoun, &
Adams, 1981): Rushton's view of human beings is obsolete.
And, with respect to Rushton's (1988) attempt to apply r/K
theory to racial differences, this is a misguided project as shown by
criticisms from the ecological and biopsychological perspective
(Anderson, 1991; Weizmann et al., 1990, 1991) and as shown by
statistical considerations of the devastating effects of restricted
range on size of correlation coefficients (rules derived from a wide
dimension of measures perform poorly when applied to a minute
interval on the scale; see, e.g., McCall, 1980). The r/K dimension
is derived from an extremely wide range of species.
Its dogmatic application to the drastically reduced variance within
contemporary Homo sapiens is statistically naive (for more detailed
explanations, see Cernovsky, 1992). It is not even necessary to be a
competent statistician to avoid similar errors. If Rushton (1988, 1990a)
could heed Jerison's (1973) warning that racial differences in brain size
are at most minor and "probably of no significance for intellectual
differences," he would not attempt to extend Jerison's findings
across species to subgroups within modem mankind. Instead,
Rushton (1991) misleadingly refers to Jerison in a manner that
implies an expert support from this famous comparative neuropsy-
chologist, without mentioning their disagreement on the most cen-
tral issue.
Rushton (1991) claimed that racial differences occur "on more
than 50 variables," with Blacks being consistently in a less desirable
direction. The present article examined the evidence with respect
to the key variables only: The examination exemplifies that his
claims are fallacious. Furthermore, long lists, such as Rushton's,
tend to shrink when appropriate multivariate methods (e.g., the
discriminant equation) are used: These techniques eliminate redun-
dancies and remove nonsignificant variables. And, nota bene, if a
scientist would search for a suitable "finding" to lower the social
prestige of Blacks and examine 50 variables and suppress evidence
favorable to Blacks, he or she might, by chance alone, one day, find
one or more variables on which a "significant" trend in the desired
direction could be located.
Given all these flaws in Rushton's work on "racial differences,"
it is obvious that his writings do not meet the usual requirements
for a master's thesis in psychology. His knowledge of scientific
methodology is definitely below the academic level required for the
master's degree.
Finally, Rushton's most recent "scientific" contribution is the
claim that women are likely to be less intelligent than men because
his tape measurements of men and women in military settings
indicated that males have larger heads (Rushton, 1992). Indeed, the
racism is often associated with sexism.
In summary, although Rushton's writings and public speeches
instill the vision of Blacks as small-brained, oversexed criminals
who multiply at a fast rate and are afflicted with mental disease, his
views are neither based on a bona fide scientific review of literature
nor on contemporary scientific methodology. His dogma of bioevo-
lutionary inferiority of Negroids is not supported by empirical
evidence. Acceptance of similar theories should not be based on
racist prejudice but on objective standards, that is, conceptual and
logical consistency and integrity, quality of methods and data, and
an analysis of disconfirmatory trends. Rushton's racial theory does
not meet any of these standards.
On the Similarities of American Blacks and Whites: A Reply to J. P. Rushton
Author(s): Zack Z. Cernovsky
Source: Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 25, No. 6 (Jul., 1995), pp. 672-679
------------------------------------
The history of science teaches us that many ambitious racists
attempted to manufacture scientific evidence for their beliefs.
Sooner or later, their charlatan style methodology (e.g., the use of
skull circumference measurement by Nazi "scientists" during the
World War II) and logical inconsistencies resulted in their rejection
by the scientific community. A contemporary example of this trend
is the work of J. Philippe Rushton. He recently wrote a large number
of repetitive articles in which he revived the old-fashioned Nazi
method of skull circumference measurement and claimed that
Blacks are genetically less intelligent, endowed with smaller brains,
oversexed, and more prone to crime and mental disease than
Whites. Only some of the numerous methodological flaws in his
work are discussed in the present article.
Although Rushton (1988, 1990a, 1991) implied that Blacks are
consistently found to have smaller brains than Whites, some of the
studies listed in his reviews actually show opposite trends: North
American Blacks were superior to American Whites in brain weight
(see Tobias, 1970, p. 6: 1355 g vs. 1301 g) or were found to have
cranial capacities favorably comparable to the average for various
samples of Caucasians (see Herskovits, 1930) and number of
excess neurons larger than many groups of Caucasoids, for exam-
ple, the English and the French (see Tobias, 1970, p. 9). In general,
skulls from people in countries with poverty and infant malnutrition
are smaller regardless of race. This trend is apparent even in
Rushton's (1990b) tabularly summary of Herskovits's review: Cau-
casoids from Cairo had far smaller crania than North American
Negroes (see more details in Cernovsky, 1992). In this respect,
Rushton (1990a, 1990b, 1990c) also repeatedly misrepresented
findings by Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) on cranial capacity.
Rushton implied that Beals et al. presented large-scale evidence for
racial inferiority of the Blacks with respect to cranial size. De facto,
extensive statistical analyses by Beals et al. showed that cranial size
varies primarily with climatic zones (e.g., distance from the equa-
tor), not race. According to Beals et al., the correlations of brain
size to race are spurious: smaller crania are found in warmer
climates, irrespective of race.
And, although Rushton misleadingly reported Tobias's (1970)
and Herskovits's (1930) surveys of cranial data as confirming his
theory, their data are more consistent with the model presented by
Beals et al. As already mentioned, in their reviews, cranial size and
number of excess neurons of North American Blacks compared
favorably to those of Caucasoids. It is only by pooling their data
with data for Negroids from countries in hot climatic zones (noto-
rious for famine and infant malnutrition) that Rushton obtained an
illusory support for his postulates.
Rushton's (1988, Table 1) use of brain and cranial size as
indicators of intelligence in humans is statistically absurd:
Rushton's (1990a) own data showed that brain size and intelligence,
in Homo sapiens, are only weakly related (average Pearson r = .18)
and the highest correlations reported by Rushton were only .35,
implying only 12.3% of shared variance (see critique by Cernovsky,
1991). In the past decades, even some persons with extremely small
cerebral cortices were found by Lorber to have IQs in the superior
range (> 120) and performed well in academic settings (Lewin,
1980). Rushton's pseudoscientific writings perpetuate lay public's
misconceptions and promote racism.
Rushton (1990a, 1990c, 1991) also misrepresents the evidence
for racial differences in brain/body size ratio. For example,
Herskovits's (1930) data suggest that there is no consistent Black/
White difference with respect to stature or crania. And, with respect
to Rushton's claim about the relationships of the brain/body size
ratio to intelligence, this conceptual framework is suitable for some
species of animals but not necessarily for the restricted range of
data. The comparison of gender differences on three different
brain/body indices by Ho, Roessman, Straumfjord, and Monroe
(1980) led to inconsistent results (see their tabularly summaries on
p. 644). Further empirical data in this field are necessary: Authori-
tarian statements "about the reality of racial differences," based on
conveniently selected trends in the data, do not qualify as a scien-
tific contribution.
Contrary to Rushton's speculations on race and crime, skin color
would be a poor predictor of crime rate due to low base rates and
very large intragroup variance. His own data (summaries of Interpol
statistics, Rushton, 1990c, 1995) can be reinterpreted as showing
that relying on race as an indicator of crime leads to 99.8% of false
positives (Cernovsky & Litman, 1993a). The average correlations
between race and crime are too low and inconsistent to support
genetic racial speculations and, in fact, might point to the opposite
direction than Rushton postulated (see higher crime rates in Whites
than in Blacks in Interpol data analyses, Cernovsky & Litman, 1993b).
To demonstrate that Blacks are less intelligent and, perhaps, to
allege that this is genetically given, with only minor environmental
modifications, Rushton (1988, 1991) refers not only to his own
biased review of brain size studies but also to Jensen's work.
Yet, it has been shown that the theories favoring hereditarian over
environmentalist explanations tend to be based on poor methodol-
ogy (see Kamin, 1980) and that Jensen's estimates of "hereditabil-
ity" are based on too many assumptions, which hardly could all be
met (Taylor, 1980). Some applications of the heritability estimates
were shown to have absurd consequences (Flynn, 1987a). Simi-
larly, Jensen's recent claims about racial differences in reaction
time are biased and might lack in scientific integrity (Kamin &
Grant-Henry, 1987). There is no solid evidence in favor of herita-
bility over environmental influences with respect to the develop-
ment of intelligence (see a review in Kamin, 1980, and Flynn,
1987a, 1987b).
In a similar vein, some of Rushton's references to scientific
literature with respects to racial differences in sexual charac-
teristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semipornog-
raphic book and to an article in the Penthouse Forum (see a review
in Weizmann, Wiener, Wiesenthal, & Ziegler, 1991). Rushton's
claims thatfertility rates are higher in Blacks disharmonize with
well-known high figures for some Caucasoids such as North Ameri-
can Hutterites (a group of Swiss-German ancestry, see a review in
Weizmann et al., 1990, 1991). Rushton's claims about racial differ-
ences with respect to brain, intelligence, crime, sexuality, and
fertility (and also twinning rates; see Lynn, 1989a, 1989b;
Weizmann et al., 1991) are based on an extremely biased and
inadequate review of literature.
Erroneously relying on data based on hospital admission rates,
Rushton (1988) concluded that mental disease is more frequent in
Blacks than Whites. Members of the lower socioeconomic class are
overrepresented in official hospital admission statistics because the
private and more confidential treatment resources are not accessible
to them. More adequate epidemiological studies by Robins et al.
(1984) based on random sampling show no significant link of
lifetime prevalence to race except for simple phobias. There were
no significant differences with respect to major psychiatric illness
or substance abuse (see a more detailed criticism of Rushton's
assumptions in this area in Zuckerman & Brody, 1988).
Rushton (1988, 1991) implies that "racial differences in behav-
ior" are genetic and relatively immutable: He ignores the plasticity
of human beings as shown in secular changes and in the intragroup
variance (see more detailed criticisms in Weizmann et al., 1990,
1991). The armamentarium of clinical psychologists was shown by
a host of empirical investigations to induce desirable behavioral
changes in various populations (see, e.g., Turner, Calhoun, &
Adams, 1981): Rushton's view of human beings is obsolete.
And, with respect to Rushton's (1988) attempt to apply r/K
theory to racial differences, this is a misguided project as shown by
criticisms from the ecological and biopsychological perspective
(Anderson, 1991; Weizmann et al., 1990, 1991) and as shown by
statistical considerations of the devastating effects of restricted
range on size of correlation coefficients (rules derived from a wide
dimension of measures perform poorly when applied to a minute
interval on the scale; see, e.g., McCall, 1980). The r/K dimension
is derived from an extremely wide range of species.
Its dogmatic application to the drastically reduced variance within
contemporary Homo sapiens is statistically naive (for more detailed
explanations, see Cernovsky, 1992). It is not even necessary to be a
competent statistician to avoid similar errors. If Rushton (1988, 1990a)
could heed Jerison's (1973) warning that racial differences in brain size
are at most minor and "probably of no significance for intellectual
differences," he would not attempt to extend Jerison's findings
across species to subgroups within modem mankind. Instead,
Rushton (1991) misleadingly refers to Jerison in a manner that
implies an expert support from this famous comparative neuropsy-
chologist, without mentioning their disagreement on the most cen-
tral issue.
Rushton (1991) claimed that racial differences occur "on more
than 50 variables," with Blacks being consistently in a less desirable
direction. The present article examined the evidence with respect
to the key variables only: The examination exemplifies that his
claims are fallacious. Furthermore, long lists, such as Rushton's,
tend to shrink when appropriate multivariate methods (e.g., the
discriminant equation) are used: These techniques eliminate redun-
dancies and remove nonsignificant variables. And, nota bene, if a
scientist would search for a suitable "finding" to lower the social
prestige of Blacks and examine 50 variables and suppress evidence
favorable to Blacks, he or she might, by chance alone, one day, find
one or more variables on which a "significant" trend in the desired
direction could be located.
Given all these flaws in Rushton's work on "racial differences,"
it is obvious that his writings do not meet the usual requirements
for a master's thesis in psychology. His knowledge of scientific
methodology is definitely below the academic level required for the
master's degree.
Finally, Rushton's most recent "scientific" contribution is the
claim that women are likely to be less intelligent than men because
his tape measurements of men and women in military settings
indicated that males have larger heads (Rushton, 1992). Indeed, the
racism is often associated with sexism.
In summary, although Rushton's writings and public speeches
instill the vision of Blacks as small-brained, oversexed criminals
who multiply at a fast rate and are afflicted with mental disease, his
views are neither based on a bona fide scientific review of literature
nor on contemporary scientific methodology. His dogma of bioevo-
lutionary inferiority of Negroids is not supported by empirical
evidence. Acceptance of similar theories should not be based on
racist prejudice but on objective standards, that is, conceptual and
logical consistency and integrity, quality of methods and data, and
an analysis of disconfirmatory trends. Rushton's racial theory does
not meet any of these standards.
