Race is More Than Just Skin Deep: A Psychologist's View
Af professor J. Philippe Rushton
This article defends the concept of "race" against a coordinated
political campaign to deconstrunct basic biology. It briefly
reviews some of the most reliably documented Black-White
differences, such as those in brain size, IQ, violent crime,
testosterone, sexuality and AIDs. Although these racial differences
are now reliably found worldwide (not just within the USA), many in
the media and scholarly associations continue to try and deny them
or attribute them to "political circumstance." "Statements on Race"
made by organizations such as the American Association for
Anthropology are discussed and found to be wanting
Professor J. Philippe Rushton
I originally wrote this paper in reaction to a Knight-Ridder
article ("Genetic Basis For Race Said To Be Just Skin Deep,"
October 13, 1996), which argued that race has no validity as a
biological concept when applied to man, seeking to defend the
concept of "race" against a coordinated political campaign to
deconstruct basic biology. Since then numerous other media stories
have appeared purporting to debunk the reality of race, some
playing off policy statements by scholarly organizations such as
the one adopted by the American Association of Anthropology on May
17, 1998. Worse, governments have become actively involved in
propagating the misinformation.
I originally wrote this paper in reaction to a Knight-Ridder
article ("Genetic Basis For Race Said To Be Just Skin Deep,"
October 13, 1996), which argued that race has no validity as a
biological concept when applied to man. I disseminated the paper on
the Internet and elsewhere, seeking to defend the concept of "race"
against a coordinated political campaign to deconstruct basic
biology. Since then numerous other media stories have appeared
purporting to debunk the reality of race, some playing off policy
statements made by scholarly organizations. Worse, governments have
become actively involved in propagating the misinformation.
The most recent example of a policy statement on race by a
scholarly organization is the one adopted by the American
Association of Anthropology on May 17, 1998 (to be discussed
further below). Yet the AAA Statement on Race is empirically false
when it argues that "physical variations in the human species have
no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them" and that
any observed group differences are the result of social
conditioning and "political circumstance" (September 1998
Anthropolgy Newsletter, p. 3). To take one relevant
example, consider the relationship between brain size and
intelligence.
During the 19th century, physical anthropologists found that
Blacks averaged smaller brains than Whites. Whether measuring the
weight of the brain or the size of the cranial cavity, they
consistently found a difference equivalent to about 100 cubic
centimeters. The difference was well documented as early as the
1840s by the "American school" of anthropology, which included
Samuel G. Morton, Joshiah C. Nott, and George R. Glidden. It was
corroborated from the 1860s to the 1890s by European
anthropologists, such as Paul Broca and Paul Topinard in France,
who compared Blacks and Whites from Africa and Europe. Broca (1873)
wrote: "West Africans have a cranial capacity about 100 cm[sup 3]
less than the European races."
The data on race differences in brain size were so widely known
that Charles Darwin (1871) was able to cite them as evidence in
favor of his then controversial theory of human evolution in
The Descent of Man. Even Franz Boas, who is often
described as the "real" founder of American anthropology and the
first to challenge "Eurocentric racism," added further knowledge
about brain size and race by emphasizing the amount of overlap in
the distributions. On a visit to England in 1889, Boas had became
acquainted with Sir Francis Galton's work on biometrics and, in his
1894 article "Human Faculty Determined by Race," pointed out that
Topinard's measurements revealed that 27 percent of Blacks exceeded
the White average. His inference: "We might, therefore, anticipate
a lack of men of high genius (among Blacks)." And, he wrote, "It
would seem that the greater the central nervous system, the higher
the faculty of the race and the greater its aptitude to mental
development."
In 1910, Boas again acknowledged that the "average" Black brain
was "smaller than that of other races." Remarkably, Boas published
this in Crisis, the organ of the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Boas wrote "We may,
therefore, expect less average ability and also, on account of
probable anatomical differences, somewhat different mental
tendencies." These early works were enlarged in his 1911 book,
The Mind of Primitive Man.
To the modern eye it is astounding to see these data discussed
so openly, and from scientists with such diverse viewpoints. Some
were sympathetic to slavery (Nott and Glidden), some were
anti-evolutionists (Morton), others in favor of evolution (Broca,
Topinard), and some avowedly pro-Black and anti-racist (Boas).
Unfortunately, today, the data can scarcely be mentioned in polite
society, or even at scientific meetings.
In recent times, what I have dubbed the "hermeneuticist"
perspective has so come to dominate anthropology that it has
effectively removed the topic from the social scientific radar
screen. Hermeneuticists approach race, brain size, and IQ, as
epiphenomena, mere social constructions (Rushton, 1997c). They
argue that political, economic, and even linguistic forces are the
real causal agents that have created the concepts of "race" and
"IQ" and deemed them worthy of study. Rather than research race,
hermeneuticists research those who do. The current popularity of
the hermeneuticist position might best be demonstrated using some
vivid examples.
Deconstructing Race
"Race is a fiction, Racism is real" proclaimed the August 1998
placards on the Metro buses of Washington, D.C. The D.C. government
is not alone in spending taxpayers money in the crusade against
race. A 1995 campaign against racism by the British Commission for
Racial Equality featured a slick Madison Avenue-like poster of four
brains. Three of the brains are the same size and are labeled
"African," "Asian," and "European." The fourth brain, much smaller
than the others, is labeled "Racist." Because there are, in fact,
significant differences between the races in average brain size
(see below), the poster campaign by the Commission for Racial
Equality constitutes state-sponsored misinformation.
The government campaigns are based on policy statements made by
professional bodies. A resolution denouncing racism at the 1938
meeting of the American Anthropological Association broke the mold
to the idea that scientific societies should be apolitical (Degler,
1991, p. 203). Ideological resolutions began in earnest with the
1952 "Statement on Race" issued by 14 anthropologists and
geneticists under the auspices of UNESCO (Comas, 1961). Since then,
several endorsements and modifications to the 1952 Statement have
appeared. In December 1994, for example, the American
Anthropological Association (AAA) adopted a "Statement on `Race'
and Intelligence" which read in part:
The American Anthropological Association (AAA) is deeply
concerned by recent public discussions which imply that
intelligence is biologically determined by race. Repeatedly
challenged by scientists, nevertheless these ideas continue to be
advanced. Such discussions distract public and scholarly attention
from and diminish support for the collective challenge to ensure
equal opportunities for all people, regardless of ethnicity or
phenotypic variation.
Earlier AAA resolutions against racism (1961, 1969, 1971, 1972)
have spoken to this concern. The AAA further resolves:
WHEREAS all human beings are members of one species, Homo
sapiens, and
WHEREAS differentiating species into biologically defined
"races" has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of
explaining variation (whether in intelligence or other traits),
THEREFORE, the American Anthropological Association urges the
academy, our political leaders and our communities to affirm,
without distraction by mistaken claims of racially determined
intelligence, the common stake in assuring equal opportunity, in
respecting diversity and in securing a harmonious quality of life
for all people.
The American Association of Physical Anthropologists soon
followed suit. Their 1996 "AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of
Race" was originally published in the American Journal of
Physical Anthropology (which had earlier published the UNESCO
Statement) and was reprinted in the 1998/99 Annual Edition of
Physical Anthropology. In fact, the AAPA did not deny the
validity of race but, by carefully worded ambiguity, attempted to
obscure its meaning out of existence. Point 11 of the AAPA
Statement reads:
Although heredity influences the behavioral variability of
individuals within a given population, it does not affect the
ability of any such population to function in a given social
setting. The genetic capacity for intellectual development is one
of the biological traits of our species essential for its survival.
This genetic capacity is known to differ among individuals. The
peoples of the world today appear to possess equal capacity for
assimilating any human culture. Racist political doctrines find no
foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human
populations.
In September 1997, the AAA drafted yet another statement in
Anthropology Newsletter and invited commentaries. A final
version of the AAA draft was adopted by the Executive Board on May
17, 1998 and published in the September 1998 (p. 3) issue of
Anthropology Newsletter. It not only denied that there
were gene-based behavioral differences among the races but bordered
on Europhobia when it accused White scientists of "fabricating" the
concept of race in order to justify slavery, colonialism, and
murder. It made no mention of efforts to explain natural
variation.
As they were constructing US society, leaders among
European-Americans fabricated the cultural/behavioral
characteristics associated with each race, linking superior traits
with Europeans and negative and inferior ones to blacks and
Indians. Numerous arbitrary and fictitious beliefs about the
different peoples were institutionalized and deeply embedded in
American thought....
Ultimately race as an ideology about human differences was
subsequently spread to other areas of the world....not limited to
the colonial situation....During World War II, the Nazis under
Adolf Hitler enjoined the expanded ideology of race and racial
differences and took them to a logical end: the extermination of 11
million people of "inferior races" (e.g., Jews, Gypsies, Africans,
homosexuals and so forth) and other unspeakable brutalities of the
Holocaust....
At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human
cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at
birth, and always subject to modification....
It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all human
beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior....we
conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called racial
groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but
products of historical and contemporary social, economic,
educational and political circumstances.
So now we know! Some discussion of the AAA Statement was hyped
in the media. "No Biological Basis for Race, Scientists Say"
proclaimed the San Francisco Chronicle (February 23,
1998). Science writer Charles Petit quoted the AAA as saying that
"The concept of race is a social and cultural construction ....
Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically...It is clear
that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated,
biologically distinct groups. The concept of `race' has no
validity...in the human species." Petit went on to add supportive
quotes from Jonathan Marks, a well known Berkeley anthropologist,
Robert Sussman, an editor of the American Anthropologist,
and Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, the Stanford University geneticist. He
also cited Jefferson Fish, a psychologist at St. John's University
in New York who challenged President Clinton's Initiative on Race
because he believes the very concept of race is bogus. "This
dialogue on race is driving me up the wall," said Fish. "What is
race?" The reporter answered for him: "It is a biologically
meaningless category."
Other scholarly associations and media pundits also weighed in,
although with less extreme a position. "Scientists Dismiss Race as
Key to Human Origins" declared Guardian writer David
Beresford (July 8, 1998). This story, distributed widely by Scripps
Howard News, reported on a "dual congress" held by the
International Association for the Study of Human Paleontology and
the International Association of Human Biologists at Sun City,
South Africa. At the conference the question was raised whether the
"Out of Africa" theory or the "Multi-Regional" theory of human
origins had the most implications for current race differences. At
the heart of this argument is whether the Homo erectus
ancestor who left Africa 1.5 million years ago subsequently gave
rise to Homo sapiens independently in several geographic
regions (the Multi-Regional theory) or whether just one variety of
erectus, in Africa, gave rise to modern Homo
sapiens, who then went forth a mere 150,000 years ago to
replace the remnants of erectus (the Out of Africa
theory). Christopher Stringer of the British Museum and Sir Walter
Bodmer of Oxford University were cited as part of the growing
consensus in favor of the Out of Africa theory -- and to argue this
meant there had been too little time for the races to have
genetically diverged very far.
In fact, of course, whether one adheres to the Multi-Regional or
the Out of Africa theory (this author agrees with Out of Africa),
the amount of racial variation in various traits (including brain
size -- see below) cannot be wished into non-existence. Like them
or not, the observed racial differences are there for anyone who
cares to observe them. No theoretical sleight of hand can make them
disappear. The argument about too little time actually turns
evolution upside down. As Sarich (1995, p. 86) points out, "it is
the Out of Africa model, not that of regional continuity, which
makes racial differences more functionally significant. It does so
because the amount of time involved in the raciation process is
much smaller, while obviously, the degree of racial differentiation
is the same -- large. The shorter the period of time required to
produce a given amount of morphological difference, the more
selectively important the differences become."
Those objecting to the concept of race like to argue that
taxonomic definitions are arbitrary and subjective. For example,
race-critic Jared Diamond, in the 1994 issue of Discover
Magazine, surveyed half a dozen geographically variable traits
and was able to form a number of very different pseudo-races
depending on which traits he picked. Classifying people using
anti-malarial genes, lactose tolerance, fingerprint patterns, or
skin color resulted in the Swedes of Europe being placed in the
same category as the Xhosa and Fulani of Africa, the Ainu of Japan,
and the Italians of Europe.
Diamond's classifications, however, are nonsensical. They are
far more arbitrary than the traditional classifications because the
traits he singles out for classifying have little, if any,
predictive value beyond the initial classification. Such schemes
are not only confused, but dishonest, because they deliberately
side-step the long accepted scientific meaning of race -- a
recognizable (or distinguishable) geographic population
based on common descent.
Race as a Biological Concept
Deconstructing the concept of race not only goes against the
tendency of virtually every known culture to classify and build
family histories according to some measure of common descent, it
also ignores the work of biologists studying non-human species.
Ever since 1758, when the Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus
created the classification system still used in biology today, most
zoologists have recognized at least the four human subdivisions
that Linnaeus categorized: Asians, American Indians, Europeans, and
Africans. (Technically, some would group the first two Linnaean
subdivisions together, thus yielding three major races, often
termed, Mongoloids, Caucasoids, and Negroids.) Most researchers
since Linnaeus have accepted these four and added the Australian
Aborigines, Pacific Islanders, and some other numerically minor
groups. Others have made finer subdivisions within each major
group.
A race is what zoologists term a variety or subdivision of a
species. Each race (or variety) is characterized by a more or less
distinct combination of inherited morphological, behavioral, and
physiological traits. In flowers, insects, and non-human mammals,
zoologists consistently and routinely study the process of racial
differentiation. Formation of a new race takes place when, over
several generations, individuals in one group reproduce more
frequently among themselves than they do with individuals in other
groups. This process is most apparent when the individuals live in
diverse geographic areas and therefore evolve unique, recognizable
adaptations (such as skin color) that are advantageous in their
specific environments. But differentiation also occurs under less
extreme circumstances. Zoologists and evolutionists refer to such
differentiated populations as races. (Within biology, races are
termed subspecies.) Zoologists have identified two or more races
(subspecies) in most mammalian species.
Scientists do not believe that human beings are exempt from
biological classification. In everyday life, as in evolutionary
biology, a "Negroid" is someone whose ancestors were born in
sub-Saharan Africa, and likewise a "Caucasoid" is someone whose
ancestors originated in Europe or the Middle East and a "Mongoloid"
is someone whose ancestors originated in east Asia. This definition
fits with the temporal bounds offered by the out of Africa theory
of human evolution mentioned at the beginning of the article. Thus,
according to the estimates prvided by Cavalli-Sforza et al (1994)
since Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa about 200,000
years ago, branched off into the Middle East and Europe about
110,000 years ago, and into Eastern Asia 70,000 years after that, a
Negroid is someone whose ancestors, between 4,000 and (to
accommodate recent migrations) 20 generations ago, were born in
sub-Saharan Africa. Similarly, a Caucasoid is someone whose
ancestors were born in the Middle East or Europe, and mutatis
mutandis for a Mongoloid.
On average, the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese are more similar
to each other and are different from Australians, Israelis and the
Swedes, who in turn are similar to each other and are different
from Nigerians, Kenyans, and Jamaicans. Of course, individuals vary
greatly within each racial group. It is correct to point out that
the variation within each race is extremely large, that there is
disagreement as to exactly how many races there are, and that there
is a blurring of category edges because of admixture. But it is an
error when critics claim that classifications are arbitrary.
Although some social concepts of race correlate poorly with
biological relationships (Hispanics, for example, are not
biologically an identifiable "race," but represent a variety of
admixtures of diverse racial components), self-identification
generally accords quite well with the physical evidence.
Also, just as some plant and animal sub-species represent either
intermixed or historically intermediate forms, many human
populations are also mixed. Thus while clear distinctions identify
the central tendency of the Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid
people, many intermediate forms, representing genetic gradients,
can be found. Interbreeding of diverse racial types, as a result of
population mobility in today's world, is also affecting the human
biological scene.
Yet despite all this, human racial variation is still marked by
obvious differences in skeletal morphology, hair and facial
features, as well by blood groups and DNA fingerprints. Forensic
anthropologists regularly classify skeletons of decomposed bodies
by race. For example, narrow nasal passages and a short distance
between eye sockets identify a Caucasoid person, distinct
cheekbones characterize a Mongoloid person, and nasal openings
shaped like an upside down heart typify a Negroid person (Ubelaker
& Scammel, 1992). In certain criminal investigations, the race
of a perpetrator can be identified from blood, semen, and hair
samples. To deny the predictive validity of race at this level is
nonscientific and unrealistic.
Some Historical Context
It is noteworthy that this Statement on Race is appearing in the
Mankind
Quarterly whose opening editorial in July 1960 (nearly 40
years ago) called for a new journal devoted to race research. That
same editorial criticized the anthropology of its day for having
abandoned the Darwinian evolutionary tradition. Appropriately
enough, the very first article in MQ was by Sir Charles
Darwin (18871962), grandson of the famous naturalist, on the
subject of "World Population."
Mainstream anthropology immediately charged MQ with
"racism." Current Anthropology opened its pages to Juan
Comas (1961), who published a long article with the inflammatory
title of "`Scientific' Racism Again?" This article attacked the
MQ and its editors, denied the evidence of Black-White
differences in brain size, defended the culture theory of race
differences in intelligence and crime, and reprinted the 1952
UNESCO "Statement on the Nature of Race and Race Differences"
(commonly known as the "Statement on Race"). MQ was also
denounced in such journals as Race, Man, and Science. However, the
editors of MQ stuck to their guns and fired back. For
example, Henry E. Garrett (1960a, 1960b) challenged the 100%
culture hypothesis of Black-White differences in intelligence, set
out the hereditarian perspective, and defended MQ against
charges of racism.
Those 40-year-old debates over race differences clearly touched
on deeply held values. Both sides often displayed an intemperate
tone. Politics intruded then, just as it does today. But the
debates of that time seem to me to have had more structure and
substance than those of today. There appeared to be at least an
illusion of possible scholarly resolution. Discussion in those days
centered primarily on the causes of the gap in school achievement
between Blacks and Whites in the U.S., and whether desegregation
and school busing would diminish it. The protagonists were
identified as "hereditarians" (those who believed in a partly
genetic hypothesis for Black-White differences), and
"environmentalists" (who attributed the differences to poverty,
relative deprivation, poor schools, and racism). Today,
unfortunately, the debate has been deconstructed.
Indeed, nothing in the history of the social sciences has been
so persistently intrusive as the issue of the relative importance
of genetic and environmental determinants of behavior, especially
of Black-White differences (Degler, 1991). Ever since World War I,
when widespread testing began, Blacks have averaged lower IQ scores
than Whites, at several age levels, under a variety of conditions,
and in Canada and the Caribbean as well as in the U.S. (see reviews
by Shuey [1958, 1966], Osborne & McGurk [1982], Jensen [1998],
and others). Despite an overlap of 10-30 percent, which means that
many Blacks obtained scores above the White mean, the average
differences persisted and were statistically significant.
The current instantiation of the controversy dates from the
publication of Arthur R. Jensen's (1969) controversial monograph in
the Harvard Educational Review. Jensen presented several
propositions: (1) IQ tests measure a general-ability dimension of
great social relevance; (2) individual differences on this
dimension have a high heritability; (3) educational programs have
proved generally ineffective in changing the relative status of
individuals and groups on this dimension; (4) social mobility is
linked to ability, so social-class differences in IQ probably have
an appreciable genetic component; and (5) Black-White differences
in IQ probably have a genetic component.
The publication of The Bell Curve (Herrnstein &
Murray, 1994) unleashed yet another torrent of debate. The book
reported original analyses of 11,878 youths (3,022 of whom were
Black) from the 12-year National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
(NLSY). Most 17-year-olds with high scores on the Armed Forces
Qualification Test (Black as well as White) went on to occupational
success by their late 20s and early 30s whereas many of those with
low scores went on to welfare dependency. The average IQ for
African Americans was found to be lower than those for Latino,
White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103, 106, and 115,
respectively, pp. 273-278).
Once more, the flashpoint of discussion was whether the
Black-White difference in IQ was partly genetic in origin. It was
the furor over The Bell Curve that had led the AAA to
undertake its most recent round of policy statements. It also led
the American Psychological Association (APA) to establish an 11
person Task Force to fill an "urgent need" for an authoritative
report "about the meaning of intelligence test scores and the
nature of intelligence" (Neisser et al. 1996). The Task Force
accepted the substantial heritability found for IQ from studies of
monozygotic twins who have been reared apart as well as from
studies of other kinds of kinship (p. 85). But about race
differences in IQ, they concluded: "There is certainly no
[empirical] support for a genetic interpretation" (p. 97).
Having just written Race, Evolution, and Behavior
(Rushton, 1995), describing three distinct racial profiles ranging
over 60 anatomical and social variables including brain size,
personality and temperament, sexual habits and fertility, and speed
of maturation and longevity, I was struck by the amount of evidence
sidestepped in the various "Statements" by the AAA, by the APA
report, and by other critics. I responded in the February 1996
issue of Current Anthropology, in the January 1997 issue
of the American Psychologist, and in a 1996 Internet
posting. This is an update to the ongoing discussion.
Review of Current Race Differences
Much has been learned about Black-White differences since the
original debates in this journal. Indeed, the debate has been
greatly extended to include Orientals, and data from around the
world, not just the U.S. The debate has also been widened to
include variables beyond IQ. In my 1995 book, I review the
behavioral, morphological, and physiological differences between
the three major human races -- Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid --
and show that these statistical differences are constant across
both historical time, national boundaries, and political and
economic systems.
Because the very earliest debates in MQ were primarily
about the nature of Black-White differences in IQ, I will focus on
this issue here. Those early protagonists, like Henry E. Garrett
(1960a, 1960b), turn out to have been correct about the heritable
nature of Black-White differences. Some of this confirmatory work
was in fact published in the MQ, the best known of which
is probably Richard Lynn's (1991a, 1991b) review of the worldwide
distribution of intelligence which was brought to wide attention by
the publication of Herrnstein and Murray's (1994) The Bell
Curve. I will also review the relationship between
intelligence and brain size, the worldwide distribution of brain
size, and finally the heritability of intelligence. Few of the race
debunkers are willing to acknowledge any of these data, though they
grow stronger every day. Readers seeking a more extensive summary
can consult Herrnstein and Murray's (1994) The Bell Curve,
Levin's (1997) Why Race Matters, Jensen's (1998) The g
Factor, or my own (1995) Race, Evolution, and
Behavior.
1. The geographical distribution of intelligence. As
documented by these authors, one hundred years of research has
established that East Asians and Europeans average higher IQs than
do Africans. Various East Asian populations measured in North
America and in Pacific Rim countries typically average IQs in the
range of 101 to 111. Whites in North America typically average IQs
between 100 and 105 African populations living south of the Sahara,
in North America, in the Caribbean, and in Britain typically have
mean IQs from 70 to 90 (see Lynn, 1997, for a recent review).
Parallel differences are found on relatively culture-free tests
such as speed of decision making. Probably the simplest culture
free mental tests are reaction time tests. In the "odd-man-out"
test, Nine to twelve year-old children look at a set of lights.
They have to decide which one goes on, and then press the button
closest to that light. The test is so easy that all children can do
it in less than one second. Even here, children with higher IQ
scores are faster than lower IQ children. Around the world,
Oriental children are faster than White children who in turn are
faster than Black children (Jensen, 1998).
2. The relationship between intelligence and brain
size. Remarkable discoveries have been made during the 1990's
Decade of the Brain using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). These
MRI studies, which construct three-dimensional models of the brain
in vivo, show a correlation of about 0.40 between brain size and
IQ, as replicable a set of results as can be found in the social
and behavioral sciences. The first MRI/IQ studies were published in
the late 1980s and early 1990s in leading, refereed, mainstream
journals like Intelligence (Willerman et al., 1991) and
the American Journal of Psychiatry (Andreasen et al.,
1993). My article "Brain Size and Cognitive Ability" in the 1996
issue of the journal Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
(Rushton & Ankney, 1996) surveyed all the published literature
on this topic. The MRI brain size/IQ correlation of .44 is as high
as the correlation between social class at birth and adult IQ.
3. The parallel geographical distribution of brain
size. Racial differences in brain size have been established
recently using wet brain weight at autopsy, volume of empty skulls
using filler, volume estimated from head sizes, and MRI. Using
brain mass at autopsy, Ho et al. (1980) reported a 100 gram
difference in brain weight between Whites and Blacks in the U.S.
Using endocranial volume Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984, p. 307, Table
5) analyzed about 20,000 skulls from around the world. East Asians
and Europeans averaged 1,389 cm[sup 3] while Africans averaged
1,268 cm[sup 3]. Using external head measures to calculate cranial
capacities, Rushton (1992) analyzed a sample of thousands of U.S.
Army personnel. Even after correcting for body size, Asian and
European Americans averaged 1,398 cm[sup 3], while African
Americans averaged 1,359 cm[sup 3]. Rushton (1994) reported a study
of tens of thousands of men and women collected by the
International Labour Office in Geneva, Switzerland. Head sizes
(corrected for body size) were larger for East Asians and Europeans
than for Blacks. Moreover, a recent MRI study found that people of
African and Caribbean background averaged a smaller brain volume
than did those of European background (Harvey, Persaud, Ron, Baker
& Murray, 1994).
These racial differences in brain size show up early in life. In
an analysis of data from the U.S. National Collaborative Perinatal
Project on 35,000 children, Rushton (1997a) found that Asian and
White children averaged a larger head perimeter than did Black
children, even though, at age seven, Black children had the largest
body size. Further, head perimeter at seven years correlates with
IQ at age seven in all three racial groups.
4. The heritability of intelligence. The heritability
of intelligence is now well established from numerous adoption,
twin, and family studies. Particularly noteworthy are the
heritabilities of around 80% found in adult twins reared apart
(Bouchard, Lykken, McGue, Segal & Tellegen, 1990). Moderate to
substantial genetic influence on IQ has also been found in studies
of non-Whites, including African Americans and Japanese. Even the
most critical of meta-analyses find IQ about 50% heritable (Devlin,
Daniels & Roeder, 1997).
Transracial adoption studies suggest a genetic contribution to
the between-group differences. Korean and Vietnamese children
adopted into White American and Belgian families show that,
although as babies many came from poor backgrounds and were
malnourished, when they grew up they excelled in school. The IQs of
the adopted Oriental children were 10 or more points higher than
the national average for the country they grew up in (Frydman &
Lynn, 1989). By contrast, Weinberg, Scarr and Waldman (1992) found
that at age 17, Black and Mixed-Race children adopted into White
middle-class families performed at a lower level than the White
siblings with whom they had been raised.
5. Violent crime, AIDS, and sexuality. INTERPOL data
from the 1980s and 1990s shows the same racial pattern in violent
crime that occurs within the U.S. also occurs internationally.
Asian and European countries have an average rate of homicide,
rape, and serious assault that is less than one quarter that of
African and Caribbean countries.
One neurohormonal contributor to crime is testosterone. Studies
show that Black college students and military veterans have 3% to
19% more testosterone than their White counterparts. Sex hormones
are circulated throughout the body and are known to activate many
brain-behavior systems involving aggression and reproduction. For
example, around the world the rate of two-egg twinning (caused by a
double ovulation), is twice as high in Africans as in Asian and
Europeans (16, 8, and 4 per 1,000, respectively). The differences
in multiple birthing are known to be heritable through the race of
the mother regardless of the race of the father, as found in
European/African matings in Brazil.
Testosterone may also play a part in sexual behavior. A similar
international racial pattern is found for measures of sexual
activity and frequencies of sexually transmitted diseases such as
AIDS. The 1997 U.S. syphilis rate for Blacks was 24 times the rate
it was for Asians and Whites. Racial differences in AIDS/HIV are
increasingly well known. Currently 8 out of every 100 Africans are
infected with the AIDS virus. In South Africa, the estimates are
that about 10 % of the adult population is living with HIV. In some
areas of Africa the AIDS rate reaches 70%. Less well known is that
HIV infection rates are also high in the Black Caribbean, about 2%.
Thirty-three percent of the AIDS cases are women. This high figure
of women means the transmission is mainly from heterosexual
intercourse. The high rate of HIV in the 2,000 mile band of
Caribbean countries extends from Bermuda to Guyana, and it seems to
be the highest in Haiti, with a rate over 5%.
Black Americans also have high HIV rates, similar to Blacks
living in the Caribbean and Africa. Three percent of Black men and
1% of Black women in the U.S. are living with HIV. The rate for
White and Asian Americans is less than 0.1%. Of course AIDS is a
serious public health problem for all racial groups, but it is
especially so for Africans and people of African ancestry.
Conclusion
The ongoing campaign to deconstruct race as a biological concept
needs to be countered by a careful examination of what we do and do
not know about human variation. Academicians, journalists, and
editorialists have an obligation to review the evidence cited here
before offering any further comment on this controversial topic.
Moreover, those in academia and the media need to be aware that
major efforts are being made throughout Europe and Canada to stifle
free discussion of race by tightening so-called "hate-laws" and, in
the U.S.A., to restrict the way research can be conducted (and
funded). Implementation of such policies threatens the general
principles of free speech, open inquiry, and academic freedom and
tenure (Pearson, 1997).
Publication of Herrnstein and Murray's (1994) The Bell
Curve brought widespread public attention to the research on
race that has been accumulating over the last 30 years in technical
and specialist journals that demonstrably challenges each and every
article of the dogma of biological egalitarianism. Startling, and
alarming to many, is the conclusion that follows from these data
that if all people were treated the same, most average race
differences would not disappear. With egalitarianism under siege,
there has been a major effort to get the "race genie" back in the
bottle, to squeeze the previously tabooed toothpaste back into the
tube, to suppress or deny the latest scientific evidence on race,
genetics, and behavior.
Regardless of the extent to which the media promote "politically
correct," but scientifically wrong, resolutions from professional
societies such as the American Anthropological Association, facts
remain facts and require appropriate scientific, not political or
ideological, explanation.
None of this should be construed as meaning that environmental
factors play no part in individual and group differences. But with
each passing year and each new study, the evidence for the genetic
contribution to these differences becomes more firmly established
than ever.
References
AAA (1998, September). American Anthropological Association
Statement on "Race." Anthropology Newsletter, 39, 3.
AAPA (1996). AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 101,
569-570.
Andreasen, N. C., Flaum, M., Swayze II, V., O'Leary, D. S.,
Alliger, R., Cohen, G., Ehrhardt, J., & Yuh, W. T. C. (1993).
Intelligence and brain structure in normal individuals.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 130134.
Beals, K. L., Smith, C. L., & Dodd, S. M. (1984). Brain
size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines. Current
Anthropology, 25, 301 330.
Boas, F. (1894). Human faculty as determined by race.
Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 43, 301-327. [Reprinted in G. W. Stocking Jr. (Ed.),
The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-1911. A Franz Boas
Reader. New York: Basic Books, 1974.]
Boas, F. (1910, December). The real race problem. The
Crisis, 7. [Cited in V.J. Williams, Jr., Rethinking Race:
Franz Boas and His Contemporaries, Lexington, KY: University
Press of Kentucky, 1996.]
Boas, F. (1911). The Mind of Primitive Man. New York:
Macmillan.
Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Lykken, D. T., McGue, M., Segal, N. L.,
& Tellegen, A. (1990). Sources of human psychological
differences: The Minnesota study of twins reared apart.
Science, 250, 223-228.
Broca, P. (1873). Sur les cranes de la caverne de l'Homme-Mort
(Lozere). Revue d"Anthropologie, 2, 1-53. [Data cited in
V. J. Williams, Jr., Rethinking Race: Franz Boas and His
Contemporaries, Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky,
1996.]
Comas, J. (1961). "Scientific" racism again? Current
Anthropology, 2, 303-340.
Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man. London:
Murray.
Degler, C. N. (1991). In Search of Human Nature. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Devlin, B., Daniels, M., & Roeder, K. (1997). The
heritability of IQ. Nature, 388, 468-471.
Frydman, M., & Lynn, R. (1989). The intelligence of Korean
children adopted in Belgium. Personality and Individual
Differences, 10, 1323-1326.
Garrett, H.E. (1960a). Klineberg's chapter on race and
psychology: A review. Mankind Quarterly, 1, 15-22.
Garrett, H.E. (1960b). The scientific racism of Juan Comas.
Mankind Quarterly, 1, 100-106.
Harvey, I., Persaud, R., Ron, M. A., Baker, G., & Murray, R.
M. (1994). Volumetric MRI measurements in bipolars compared with
schizophrenics and healthy controls. Psychological
Medicine, 24, 689-699.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The Bell
Curve. New York: Free Press.
Ho, K. C., Roessmann, U., Straumfjord, J. V., & Monroe, G.
(1980). Analysis of brain weight. Archives of Pathology and
Laboratory Medicine, 104, 635-645.
Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic
achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 39, 1-123.
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g Factor. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Levin, M. (1997). Why Race Matters. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Lynn, R. (1991a). Race differences in intelligence: A global
perspective. Mankind Quarterly, 31, 255-296.
Lynn, R. (1991b). The evolution of racial differences in
intelligence (with commentaries and author's response). Mankind
Quarterly, 32, 99-173. Lynn, R. (1997).Geographical variation in
intelligence. In H. Nyborg (Ed.), The Scientific Study of Human
Nature: Essays in Honor of H.J. Eysenck. Oxford: Elsevier.
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Boykin, A. W.,
Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpem, D., Loehlin, J. C., Perloff, R.,
Sternberg, R. J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and
unknowns. American Psychologist, 15, 77-101.
Osborne, R. T., & McGurk, F. C. J. (1982). (Eds.), The
Testing of Negro Intelligence, Vol. 2. Athens, GA: Foundation
for Human Understanding.
Pearson, R. (1997). Race, Intelligence, and Bias in
Academe (2nd edition). Washington, DC: Scott-Townsend.
Rushton, J. P. (1992). Cranial capacity related to sex, rank,
and race in a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. military
personnel. Intelligence, 16, 401-413.
Rushton, J. P. (1994). Sex and race differences in cranial
capacity from International Labour Office data.
Intelligence, 19, 281-294.
Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life
History Perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Rushton, J. P. (1996). The eternal triangle: Race, class, and
IQ. [Discussion of the book The Bell Curve]. Current
Anthropology, 37, S168-S172.
Rushton, J. P. (1997a). Cranial size and IQ in Asian Americans
from birth to age seven. Intelligence, 25, 7-20.
Rushton, J. P. (1997b). Race, IQ, and the APA Report on The
Bell Curve. American Psychologist, 52, 69-81.
Rushton, J. P. (1997c). Review essay. [Review of the books
The Bell Curve Debate, The Bell Curve Wars, Final Solutions,
The Mismeasure of Man, The Nazi Connection, The Race Gallery, and
The Science and Politics of Racial Research.]
Society, 34, 78-82.
Rushton, J. P., & Ankney, C.D. (1996). Brain size and
cognitive ability: Correlations with age, sex, social class, and
race. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 21-36.
Sarich, V. M. (1995). In Defense of The Bell Curve.
Skeptic, 3(3), 84-93.
Shuey, A. M. (1958). The Testing of Negro Intelligence.
Lynchburg, VA: Bell.
Shuey, A. M. (1966). The Testing of Negro Intelligence
(2nd ed.). New York: Social Science Press.
Ubelaker, D., & Scammel, H. (1992). Bones: A Forensic
Detective's Casebook. New York: HarperCollins.
Weinberg, R. A., Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). The
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A follow-up of IQ test
performance at adolescence. Intelligence, 16, 117-135.
Willerman, L., Schultz, R., Rutledge, J. N., & Bigler, E. D.
(1991). In vivo brain size and intelligence. Intelligence,
15, 223-228.
Source
The Mankind
Quarterly, Winter 1998, Vol. 39 Issue 2, p231, 19p
Author
J.
Philippe Rushton is a psychology professor at the University of
Western Ontario, Canada.