Oysters, rabbits and people: A critique of “race differences in behaviour” by J.P. Rushton

Rushton's article is criticized for its logic, the credibility of some of its sources, selectivity from the literature and from data within studies, failing to consider diversity in subgroups within races that may exceed differences between races, lack of analysis of racial differences in socioeconomic status and how this might influence group differences, and failure to apply statistical tests to minute differences between means. A wide range of phenomena assumed to be heritable are linked with the idea that they serve a reproductive end. However, there is no evidence that fertility itself is heritable. Large scale studies have shown no racial differences in diagnoses or on the MMPI that fit Rushton's theory. Rushton's analysis of international data on the EPQ is selective, ignoring the variance within racial groups and the scale of greatest relevance for his theory: P. An analysis of the data on this scale reveals no results in conformance with his theory. Data on sexual behavior is based on small and unrepresentative samples of blacks. Sizes of heads and genitals are compared with no obvious connection to the primary issue of biological fertility strategies. Everything is assumed to be on a primarily genetic basis although sexual mores have shown remarkable changes in a single generation.