Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton’s Mismeasure of Science

Racism, Lies, and Omissions:Rushton’s Mismeasure of Science Applying their knowledge of scientific methods, the fallacies of science, and the evidence of nature v. nurture debate, students investigate and write a major paper on Rushton’s conclusion that science has established the evolutionary and genetic basis of racial, sexual, and class differences in intelligence.

The ContendersA timeline… • 1996: Stephen Jay Gould writes a revised edition of The Mismeasure of Man. • 1997: J. Phillipe Rushton publishes, “Race, Intelligence, and the Brain: The Errors and Omissions of the ‘Revised’ Edition of S.J. Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man” in Personality and Individual Differences. • 2000: Sixteen students in Honors 120, The Individual and Community In Modern Society, research the topic and write a refutation of Rushton’s critique of Gould. "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

The Researchers… Authors Natalie Ebig & Jonathan Keesecker Contributors • Stephanie Mack • Steven VanSteenkiste • Kim Whitney • Courtney Clancy • Becky Ely • Andy Erlewein • Eric Kleitch Alexis Bowser Jason Frank Todd Simon Cat Esmer Laura Birch Kari Wieber Joylynn Henning "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

The Contenders…Stephen Jay Gould • "Humans are not the end result of predictable evolutionary progress, but rather a fortuitous cosmic afterthought, a tiny little twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life, which if replanted from seed, would almost surely not grow this twig again." - Stephen Jay Gould "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

The Contenders…J. Phillipe Rushton Beliefs of Phillipe Rushton • That human beings exist on a scale: negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid • That the ‘negroid’ has r tendendies (rapid and prolific reproduction) • That the ‘mongoloid’ has K tendencies (reproductive restraint leading to a few well cared for offspring) • As oysters are to apes so are blacks to whites "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

The Ensuing Controversy… The Bell CurveBy Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray “Take the racist beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nation. Cloak those beliefs in academic robes and what do you get? You get a best seller.” ~Randolph T. Holhut "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

The Racist Money… The Pioneer Fund • The Fund's stated purpose was to "improve the character of the American people" by encouraging the procreation of descendants of "white persons" and to provide aid in conducting research on "race betterment with special reference to the people of the United States.“ ~S. R. Shearer "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

(Supposed) Brain Size and Intelligence Quotient Correlations

Brain Size and IQ… Conveniently, Rushton discards the fact that brain weight varies with body height claiming that by aggregating numbers for each race, variance will average out (10). This obviously gives no consideration to environmental or nutritional needs, so in effect Rushton is saying that two people predestined to grow to be six feet tall will reach that height regardless, even if one were in optimum conditions and the other without any nutritional value for a long period of time. ~Todd "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Brain Size and IQ… Lieberman reports that the average brain ranges in size from 1000 to 2000 cc and that Neanderthals had a cranial size of approximately 1500 cc (Lieberman 1999: 11). An expert like Rushton certainly cannot account for the fact that most human advancement…has come about in times where the human head is smaller than it use to be. [emphasis in the original] ~Steven "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Brain Size and IQ… Returning, for the moment, to Rushton’s extensive studies in b.s. (again, brain size), it is apparent that he fails to grasp the big picture. The measurements Rushton cites from Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984) and Rushton (1992, 1994), supposedly display the hierarchical ordering of Asians, Europeans, and Africans in terms of brain volume, with Asians possessing the largest volumes. The most generous of these (Beals, Smith, Dodds, actually a measure of cranial volume) reveals a mean difference of 147 cubic centimeters. However, assuming a normal variation of 1000 to 2000 cubic centimeters in brain volume (Lieberman, 1999), this 147 cubic centimeter difference separating the upper and lower means is a relatively small difference considering the 1000 cubic centimeter range. Such a difference, as stated by Lieberman, fails to represent a “casually significant difference” (Lieberman, 1999). ~Jonathan "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

The Number Game….Correlation Magnitude, Significance, and What It All Means

Correlation Magnitude, Significance, and What It All Means The article goes on to say that the actual average found by Van Valen was 0.10 which is pretty close to calling it chance. Van Valen said he got 0.30 by applying a “statistical correction…based on his ‘guess’” to the 0.10 because of the loss of information “due to the poor measures of intelligence.” That is how Van Valen arrived at his 0.30 correlation. The explanation may seem a little shaky, but the real kicker is that Van Valen admitted, “His study does not prove that a relationship between brain size and intelligence exists! (my own exclamation point). He also stated “he knows of no study which directly correlates brain size (or cranial capacity) and intelligence” (Weizmann, Wiener, Wiesenthal, Ziegler, 1990: 10). Did Rushton realize that he was using data that even the authors of the data doubted to be true? Or did Rushton just ignore that fact? The latter choice seems to be true… ~Joylynn "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Correlation Magnitude, Significance, and What It All Means It does not seem that Rushton is equipped fully with the necessary understanding of statistical data. He condemns Gould for not mentioning studies that reveal a correlation of approximately .30 between brain size and intelligence, when in fact these numbers mean relatively little… The .30 coefficient so applauded by Rushton must be squared …(indicating) only 9% of IQ can be explained away by brain size… ~Steve "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Correlation Magnitude, Significance, and What It All Means Rushton cites conclusions that seem supported by the numbers he presents, but are, in fact, not supported by the researchers given. In other words, it appears as if Rushton read and reported what he wanted to hear. The research in Andreason et al. does show that there is a correlation between brain size and IQ. The numbers cited are up to a .52 correlation, which correspond to and exceed Rushton’s cited correlation of .44. When these numbers are squared as necessary to analyze these numbers, it appears that 12 to 31 percent of intelligence is contributed to by brain size. ~Kim "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Americanization and Untruths…Bias in IQ Tests

Bias in IQ Tests To further cast doubt upon those that Rushton relies so heavily upon, the IQ test that they have concocted needs to be examined. Recently in our class, we discussed such tests, and even were able to experience first hand what they are like. Just as we talked about them in class, and had become expectant of certain characteristics, when we experienced the children’s test, it was very, very U.S. Americanized. ~Eric "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Bias in IQ Tests …There is much evidence proving that IQ tests are biased (Gould 1996: 31). Rushton apparently does not think so and uses Zindi as one of his sources, claiming that he found a black IQ of 70. Well yes, Zindi did find a mean IQ of 70’s for blacks, but all of the tested children were Zimbabwean taking a European-based test… Zindi himself is a Zimbabwean and the actual point to his [study] was to illustrate the bias in most IQ tests. Rushton does not include Zindi’s conclusion… “It is only when such measures are taken that Zimbabweans can begin to see a new meaning in psychometric measurement” (Zindi 1994:552). ~Steve "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Bias in IQ Tests Gould’s book is not just an argument that explains that there is no correlation between brain size and IQ, nor is it about any other simple issue. It is about deep lying error of using intelligence as a fixed, single quantity. ~Kim "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Politics Speaking for SciencePolitical Agendas and Political Correctness

Political Agendas and Political Correctness~Immigration not influenced by IQ testing~ Rushton attempts to justify early IQ testers in the United States and prove that tests like the Yerkes military IQ exam had no effect on immigration policies in the 1920’s. Rushton looks to Snyderman and Herrnstein for his support saying…Congress took no notice of intelligence testers and called none to testify… If one consults Rushton’s source … he or she would find this, “It may therefore seems plausible that the test data figured prominently in the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, which placed severe restrictions along national lines (Snyderman and Hernnstein 1983:991)… [Rushton] has blatantly lied to us in this review. ~Steve "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Political Agendas and Political Correctness~Pioneer Fund ~ Rushton, originally from South Africa, receives grants from the Pioneer Fund. This is not surprising, since the fund has given money to every scientist in the United States who has “proclaimed the inferiority of African Americans and called for adoption of eugenics as the basis for public policy” (Rosenthal 1995: The Pioneer Fund: Financier of Racist Research). ~Kim "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Political Agendas and Political Correctness~Pioneer Fund ~ …The majority of Rushton’s research is based on scientists who are supported by the Pioneer Fund, or who are affiliated with the affluent members of the Pioneer Fund executive board. Arthur Jensen and Richard Lynn are recipients of at least $1,325,000 worth of research funding for Lynn’s research on the differences between ‘races’ and Jensen’s research on race and IQ (Holhut; Naureckas 1994/1995). Lynn’s racism is proven in his statement to The New Republic in 1994, ‘Who can doubt that the Caucasoid and the Mongoloid are the only two races that have made any significant contributions to civilization?’ (Holhut). Rushton also cites such researchers as T.J. Bouchard and M. Snyderman, both known Pioneer-supported scientists. All of these men have contributed to the bulk of Rushton’s critique of Gould, and yet they have all been noted as affiliates in a known racist organization. ~Natalie "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Political Agendas and Political Correctness~Pioneer Fund ~ Rushton is oblivious to facts that do not support his cause and consistently uses the same group of individuals with beliefs similar to his own as the main sources for his works. In fact, he cited himself eleven times in his rebuttal of Gould. Rushton feeds off those who lean toward racism and uses his unproven theories to promote social mistreatment of those at the base of his racial hierarchy. ~Todd "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Political Agendas and Political Correctness~Pioneer Fund ~ Both Rushton and Jensen have obtained a substantial amount of their funding from the non-profit organization The Pioneer Fund. In fact, between 1981 and 1992 Rushton received over $441,000 from the Fund. Along with these two men, the Fund has contributed money to William Shockley, a Stanford physicist and advocate of the theory that whites are genetically determined to be more intelligent than blacks. Shockley champions the controversial program of the sterilization of people scoring below the average score of 100 on IQ tests… Is it a coincidence that the majority of scientists granted money by an organization promoting eugenics and biological-determinism gather research and evidence favoring the Pioneer Fund’s interests? ~Stephanie "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Political Agendas and Political Correctness~Pioneer Fund ~ Rushton’s research was funded by the Pioneer fund…[which according to the New York Times as referenced in Liechtenstein 1977,] “advance[s] an agenda of fascism, repression, and racism.” ~Alexis "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Political Agendas and Political Correctness~Pioneer Fund ~ [Rushton] makes reference to an article published by R. Lynn in 1991… The article [Lynn’s] was published in the Mankind Quarterly…a link to the Mankind Quarterly and their publishers can be found on the homepage of an organization named Stormfront: White Pride Worldwide …(www.stromfront.org): “Stromfornt is a resource for those courageous men and women fighting to preserve their western culture, ideals, freedom of speech and association- a forum of planning strategies and forming political and social groups to ensure victory.” …The people that fund his [Rushton] work, as well as his colleagues, are all pursuing the goal of promoting white supremacy. ~Alexis "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Political Agendas and Political Correctness~Pioneer Fund ~ …Rushton is confusing correlation with causation. A correlation coefficient merely shows the relationship between two independent variables, and just because two things can be statistically proven to be related, it DOES NOT mean that one causes the other… Rushton fails to note any of the other factors that could have contributed to the findings…He simply continues to assert that the relationship is causal. This is more than innocent omission; it is purposeful misrepresentation of facts. ~Alexis "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Political Agendas and Political Correctness~Pioneer Fund ~ In the opening paragraph of “Race [Intelligence and the Brain],” Rushton accuses Gould of “misrepresentation of evidence”… [And he] argues that Gould allowed his “activist background” (Rushton 1997: 169) to interfere with his standard of “honest assessment and best judgement of evidence of empirical truth” (Gould 1996 as quoted in Rushton 1977: 178). But what influence does Rushton’s background have on his work? …It is known that he was raised in South Africa…. “ The Pioneer Fund [speaking to Rushton’s source of research funds] was set up in 1937…to promote the ‘breeding of white persons who settled in the original thirteen colonies prior to the adoption of the Constitution” (Rosenthal 1995: 14)… The Fund has been described as “pro-Nazi” (Rosenthal 1995: 47) and “ultra rightists” (Reed 1994: 15)…. It is very difficult to take into account his childhood in South Africa, the reputation of his funding, and the subject matter of his research and not see personal bias… ~Courtney "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Political Agendas and Political Correctness~Other items ~ [Rushton] has been criticized for misrepresenting the studies of past scientists and for displaying a bigoted attitude towards his studies. A Canadian magazine called Rushton, ‘a goofball’ (MacLean’s, Feb. 20, 1989, p.56). The writer for that magazine is not the only person who feels this way. ~Jason "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

The (False) Biology of Race

Race The biological concept of race has been found to be diminishing in importance (Weizmann 1990:5)… the human race has become so intertwined that it can no longer be classified into races on purely biological terms…Some say that the division of race into three races is far too simplistic (Rosen, 1994: 14)… And some flat-out claim that Rushton is a racist (Rosen 1994:14). Either way, there is no reason to accept any of Rushton’s data concerning race and IQ… ~Steve "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Race According to Rushton, Wilson claimed blacks had smaller brains than whites and Orientals, who evolved in the more demanding climates of the north. (Mehler, par. 4) Surprised by Rushton’s presentation, Wilson said, “I’m not aware of any such evidence. The claim shocks and dismays me.” Wilson went on to say that the actual meaning behind his studies was to “show that Asians are as closely related to modern Africans as Europeans are” and that Rushton was “misinterpreting our findings” (Mehler, par. 4). Rushton says Gould owes it to the readers to explain his omissions but the same can be said for him. ~Todd "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Race Gould, as well as many other scientists, argues that there is no such concept as race. Once these concepts of race and IQ are shot down, all of Rushton’s statements involving these two concepts collapse. ~Becky "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Race Among Ruston’s …naïve finding is that blacks are given to violating the social order… The good professor seems completely oblivious to the whole history of the black race in the United States and its position as the low income, ill-educated underclass and how this just might relate to their frustration and their rebellion...all understandable if one ever got out of the lab and the classroom and walked through Alabama or Harlem or the 70% of Washington [D.C] that starts two blocks east of the White House (Fotheringham 1989:56). ~Steve "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Race Rushton claims that he labeled people by referring to the “common usage” and popular opinion if who belongs in what category. I do not find this to be a dependable method of classification… It is virtually impossible to tell where one race ends and another begins… [He] believes that the human race can be classified into three categories, Caucasoid, Mongoloids, and Negroid… Michael J. A. Howe…points out the fallacies of this (Howe 1997:68): “This division conveniently ignores a number of complications such as the fact that anthropologists question the scientific legitimacy of race as a category, and the finding that differences between individuals within races are as large as differences between races.” ~Kari "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Race Lombroso believed that IQ, brain size, race, and criminality were all linked… Rushton defends these theories. But the study he cites (Raine 1993) has nothing to do with race and criminality. Rushton himself states that Raine found a link between frontal lobe dysfunction and violent behavior, not a connection between race and criminal behavior. The differences between frontal lobe dysfunction and brown skin should be obvious! ~Courtney "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Race Rushton uses the results of the Minnesota Adoption study as “proof “ that IQ is genetically, rather than environmentally influenced (Rushton 1997: 177) “Adopted children with two White biological parents had an average IQ of 106, adopted children with one White and One Black biological parent had an average IQ of 99 and adopted children with two Black biological parents had an IQ of 89.” What Rushton fails to tell the reader is “parental race subsumes a number of biological and social differences between the two groups” and that the Adoption Study’s results “highlight the strong impact and that dramatic environmental interventions can have on cognitive development” (Weinberg, Scarr and Waldman 1992: 131). Rushton presents the Minnesota Adoption Study as if it confirmed the existence of racial heritability of IQ differences when in fact the study did exactly the opposite… Maybe Rushton missed that point. ~Courtney "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Huh? What? Say Again? Hmmm? Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers

Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers Rushton is quick to accuse Gould of omitting data, but he is also quick to omit things himself. In his article, “Race Differences in Behavior: A Review and Evolutionary Analysis,” Rushton openly admits to omitting data that does not follow his conclusion. He writes, “Many studies finding an absence of differences [between races] have necessarily been omitted,” (1017). I am curious to know why it was “necessary” to omit this data. Could it have been because it did not support Rushton’s beliefs that Mongoloids are superior and Negroids are inferior in many areas of intelligence and temperament? ~Becky "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers Even when Rushton manages to accurately represent his sources, he often gives insignificant studies much more importance than they merit… The “study” by Wickett, Vernon, and Lee (1996), which Rushton refers to on page 170, is nothing more than a one-paragraph abstract. {Incidentally, even this tiny reference is contrary to Rushton’s ideas, stating that “there was no indication of a within family correlation between brain volume and IQ.} Similarly, Rushton cites Glen and Ellis (1988) as having found that the doctored photos of the Kallikak family “strikes judges {when empirically} tested as kind” (Rushton 1997: 171). Rushton… takes this study seriously, but the authors themselves said it was an impromptu, non-random, “mini-study” (of 29 office co-workers) (Glenn and Ellis 1988: 742), which was conducted in their office building! ~Courtney "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers In The Mismeasure of Man (201-202), Gould accuses H.H. Goddard of retouching the lines of some photographs of “inferior” people with dark lines in order to make their appearance more foolish or primitive. Rushton refutes this accusation by saying “such retouching [was] common during this period and thus betrays no evil intent…” This is supposed to be an acceptable reply to Gould’s accusations, but in actuality it only confirms Gould’s case. It does not matter that this practice may have been common; the pictures have still been altered to present an image not in its original form, which could end up promoting a diabolical image. The pictures of the Kallikak family have been toyed with and the added dark lines can affect the image in a negative way. Rushton only helps Gould’s case by admitting that there was, in fact, touch up work performed on the pictures. ~Andy "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers Rushton presents an acceptable excuse the explanation that such retouching was common in Goddard’s time. Unfortunately, this alone does not exonerate Goddard of charges of poor science- if, today, it was common practice for scientists to fudge data to fit expectations would that neutralize the lack of precision caused by fudging data? No, poor science is poor science regardless of how widely practiced it is, and Goddard’s remains poor science. ~Jonathan "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Misquoting, Fixing Facts, and Confusing Readers Rushton mentions studies by Jensen, Weng, and Carroll which “provide detailed and analytical demonstrations of the reality of g” (Rushton 1997: 173)… [This article] is merely an editorial piece defending Sir Cyril Burt from Gould’s charge of falsifying evidence. It does state that g exists, but it provides no “demonstrations,” analytical or otherwise… Readers have no way of knowing whether an impressive-looking citation is actually as important as it seems, and Rushton uses this fact to his advantage. ~Courtney "Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton's Mismeasure of Science"

Racism, Lies, and Omissions: Rushton’s Mismeasure of Science