Help: Rushton

Roland Chrisjohn, Ph. D. rchrisjo at
Tue Dec 7 05:28:09 MST 1999

At 09:07 PM 12/6/99 -0600, you wrote:

>I teach Introduction to Sociology at Kansas State University and in
>response to my lectures on race and ethnicity have received an anaonymous
>copy of *Race Evolution and Behavior* by J. Phillippe Rushton.  It is the
>usual racist crap, so I would like to respond in lecture tommorow.
>Can anybody point me towards information taking apart more recent
>attempts to establish a racist biology and or dirt on Rushton in
>particular.  I've got Gould's *Mismeasure of Man* and a few other articles
>but any other suggestions would be appreciated.
>Sean Noonan
>seanno at

Sorry to respond so late, but we're an hour ahead of everyone out here.

Two good sources against the Rushton thing are (1) The IQ Mythology, by
Mensh & Mensh (better, in my opinion, than Gould), and (2) Intelligence,
Genes, and Success, by Devlin, Fienberg, Resnick, and Roeder (up-to-date,
and covering a variety of issues).

Doug Wahlsten at the University of Alberta is a member of a group that has
made a point of disputing Rushton's work.  These are published in various
places, by Wahlsten himself can be approached at .

Rushton was actually on my doctoral committee when I was at University of
Western Ontario.  He wasn't frothing, but, like most psychologists, simply
incapable of understanding the ideological nature of his enterprise.  He
created the "Galileo Personna" you see from time-to-time, that he's "just a
scientist" peresecuted for saying unpopular things, but "the truth must
come out."  He also liked to pretend that he used to be a radical
environmentalist, but that "the data changed his mind."  In fact he never
was, not that I could ever see, anyway.  He was short on math, not being
able to understand any of the genetic equations he sprinkled though his
work (Atam Vetta's work on this was available even back then, and Rushton
wouldn't read them when I dropped them off for him).  Even rather standard
psychological research was beyond him, and (when we were doing a joint
research study) it was only with the greatest difficulty that I could
dissuade him from running off with the first computer printouts as if "the
analysis was done!"

In my opinion, Rushton simply made the choice "scientists" at universities
usually make: accept money from whatever source to advance one's
career.  That the Heritage Foundation was willing to throw money his way
and he was willing to take it marks him as avaricious, amoral, expedient...
and common.

Roland Chrisjohn

More information about the Marxism mailing list