Orientals Are The Superior Race?

Orientals Are The Superior Race?

Canadian scientist J. Phillippe Rushton published in 1995 an incendiary thesis backed by years of research in which he asserts that humanity can be divided into three identifiable races that possess measurably different physical and psychological characteristics.

The opening chapter to the abridged edition (2000) is entitled "Race Is More Than Skin Deep", the header quote reads:

Is race real? Do the races differ in behavior as well as in body? Are such views just the result of white racism? Modern science shows a three-way pattern of race differences in both physical traits and behavior. On average, Orientals are slower to mature, less fertile, less sexually active, less aggressive, and have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the other pole. Whites fall in the middle, but closer to Orientals than to Blacks.

The book was considered so important by two Japanese academics (Takuya Kura an ethologist at the University of Kyoto and Kenya Kura an economist at the University of San Diego) it was immediately translated into Japanese.

What does the panel think?

(Self-styled anti-racists please give this thread some breathing room)

-----------------------------------------------------------

Down loadable abridged edition available here:

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/reb.html

Rushton's Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's true.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Vote for Oriental leaders!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I wish my race was superior.

That lady has a nice body with an ugly face...is she a crackhead?

 

Well, there you have it.
How could anyone argue with that?
If Willy says it's ture, it is.
Case closed.

Hey Willy, can you answer some other difficult questions for us?
Does God exist?
What happens after death?
Is the Big Bang Theory accurate?
Why do people find Paris Hilton attractive?

 

Do you think Skeletor had a nice body?:bugeye:

 

So do your women:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This is all very amusing.

But can we please stick the topic even if we are a little afraid of any possible consequences that might arise from accepting Rushton's thesis?

 

How does he know that this is because of their "race" and not their culture? Of all the listed qualities, it seems to me that diet and social norms might be at least or more explicative of the listed differences as genetic causes. Besides, he's a psychologist. Psychology is to science what economics is to science, save that economists are generally better at math.

 

In every ethnic group there are a gambit of intelligent people and not so bright ones. To say that one type of ethnic group far exceeds that of the others isn't a good scientific evaluation to me for all that he did was state a theory without any facts to back up his claim.

 

Pandaemoni,

Below is the plan of the book - from the abridged version - giving a brief overview of its contents.

I think you'll agree that diet and social norms cannot account for physical differences to the extent they are observed. Clearly there are biological and genetic factors which need to be considered. This is probably why Rushton called his work: Race, Evolution and Behaviour: A Life History Perspective

Plan of the Book

This chapter briefly describes the 3-way pattern of race differences. The following chaptersprovide more detail.

Many statistics in Chart 1 come from the United States, where Orientals are a “model minority.” They have fewer divorces, fewer out-of-wedlock births, and fewer reports of child abuse than Whites. More Orientals graduate from college and fewer go to prison. On the other hand Blacks are 12% of the American population and make up 50% of the prison population. In the U.S., one out of every three Black men is either in jail, on probation, or awaiting trial. That is much more than the number who graduate from college.

Chapter 2 shows how this racial pattern in crime is found worldwide. INTERPOL Yearbooks show the rate of violent crime (murder, rape, and serious assault) is four times lower in Asian and Pacific Rim countries than in African and Caribbean countries. Whites in the United States and in Europeancountries are intermediate. The 1996 INTERPOL violent crime rates clearly show this pattern: Asian countries, 35 violent crimes per 100,000 people; European countries, 42; and African countries, 149. Chapter 2 also finds that Oriental children are slower to mature than White children while Black children are faster to mature. This is true for the rate of bone and tooth development and the age at which a child first sits, crawls, walks, and puts on clothing. Oriental children do not begin to walk until about 13 months, White children at 12 months, and Black children at 11 months.

Chapter 3 looks at racial differences in sexual activity. Orientals are the least sexually active, whether measured by age of first intercourse, intercourse frequency, or number of sexual partners. Blacks are the most active on all of these. Once again Whites are in between. These contrasts in sexual activity
lead to differences in the rate of diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, and chlamydia. There are high levels of AIDS in Africa, Black America, and the Caribbean and low levels in China and Japan. European countries again fall in between. The races differ in rate of ovulation (Chapter 3). Not all women produce one egg during the menstrual cycle. When two or more eggs are produced at the same time, a pregnancy is more likely. So is the likelihood of producing fraternal twins (i.e., two-egg twins). The number of twins born is 16 out of every 1,000 births for Blacks, 8 out of every 1,000 births for Whites, and 4 or less for Orientals. Triplets and other multiple births are rarest in Orientals and highest in Blacks, with Whites in between.

Chapter 4 is about race and intelligence. Hundreds of studies on millions of people show a threeway pattern. IQ tests are often made to have an average score of 100, with a “normal” range from 85 to 115. Whites average from 100 to 103. Orientals in Asia and the U.S. tend to have higher scores, about 106, even though IQ tests were made for use in the Euro-American culture. Blacks in the U.S., the Caribbean, Britain, Canada, and in Africa average lower IQs -- about 85. The lowest average IQs are found for sub-Saharan Africans -- from 70 to 75. Chapter 4 also looks at brain size. Bigger brains have more brain cells and this leads to higher IQs. The races vary in brain size. The Collaborative Perinatal Project followed more than 35,000 children from birth to seven years. Orientals had larger brains than Whites at birth, four months, one year, and seven years. Whites had larger brains than Blacks at all ages (see Chart 2). The data on adults in Chart 2 come from a sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel.

Chapter 5 asks whether differences in our brain size, our bodies and our behavior are because of genes, environment, or both. It also asks whether individual differences can tell us anything about race differences.

Chapter 6 discusses the gene based “life-history theory” I have proposed to explain the racial pattern in brain size, intelligence, and other traits. Evolutionary biologists call it the r-K scale of reproductive strategies. At one end of this scale are r-strategies that rely on high reproductive rates. At the other end are K-strategies that rely on high levels of parental care. This scale is generally used to compare the life histories of different species of animals. I have used it to explain the smaller but real differences between the human races. On this scale, Orientals are more K-selected than Whites, while Whites are more K-selected than Blacks. Highly K-selected women produce fewer eggs (and have bigger brains) than r-selected women. Highly K-selected men invest time and energy in their children rather than the pursuit of sexual thrills. They are “dads” rather than “cads.”

Chapter 7 shows that the race differences in reproductive strategies make sense in terms of human evolution. Modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Africans and non-Africans then split about 100,000 years ago. Orientals and Whites split about 40,000 years ago. The more north the people went “Out of Africa,” the harder it was to get food, gain shelter, make
clothes, and raise children. So the groups that evolved into today’s Whites and Orientals needed larger brains, more family stability, and a longer life. But building a bigger brain takes time and energy during a person’s development. So, these changes were balanced by slower rates of growth, lower levels of sex hormones, less aggression, and less sexual activity. Why? Because Africa, Europe, and Asia had very different climates and geographies that called
for different skills, resource usage, and lifestyles. Blacks evolved in a tropical climate which contrasted with the cooler one of Europe in which Whites evolved and even more so with the cold Arctic lands where Orientals evolved.
Because intelligence increased the chances of survival in harsh winter environments, the groups that left Africa had to evolve greater intelligence and family stability. This called for larger brains, slower growth rates, lower hormone levels, less sexual potency, less aggression, and less impulsivity. Advanced planning, self-control, rule-following, and longevity all increased in the non-Africans. I realize that these topics are controversial and that readers will have many questions.

Chapter 8 lists the questions I am most asked about Race, Evolution, and Behavior, and my answers to them.

Conclusion

Race is more than “just skin deep.” The pattern of Oriental-White-Black differences is found across history, geographic boundaries, and political-economic systems. It proves the biological reality of race. Theories based only on culture cannot explain all the data shown in Chart 1. The next three chapters describe the scientific findings on race differences (summarized in Chart 1) in greater detail. Later chapters explain why these differences follow such a pattern.

 

The Collaborative Perinatal Project followed more than 35,000 children from birth to seven years. Orientals had larger brains than Whites at birth, four months, one year, and seven years. Whites had larger brains than Blacks at all ages (see Chart 2). The data on adults in Chart 2 come from a sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel.

mmmm....

 

Diet most certainly can account for a wide range of physical differences such as slower maturity and differences in brain size (and brain size has nothing to do with IQ or general levels of intelligence, so one might as well note differences in leg length for all that matters). There are substantial physical differences between medieval Europeans and modern ones that can be attributed almost entirely to changes in diet.

If his study fails to control for possible effects that diet and culture (which includes things like length and prevalence of breastfeeding, primacy of education, etc) might have the traits he studies, I'm afraid he's going to need more people jumping on his bandwagon (and conducting better controlled studies) before I take him seriously.

Again, the problem with studies by psychologists is that they are often not really scientists at all. The notion of using controls in their analyses doesn't occur to them, or they use them only haphazardly. That's not to say that there aren't a few good ones out there, but they're all Asian, because as we all know Asians are the smart ones.

If you were to study England circa 900 AD, and compare it to the Caucasian population in England today, I have little doubt that you'd discover that modern Caucasian English are quicker to mature, far less fertile (measured in terms of number of offspring they have), less aggressive, and have larger brains and would have higher IQ scores if Englishmen of 900AD had been taking those tests. That's not to say that there has been any "genetic" change in the population, but the affects of diet and culture have simply been that pronounced.

 

All the data in chart 2 came from US citizens. They are all eating practically the same thing. I think the dietary argument is a red herring. If white people move to Africa and changed their diet - which they did centuries ago - it has not resulted in them changing their skin colour or physical structure. All birds eat practically the same food but an eagle is not a sparrow.

How can you explain the fact that black people give birth earlier than whites and Orientals even though thay live in the same nations from a dietary or cultural perspective? I don't think you can. There is an invariable biological function at work there.

I doubt this. It seems more likely to me that a deficiency in diet - such as access to fresh fruit and vegetables - would have resulted in a stunted population. Today should be considered an approximate English norm. It would clearly be absurd to expect that if all races lived in the same culture and ate the same food they would all end up looking identical. What would that 'identical look' look like anyway?

Different races are a reality - albeit an uncomfortable one in the minds of many white Westerners due to contemporary social mores - but that does not invalidate the genuine observations originally made by European explorers when they first encountered, for example, African people living indigenously. Neither can we use it to criticise work by scientists like Rushton.

 

Rushton's "research" should be taken with a few heapings of salt. He does speeches to Supremacy groups, and writes articles for magazines with the same tint.

Rushton's motives are less than noble, and his methods & data are much less than gospel.

 

How can you rely on a study of U.S. soldiers, since I am almost sure there are more white soldiers than the other ones. So statistically the other two races are underrepresented.

 

I think Phillipe Rushton's research explains a lot of things, and they do seem to make sense out of what we see in the real world, or at least what I see. I think most of the liberal minded people here will dismiss his research as racist and him as a quack, because what he has to say isn't always uplifting.

I think it's fascinating how the different races evolved to be different in the way they did, being different in such consistent ways. Is it possible that there could have been another race that would be even more conformist than Asians, have bigger brains than Asians, higher average IQs, lesser fertility and etc.? Is it possible there could have been another race that would be stronger, more fertile and aggressive than blacks?

He puts them against a backdrop and shows the pattern pretty well. Changed the way I think about people, not just race in general. Interesting stuff for those who are interested in evolution.

 

That said, I don't think any race is superior. They're just different. Blacks had their time of success, whites have had their time, and now I'm guessing Asians will have their golden age sometime soon.