Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective

by J. Philippe Rushton

Using evidence from psychology, anthropology, sociology and other scientific disciplines, this book shows that there are at least three biological races (subspecies) of man Orientals (i.e., Mongoloids or Asians), Blacks (i.e., Negroids or Africans), and Whites (i.e., Caucasoids or Europeans). There are recognizable profiles for the three major racial groups on brain size, intelligence, personality and temperament, sexual behavior, and rates of fertility, maturation and longevity. The profiles reveal that, ON AVERAGE, Orientals and their descendants around the world fall at one end of the continuum, Blacks and their descendants around the world fall at the other end of the continuum, Europeans regularly fall in between. This worldwide pattern implies evolutionary and genetic, rather than purely social, political, economic, or cultural causes.

Genres: Science, Anthropology, Race, Psychology, Nonfiction, Evolution, Politics

388 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 1994

Reviews

[A · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sneak this book into a statistics conference, run away, and listen to hear what happens. Do you hear shouts; do you hear shrieks? What has happened? You take a peek at the chaos slowly increasing, and see professors shouting lots of deeply meaningful words like "race", "construct", "ideology", and "supremacy". You also hear the word "pseudoscience". Yet there is one man, who (through your telepathic powers) knows what is up. He has just seen an immense amount of data and is shocked. Yet, his shock does not lead to a hysteric fit, but to a deeper investigation. Such is the small hope remaining for we moderns. Alas! too many are blind.

[DocHolidavid · Rating 3 out of 5]

What can you say about this book that won't get you in trouble?

[Alexander · Rating 4 out of 5]

The entire book comprised of facts with references, I was very pleased with the approach taken for this topic. Academia has become increasingly politicized in recent decades.

With cultural marxism influencing entire fields, such as sociology through critical theory. Despite it's lack of scientific evidence to support it's claims. For those unfamiliar with this fact, the distinction made between critical theory and genetic theory in the book may not be significant to you. But I assure you it is.

The biological sciences are under attack, and if we value science we must fight against it. Race is a very uncomfortable subject for many, and this tries to stick to the evidence and avoid any individual bias in the interpretations. There is a lot left out, but good for a starting point. I encourage anyone that's interested, to read this book in it's entirety

[Jason · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book. A scientific exposition of the factual biological differences in the various races of humans. Well worth the read for anyone wishing to understand race reality and how we relate to each other.

[Charles · Rating 1 out of 5]

Note: I read an earlier edition of this book. Not exactly sure which one, but probably in the mid to late 1990s.

Well, this is pretty much nonsense. If you want to talk about biological races then you'd need to have far more than the 'three' races he considers. He tends to lump all dark skinned people into one race, for example, which is completely inaccurate. There is a huge range of variability among the so called "dark skinned" folks of the world. In the same way, there is wide variety among Asian populations, and even a fair amount among so called Caucasians. Certainly there are clusters of certain genetic characteristics that appear in various ethnic groups, but the overall genetic variability among members of the "human" race is relatively minuscule, less than 1 percent. One telling statistic that Rushton seems to miss, for example, is how there is greater variability on all kinds of intelligence tests within groups than between groups, which argues very strongly for a cultural interpretation of such differences.

[Michael A. Simmons, Sr. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent study of racial differences

It is refreshing to find an author that is not cowed by the PC crowd and let the facts speak for themselves. There are racial differences and we can't ignore them. We can continue to bury our heads in the sand or we can use this information to help society learn from our differences and figure out how we can all live together peacefully.

[Daniel Ramírez Martins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Even though from the beggining to the end the author was one-sided, it was a great book to read to know and understand more about the biological and cultural differences between races with very reliable sources.

[Eric · Rating 1 out of 5]

These days, there is the tendency to attribute all human differences to culture, while downplaying, or outright denying, that biology can play any role. This book goes to the other extreme, however, by essentially throwing culture out the window. The author attributes to genetics virtually every difference in intellectual achievement and responsible citizenship among the races. In reviewing the evidence from human evolutionary history (especially in arguing that harsher physical environments led to greater innovation and, therefore, greater intelligence), he contradicts himself, stating that the environment in Africa was less predictable and comfortable, then claiming that conditions in Europe resulted in greater intelligence! He also dredges up outdated and, in some cases, clearly prejudiced research into anatomical differences, such as skull size. (For what it's worth, Neanderthals had larger skulls than do modern humans.)

[Karpur Shukla · Rating 1 out of 5]

One of the more famous books underlying modern racism, and an excellent case study of where talking about science without understanding it can lead you. He completely misapplied the (now-outdated anyway) r/K model of reproductive adaptation. I think Prof. C. Loring Brace puts it much better than I could: "Race, Evolution, and Behavior is an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology."

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Provoking.

[Vagabond of Letters, DLitt · Rating 5 out of 5]

*****

[Marek S · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very detailed compendium of decades of research on race, IQ, and human evolution. This should be required reading in all public schools, especially in today's reality-denying leftist dominated society.

[Da1tonthegreat · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is THE canonical text of scientific race realism. Rushton belongs up in the pantheon of the subject with Charles Darwin, Arthur de Gobineau, and Carleton Coon. His work is indispensable and magisterial. No opponent of the leftist New World Order should be without this text on his shelf.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting, but the studies used to derive the statistics are so taboo that we can't even examine their accuracy. Either way, I like that it makes you think--and wonder.

[Psilo Crosse · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a breath of fresh (open and honest) air to the discussion of race. Well written and well researched.

[VEL – The Contemporary Heretic · Rating 2 out of 5]

The claim that black people are, on average, less intelligent than whites has been described as the most incendiary theory in science.

But Phil Rushton has developed an even more incendiary theory—namely, that blacks are not only less intelligent but also innately more predisposed to criminality and promiscuity.

Differential K
Rushton’s theory of race differences is based on r/K selection theory, whereby it is posited that species vary on a continuum focusing, at one end, on maximizing number of offspring while investing little in each (r-selection), and, at the other, investing heavily in few offspring (K-selection).

Rushton posits that, although all humans are at the extreme K end of the spectrum, blacks are relatively less K-selected, while East Asians are relatively more K-selected, with Caucasians intermediate but closer to Asians.

He amasses a data on a whole suit of characters on which the three races appear to differ, seemingly in accord with this theory.

There are three problems with Rushton’s application of r/K selection theory:

1) r/K selection theory is largely obsolete;

2) On theoretical grounds, Africans would be more not less K-selected than other races;

3) There is no obvious connection between many traits that Rushton describes and r/K selection.

The first thing that needs to be said regarding r/K selection theory is that modern ecology has generally, if not wholly abandoned the theory, at least moved beyond it to more sophisticated models of life-history trade-offs.

But Rushton’s application is especially flawed. A mainstream interpretation of r/K selection theory would suggest that Europeans and Asians would be more r-selected and Africans more K-selected, the opposite what Rushton contends.

There are two reasons for this.

First, K-selection is associated with stable environments, while r-selection is associated with variable environments.

Whereas tropical climates as are found in Africa have stable climates all year round, climate in most of Eurasia varies seasonally.

Rushton responds by arguing that it is the predictability of variations rather than the variation itself that is the key factor and, although variable, Artic/temperate climates vary in a predictable pattern, with cold winters and warm summers recurring annually (p249).

In contrast, variations in tropical zones are, he claims, less predictable.

Tet this is contrary to the orthodox interpretation of r/K selection theory. Moreover, it is not clear how variability could produce r-selection in a non-hibernating species (Miller 1993).

Also, it is not clear that conditions are less predictable in Africa. Famine and drought are just as common in Eurasia as in Africa (Miller 1993: p666-7).

Yet there is a second reason we might expect Africans to be more K-selected.

K selection is associated with populations that have already expanded to reach the carrying capacity of the environment, where heavy investment in each offspring is necessary to ensure that they can outcompete rivals for limited resources.

In contrast, r-selection is associated the colonization of new habitats, where fast reproductive rates enable the rapid colonization of vast tracts of empty space.

Yet it is generally accepted that anatomically-modern humans first evolved in Africa only later migrating elsewhere.

This would suggest that r-selection would be stronger in more recently colonized areas (i.e. Eurasia, not to mention America, Australia, Oceania etc) and K selection stronger in Africa, where humans had presumably long previously reached the carrying capacity of the continent, hence forcing some to migrate.

Specific Traits
The next problem is that it is not altogether clear how some of the traits that Rushton discusses relate to the r/K continuum.

Unfortunately, Rushton never explicitly addresses the issue of why these characteristics are related to r/K selection.

Only in Chapter Ten, titled ‘Life History Theory’, does he offer a generalized discussion of r/K selection theory, without bothering to relate it to all of the specific traits discussed in previous chapters.

Crime
For example, there is no reason to associate crime with r-selection. I am unaware of any studies suggesting an association between r-selection and criminal-like behavior (e.g. aggression, intra-specific predation) in non-human species.

Perhaps high levels investment in offspring and care for dependent infants requires enhanced levels of empathy and conscientiousness, traits that also, as a by-product, reduce those criminal behaviors associated with limited empathy or impulse control; or perhaps the risk of punishment or retribution is too great when you have valuable offspring dependant on you for their survival.

But Edward M Miller contends that it is K-selection that is associated with intra-specific aggression because individuals from K-selected species are competing with one another for limited resources in populations at or near the carrying capacity of their environment (Miller 1994: at p234).

In contrast, he quotes ethologist James Gould as observing:

“Among r-selected species… fighting would be a waste of their most precious commodity: time” (Ethology: The Mechanisms And Evolution Of Behavior: p367)

Body-Size
Even Rushton acknowledges that his theory fails to explain observed race differences in body-size (p215-6).

r/K selection theory predicts that K-selected organisms, benefiting from greater parental investment per offspring, are larger.

Yet East Asians, the most K-selected population according to Rushton, are, on average, shorter than whites.

Meanwhile, blacks, ostensibly the most r-selected human subspecies, are not obviously shorter than whites.

In Africa, stature seems to be depressed by factors such as malnuitrition and disease, yet heights vary from Congo Pygmies to East African ‘elongates’ like the Tutsi and Dinka, formerly considered the tallest people in the world. Meanwhile, in the US, where malnutrition is not a factor, the average height of blacks is almost identical to that of whites.

Penis Size
While Rushton passes over the disconfirmatory data regarding race differences in overall body-size in just a sentence, he devotes more discussion to race differences in the size of one particular body part (166-9).

Rushton’s pronouncements on this issue have aroused particular attention in the popular media where he is quoted as proposing a direct trade-off between brain and penis-size:

“It’s a trade off, more brains or more penis. You can’t have everything.”

Actually, the quote is probably apocryphal or perhaps a misinterpreted joke. Rushton's theory does not suggest a direct trade-off between penis and brain size.

However, Rushton never does spell out why genital-size is related to r/K selection.

One proposal mooted by Lynn is that race differences in penis size reflect differences in levels of polyandry or female promiscuity (Lynn 2013).

Differences in levels of polyandry may then themselves be explained by differences in levels of K selection.

This draws on the theory that large penes evolved to remove the sperm deposited in females by rival males by functioning as a suction piston during intromission (Human Sperm Competition: 170-174).

This theory has empirical support from experiments involving sex toys of various shapes (Gallup et al 2003; Gallup and Burch 2004; Goetz et al 2005).

In fact, however, brain-size is positively correlated with penis-size across species.

This is because larger brains require larger heads which, in turn, require larger vaginas to enable women to birth larger-headed infants. Larger vaginas select for larger penes. This then explains why, among primates, humans have unusually large, especially wide, penes (Bowman 2008).

However, Baker and Bellis propose that race differences in penis size might reflect differences in birth weight rather than head size (Human Sperm Competition: p171).

Testes Size
The evolutionary function of testes size is better understood than penis size and does indeed reflect sperm competition.

Also, unlike for penis size, there is real data on differences in testis size.

Most findings are consistent with Rushton’s theory.

Diamond reports that testes size was “two fold lower in two Chinese samples compared with a Danish sample” (Diamond 1986: 488). Dixson reports that East Asians have the smallest testes, blacks the largest, with whites intermediate but closer to blacks:

“Nigerian men have testes more than twice as large as those of Hong Kong Chinese” (Sexual Selection and the Origins of Human Mating Systems: p31)

Yet he also reports that Nigerians also have lower sperm counts than Europeans or Chinese (Sexual Selection and the Origins of Human Mating Systems: p53)—and a recent study of US military recruits reports larger testes among whites than blacks (Dutton et al 2022).

Androgens
Alternatively, Richard Lynn suggests that race differences in genital size could reflect differing levels of androgens (Lynn 1990).

Indeed, race differences in testosterone can explain many of the differences discussed by Rushton, including in sexual behaviour, rates of violent crime, onset of puberty, longevity, athletic ability and prostate cancer.

But, if testosterone explains these differences at the proximate level, one must still identify the ultimate selective factor that selected for different testosterone levels and Rushton sees differences in levels of sex hormones as themselves a product or r-K selection (169-170).

However, as Miller (1994) points out:

“A strong point of differential K theory is its apparent parsimony. A large number of seemingly unrelated differences can be explained by a single evolutionary theory. If many of the differences trace to a single direct cause, sex hormone levels, or other ultimate causes that act through the sex hormones, then other theories are equally parsimonious.”

Paternal Investment Theory
The most persuasive critique of Rushton’s theory is provided, not by outraged leftists, but rather by an economist and fellow race realist—Edward M Miller—who accepts the existence of the race differences reported by Rushton but offers an alternative theory of their evolution (Miller 1993; 1994).

According to Miller, most of the differences reported by Rushton can be explained by the higher levels of parental investment, especially male parental investment, required to successfully raise offspring in colder climates (Miller 1994).

This explanation accounts for most of the differences discussed by Rushton, plus a few more besides (e.g. why black females seemingly have a stronger work ethic than black males).

Rushton responds that Miller’s theory is not really an alternative but is incorporated into his own (Rushton and Ankney 1993).

However, this merely begs the question of what relying on the concept of r/K selection theory really adds to the explanation provided by Miller, other than reliance on a problematic concept itself increasingly abandoned by modern ecologists. Miller’s theory is more parsimonious.

Climate and Intelligence
Rushton argues that, in contrast to tropical areas:

“Colonising temperate and cold environments leads to increased cognitive demands to solve the problems of gathering food and gaining shelter and general survival in cold winters” (p228).

This, he argues, is because, outside the tropics, plant food is available only seasonally, hunting is more difficult and individuals must develop technologies such as clothing, fire and shelter to keep warm.

This seems plausible but hardly compelling. The usual charge against sociobiological theories—that they represent ‘just-so stories’ that are easy to formulate but difficult to test—for once seems valid.

For example, Rushton contends:

“Hunting in the open grasslands of Northern Europe was more difficult than hunting in the woodlands of the tropics and subtropics where there is plenty of cover for hunters to hide in” (p228).

But, if hunting is aided by greater availability of cover in Northern Europe, then this presumably assisted predators in hunting humans just as much as it helped humans in hunting for themselves—and there is no obvious reason why the greater difficulty of avoiding predation in Africa would not have selected just as strongly for intelligence as the greater difficulty of hunting in temperate zones.

Moreover, if it is true that conditions were more propitious in Africa due to the greater availability of plant foods, then, according to basic Darwinian—and Malthusian—principles, the thriving population, unless limited by other factors (e.g. war, disease), would expand to reach the carrying capacity of this environment at which point the environment would no longer be so favorable.

Thus, since populations expand to reach the carrying capacity of their environments, ecological factors such as this are unlikely be the driving factor behind the evolution of human intelligence, and biologists have instead looked to social factors.

At any rate, a critical test for this theory of the influence of climate on intelligence is provided by Eskimos. They have been subjected to the harshest winters of any extant human race, but, according to Lynn, their average IQ is only about 91, well below Europeans and East Asians (Race Differences in Intelligence: p250-252, p212).

This is despite the fact that they are also classed as ‘Mongoloid’ under Rushton’s rather simplistic racial taxonomy and, according to data cited by Lynn, have larger brains than any other group, a factor also emphasized by Rushton (Ibid.: p153, p212).

Data & Taxonomy
Race differences in IQ have been far more intensively studied than the other race differences which Rushton reports. The data on penis size are especially unreliable given the intimate nature of the measurements required.

Even with regard to IQ differences, the difference between blacks and whites (especially blacks and whites in the US) has been far more intensively studied than that between whites and Asians, the latter disparity being both smaller in magnitude and less consistent.

Indeed, the higher IQ attributed to so-called Mongoloids is actually limited to East Asians. South-East Asians, also classed as Mongoloid, have lower IQs than Europeans, as do Native Americans, whom Rushton also classes as Mongoloid for some purposes, namely when the data is consistent with his theory, especially during Chapter Seven, when discussing race differences in personality and rates of maturation.

This reflects the gross over-simplicity of Rushton’s tripartite racial taxonomy.

Finally, it is only in respect the black-white IQ gap that there is substantial evidence bearing on the issue of whether these differences are mediated by environment or genetics, such as transracial adoption studies and studies of racial admixture. Even here, findings conflict and are open to interpretation (Rushton & Jensen 2005; Nisbett 2005; IQ and Human Intelligence: p324-359).

Conclusion
Research on controversial topics must not be suppressed. Rushton’s research represents both a legitimate scientific endeavour and potentially socially valuable given the social consequences of the differences uncovered.

The differences Rushton reports seem mostly to be real and likely partly innate. Most interesting is the recurrent three-way pattern, what Steve Sailer calls ‘Rushton’s rule of three’, whereby, for many traits, blacks and East Asians consistently appear at opposite ends of a spectrum, with whites intermediate but usually closer to Asians.

However, Rushton fails to provide a plausible theoretical explanation for these differences.

His book is, however, a legitimate, if flawed, scientific work and deserves scholarly critique rather than suppression.

It is only by allowing the free discussion of ideas, even ideas currently perceived as offensive (and even ideas that turn out to be wrong) that knowledge and science—and by extension humanity—can progress.

Even if Galileo had been wrong about the earth rovolving around the sun, his persecution by the Church was more wrong still.

References
Bowman 2008 Why the human penis is larger than in the great apes. Archives of Sexual Behavior 37(3):361
Diamond 1986 Ethnic differences: Variation in human testis Size. Nature 320:488–489
Dutton 2022 Europeans Have Larger Testes than Sub-Saharan Africans but Lower Testosterone Levels. Mankind Quarterly, 62(3):484–497
Gallup & Burch 2004 Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy in humans. Evolutionary Psychology 2:12-23
Goetz et al 2005 Mate retention, semen displacement, and human sperm competition: A preliminary investigation of tactics to prevent and correct female infidelity. Personality & Individual Differences 38:749-763
Goetz et al 2007 Sperm Competition in Humans: Implications for Male Sexual Psychology, Physiology, Anatomy & Behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research 18:1
Lynn 1990 Testosterone and gonadotropin levels and r/K reproductive strategies. Psychological Reports 67(3):1203-1206
Lynn 2013 Rushton's r-K life history theory of race differences in penis length and circumference examined in 113 populations, Personality & Individual Differences 55(3):261-266
Miller 1993 Could r selection account for the African personality and life-cycle? Personality & Individual Differences 15(6):665
Miller 1994 Paternal provisioning versus mate seeking in human populations, Personality & Individual Differences 17:227-255
Nisbett 2005. Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ, Psychology, Public Policy & Law 11:302-310.
Rushton & Ankney 1993 The evolutionary selection of human races: A response to Miller. Personality and Individual Differences 15:677-680
Rushton & Jensen 2005 Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11:235-294

[chloe · Rating 1 out of 5]

yeah, fuck this

(yes because it's racist, no not because the truth upsets me, but because it's fucking wrong and misuses stats and r/K to misrepresent his perceived 3 races)

[Alejandro Heracles al-Mu'minin]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam sed ante in libero feugiat consequat. Nullam et magna sit amet purus tempus malesuada. Etiam interdum facilisis imperdiet. Morbi nec risus vitae odio vestibulum accumsan. Etiam condimentum sagittis turpis eget egestas. Morbi et velit ut ligula sollicitudin semper. Sed et eros in neque consectetur condimentum. Morbi faucibus leo eu ligula volutpat lacinia

[James Henderson · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was one of the books I read in the first year of the Wednesday Study Group that is now in its eleventh year. Ruchton's book describes hundreds of studies worldwide that show a consistent pattern of human racial differences in such characteristics as intelligence, brain size, genital size, strength of sex drive, reproductive potency, industriousness, sociability, and rule following. However, I found his use of statistics questionable and, given the incendiary nature of his conclusions, would have preferred that he consider the impact of environmental factors in a more comprehensive way. His one-sided approach undermines his conclusions robbing them of scientific merit.

[Ryan Seidemann · Rating 1 out of 5]

Abysmally misinformed assessment of human variation. Rushton relies on 19th century science that has been proven to be biased or outright falsified to support his outmoded notions of racial differences. It is shocking to think that this sort of junk science is still finding an audience today. The idea that this book encapsulates mainstream scientific thought on the concepts of human variation is disappointing. Whether Rushton admits it or not-an he does not-this book represents a poor use of science to justify 19th century notions of racial differences. Do not read this book unless you want to be misinformed an outright lied to.

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read an abridged version of this book. I don't know the field, but based on some other readings (The Bell Curve, Charles Murray), I am assuming his facts are correct. I don't agree with his interpretation of those facts, per se (that race differences are all evolutionary), but if the differences are true, we still have to deal with them. What does a society do with this information?

[Daivy · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is not a book to be put into all hands given the number of politically incorrect elements described in it.

Short and well written, this book also includes a Q&A section to answer the most common objections.

It makes you want to read the unabridged version!

[Lucio · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book, even abridged has pretty much all what vulgar people need.

[Radu · Rating 5 out of 5]

A simple and easy to read booklet that remains highly controversial to this day due to the subject matter it addresses.

[Ian Pitchford · Rating 1 out of 5]

The best one can say about this book is that it's a very superior form of pseudoscience.

[Ralph N · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's an interesting book, for sure. I wanted to check this out before checking out the even more controversial "Bell Curve".

So some of the assertions in this book seem actually factual, and the jury's still out how much of it is genetic vs. environmental. Though I more believe it's more of the latter, I must admit I may be a bit biased due to my liberal arts education.

As a small note, I did laugh as he talked about his application of R/K selection theory to Blacks, Whites, and Asians.

[Christopher Byram · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is described as an authoritative work on differences between human beings.

[Brian Fang · Rating 3 out of 5]

seminal modern work on human diversity. read abridged version.

[German · Rating 5 out of 5]

https://archive.org/details/philipper...

[Eva Martinez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Politically incorrect
Scientifically sound
Highly recommendable