the neoliberal vision of the future

[TruXta]

Rushton got some undergrads to go round their local shopping malls and ask a random sample of males how long their penises were. I think that says it all where the status of his 'science' is concerned.

Source?

 

[audiotech]

Onarchy lifestyle choices for the discerning billionaire, a personal space rocket, a submarine and the guitar Jimi Hendrix played at Woodstock.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20054444-10391709.html

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Rushton got some undergrads to go round their local shopping malls and ask a random sample of males how long their penises were. I think that says it all where the status of his 'science' is concerned.

Should have been Willie Rushton. Would make more sense.

 

[Idris2002]

According to Rushton, blacks are not only genetically inferior, but engage in indiscriminate sex and have
larger penises. Rushton said, "People are always saying, ’Oh you say whites are superior to blacks.’ Even if
you take something like atheletic ability or sexuality - not to reinforce stereotypes or some such thing - but,
you know, it’s a trade off: more brain or more penis. You can’t have everything." He claims that Nazi
Germany’s military victories were due to the purity of its gene pool. Rushton was censured by his university
when he went to a mall and paid 150 people to answer a survey with questions such as how far they could
Michael Swanson, The Bell Curve and Eugenics http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/026.html
4 of 8 30/04/04 10:02
ejaculate. One wonders which attribute Rushton would lay claim to (or Murray and Herrnstein for that
matter). This argument sounds suspiciously similar to Freud’s concept of "penis envy." Murray and
Herrnstein assure us that Rushton is "not a crackpot or bigot" and that "there is nothing wrong with
Rushton’s work in principle."

We're in Monty Python territory now, with a dash of Beavis and Butthead. This quote is from here (PDF);

http://mendel.ugr.es/genysoc/pdfs/bellcurve-eugenics.pdf

Sorry I couldn't find a better source for penis survey (there's some words I never thought I'd type) but here's the abstract of a paper debunking Rushton from another point of view:

The last decade of the 20th century experienced a resurgence of genetically based theories of racial hierarchy regarding intelligence and morality. Most notably was Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve (1994), that claimed genetic causality for long-standing racial differences in IQ. In addition, it raised the time worn argument that the over-reproduction of genetically deficient individuals within our population would lead to a serious decline in average American intelligence. These authors provided no specific rationale for why these genetic differences should exist between human `races'. Instead, they relied heavily on the work of Canadian psychologist J. Philipe Rushton (in The Bell Curve, 1994, Appendix 5: 642—3). Rushton has advanced a specific evolutionary genetic rationale for how gene frequencies are differentiated between the `races' relative to intelligence. He claims that human racial differences result from natural selection for particular reproductive strategies in the various racial groups. Rushton's theory is based entirely on the concept of r- and K-selection, first explicitly outlined by MacArthur and Wilson in 1967. This article examines both the flaws in the general theory, and specifically Rushton's application of that same theory to human data. It concludes that neither Rushton's use of the theory nor the data that he has assembled could possibly test any meaningful hypotheses concerning human evolution and/or the distribution of genetic variation relating to reproductive strategies or `intelligence', however defined.

If indeed Rushton’s explanation of ‘race’ differences is the only ‘game’ in town, it is one
being played with a crooked deck. There are insurmountable problems with the application
of Rushton’s theory of human life histories, in particular his reliance on the
concept of r- and K-selection (see later in the article). Chief amongst these problems is
the fact that r- and K-selection theory is now considered virtually useless. Biologists who
study life history evolution began to falsify this idea in the late 1970s. Since that time,
multiple experiments have failed to corroborate the core premises of r- and K-selection
theory. It would have been impossible not to notice this event (sort of like an elephant
walking into your living room). In addition, even if the theory itself were reliable,
Rushton has applied it incorrectly to describe the supposed genetic tradeoffs he wishes
to explain. This can be demonstrated by examining the following:
1 the history and formulation of density dependent selection theory;
2 the critical experiments that falsified the central predictions of r- and K-selection
theory;
3 the attempt of Rushton to apply r- and K-theory to human life history evolution;
4 the inadequacy of Rushton’s data to test any specific hypothesis concerning the
evolution of human life histories.


The Bell Curve relied heavily on Rushton and cited him 11 times in its bibliography.

And that's from here:

http://ant.sagepub.com/content/2/2.toc

I don't know if it's open access or not - let me know if not.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Sorry. Onarchy is so unbelievably po-faced I can't help lobbing over a bit of levity because he doesn't seem to realise that the only proper response to this crock of shite is ridicule.

 

[frogwoman]

the worst type of racist.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

He tried to apply r/K selection to race?

Fuck me.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Another reason why ridicule is the correct response, froggie. Think Chaplin as Adenoid Hynkel.

 

[frogwoman]

I hate sanctimonious racists.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I don't know if it's open access or not - let me know if not.

Not

 

[Idris2002]

Anyone wants to read it, pm me with your email address.

 

[SpineyNorman]

In this video Dawkins displays his complete lack of understanding of capitalism. He thinks that capitalism is the law of the jungle and dog eat dog competition, and then goes on to prove that evolution doesn't support capitalism because "nice guys finish first." He even speaks of the ridiculously contradictory concept of "reciprocal altruism" -- mutual self-sacrifice for mutual benefit! In a sane world "reciprocal altruism" is called rational self-interested TRADE and it is the basis of capitalism. In capitalism "nice guys finish first." The baker makes money by being nice to other people, i.e. creating bread that his customers value more than their money. So evolutionary theory does indeed support capitalism as the natural and moral system for humans.

You actually watched that start to finish didn't you? The time you spend on here and on your blog suggests one thing to me and one thing only - you desperately need to get laid. In the meantime why not go play with the traffic?

 

[sihhi]

Rushton got some undergrads to go round their local shopping malls and ask a random sample of males how long their penises were. I think that says it all where the status of his 'science' is concerned.

This a good thread it reminds of stuff I used to be fairly interested in: corporate funding of racialist science and the holocaust revisionism history industry.

To produce his book whose summarised version onarchy is citing as evidence the Pioneer fund gave over $300,000 - a lot of money in those days - to John Rushton.

http://www.ferris.edu/htmls/othersrv/ISAR/Institut/pioneer/search.htm

Leading Grant Recipients, 1994-1996

University of Western Ontario (J. Philippe Rushton) $334,405

Rushton is still spewing nonsense
http://www.vdare.com/rushton/index.htm
http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...se-all-issues/2005/winter/into-the-mainstream

[David Horowitz in the last article is the former Stalinist who now heads the David Horowitz Freedom Centre over the past 10 years has gotten about 14 million $ from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and Scaife Foundation. Its main activity is accusing academic critics of US policy of being anti-American and critics of Israel of antisemitism.]

Charles Murray still gets paid by the AEI
http://www.aei.org/scholar/43

 

[frogwoman]

I'm also interested in that sort of stuff too sihhi.

Vdare and american renaissance are basically the "intellectual" face of hardcore us neo-nazism.

 

[frogwoman]

According to Rushton, blacks are not only genetically inferior, but engage in indiscriminate sex and have
larger penises. Rushton said, "People are always saying, ’Oh you say whites are superior to blacks.’ Even if
you take something like atheletic ability or sexuality - not to reinforce stereotypes or some such thing - but,
you know, it’s a trade off: more brain or more penis. You can’t have everything."

 

[stethoscope]

Onar has invoked Rushton - OMFG

 

[SpineyNorman]

Most of this research is nicely summarized in Philippe Rushton's "Race, Evolution, and Behavior." There you will find all the references. An abrigded popularized version is available on the net, but it does not have a reference list. For that you need the unabridged version, but the names of some of the studies is mentioned in the abridged version.

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

"Race, Evolution, and Behavior is a tiny, self-published book (a pamphlet, really), that Rushton takes the trouble to mail to people who never requested a copy, such as myself." Anthropologist Francisco Gil-White.

Like everything else you've posted, this is political propaganda. The "Charles Darwin Research Institute" appears to have been created with the sole intention of disseminating this document. It's only been "reviewed" by the group of crypto-eugenicists who wrote and "reviewed" The Bell Curve. The author used back door methods to get the addresses of academics, to whom they sent it, and the reception was not positive.

Hermann Helmuth, an anthropologist from Trent University: "It is in a way personal and political propaganda. There is no basis to his scientific research."

Again, it's not peer reviewed research - it's self published propaganda. What's next? Alex Jones?

 

[frogwoman]

Didnt he conduct his "research" by asking people how big their penises were?

 

[Idris2002]

 

[frogwoman]

thanks for the article on Rushton btw.

 

[onarchy]

"Race, Evolution, and Behavior is a tiny, self-published book (a pamphlet, really), that Rushton takes the trouble to mail to people who never requested a copy, such as myself." Anthropologist Francisco Gil-White.

Like everything else you've posted, this is political propaganda.

Excuse me? What gives you the expertise to make such a claim? Because some guy says so? Rushton is one of the world's most referenced psychologists and has published dozens of papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. That particular book "Race, Evolution, Behavior" contains no new research in itself, it is merely a summary and structuring of existing research published by hundreds of scientists in peer reviewed journals. So how can you without having read it know that it is "political propaganda"? I can equally well come with a positive quote, by no other than the famous biologist E.O. Wilson:

"I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher. The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is, it is logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species-a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk, for example-no one would have batted an eye. (...) when it comes to [human] racial differences, especially in the inflamed situation in this country, special safeguards and conventions need to be developed."

from Knudson P. (1991), A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society; Rushton on Race, Stoddart Publishing (ISBN 0773724672) pg 190

Hermann Helmuth, an anthropologist from Trent University: "It is in a way personal and political propaganda. There is no basis to his scientific research."

No basis except hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Didnt he conduct his "research" by asking people how big their penises were?

Ahem
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...the-future?p=11692181&viewfull=1#post11692181

 

[Idris2002]

What's your response to the fact that Rushton employed an utterly discredited model of evolution in differing environments to bolster his . . .peculiar claims?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Didnt he conduct his "research" by asking people how big their penises were?

Looks that way. Personally I'd doubt the accuracy of that particular method of data gathering. No doubt the average for "whites" was 11" and for "blacks" 15".

 

[frogwoman]

What's your response to the fact that Rushton employed an utterly discredited model of evolution in differing environments to bolster his . . .peculiar claims?

The jews discredited him

 

[SpineyNorman]

Excuse me? What gives you the expertise to make such a claim?

I'm a generalist. We have a little knowledge in a lot of areas and so can detect such things, whereas specialists can't. I'd have expected you to know that, what with you being the intellectual father of onarchism. I am disappointed.

 

[Idris2002]

The jews discredited him

Those crazy Jewish people! What zany antics will they be up to next?

 

[onarchy]

Onar has invoked Rushton - OMFG

I know that it is a favorite methodology of left-wingers to have a black list of people who should be associated with Great Evil and therefore not listened to or considered, even though they have published dozens of peer reviewed articles in scientific journals. Basically you are using the argument "He is not trustworthy because someone in my Circle of Trust (typically other socialists) says so" or "He is not trustworthy because he has talked to/been funded by people who are not in my Circle of Trust."

Translated into plain English you're saying: he's talking to people I don't like, therefore I can safely disregard anything he says as bullshit. This is how socialism works. It's all about the right social relations with you guys, the right connections, who grooms who, who is on the top of the gossip list. That's really intersubjectivity at work. You don't care about arguments, you care only about what people in your Circle of Trust say. Therefore your first reaction is not "is this argument good?" No, your first reaction is "does he belong to my tribe?" If not, you dismiss him, no questions asked.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Ben Goldacre and Jack of Kent would have a field day with Onan the Barbarian and his pseudo-intellectual twuntery..

 

[Idris2002]

I know that it is a favorite methodology of left-wingers to have a black list of people who should be associated with Great Evil and therefore not listened to or considered, even though they have published dozens of peer reviewed articles in scientific journals. Basically you are using the argument "He is not trustworthy because someone in my Circle of Trust (typically other socialists) says so" or "He is not trustworthy because he has talked to/been funded by people who are not in my Circle of Trust."

Translated into plain English you're saying: he's talking to people I don't like, therefore I can safely disregard anything he says as bullshit. This is how socialism works. It's all about the right social relations with you guys, the right connections, who grooms who, who is on the top of the gossip list. That's really intersubjectivity at work. You don't care about arguments, you care only about what people in your Circle of Trust say. Therefore your first reaction is not "is this argument good?" No, your first reaction is "does he belong to my tribe?" If not, you dismiss him, no questions asked.

Can you reply, please, to the substantive criticism of Rushton's work in the paper I cited - i.e. that Rushton relies on an entirely discredited model of the relationship between environment and evolution?