What do you think?
Rate this book
Odyssey: My Life as a Controversial Evolutionary Psychologist
This book tells two intertwined stories. The first is the author's autobiography-how he became a controversial race researcher. The second describes the rise, fall, and rebirth of the Darwinian perspective in the behavioral sciences. Rushton's life story forms one strand in the entire tapestry of the history of the last 150 years of behavior genetics, psychometrics, and human sociobiology.
- GenresBiography
631 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 13, 2020
42 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 22, 2022
This is a great book in many respects. Firstly, it is a substantial edition easy to read with large pages and print but not unwieldy size, more importantly it is well written and covers a fascinating specific life's challenge (scientific inquiry and freedom in an age of politically correct intolerance) within the context of a fascinating subject (evolutionary theory applied to racial similarities and differences in humans).
I'm a little surprised how well Philippe Rushton (1943-2012) writes (very readable and VERY detailed), organizes his thoughts (cool, calm and clear), and effectively promotes himself, but really shouldn't be considering how well he dealt with all the public protest and venom against his work over the years (at least once it turned to addressing specific differences of race in the late 80's). This is an autobiography, but it's not so much the personal kind (he covers his ancestry, birth, childhood and education through post-doctoral studies in a succinct chapter of a mere 14 pages) as much as about his professional work and the context of the times (how that work evolved - specifically his transition from being a social-learning scientist to a sociobiologist - has been received, and fits into the larger stream of such evolutionary social-science).
The book is nicely organized and catches one's attention from the start by beginning with a detailed account of the "firestorm" that followed an American Association for the Advancement of Science conference presentation he made in January of 1989. He then goes back to outline the basics of his controversial theory (more specifically his specific application of Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson's idea of r-K Life reproductive strategies within the context of Life-History Theory to intra-human race differences). He continues with many more short chapters introducing both the general cultural context (beginning with the rise and roots of "Political Correctness", development of intelligence and personality testing and the global eugenics movement - a fascinating detailed presentation) and then his specific professional path (accomplishments and controversies, beginning with the development of his Genetic Similarity Theory in the early 80's and culminating in his extensive research on brain size, intelligence, and personality in support of his Differential K Theory in the last two decades of his life) within the broader field of Evolutionary Psychology/Biology.
By keeping his chapters small and specific the effect is bite sized lessons about the background history of the research topics he found interesting, the content of his own extensive research and how it fit in with that of his mentors, colleagues, critics and detractors. The effect is a fascinating story and a wonderfully vast view of humanity (one evolved to adapt to regional/geographical differences yet increasingly constrained by ideological dogma - i.e. closed minded Marxism vs open ended Darwinism). It made me appreciate indirectly and by example how good of a professor he must have been.
Overall, a very informative and stimulating read! My only negative feedback on this book is about the editing/proof-reading, and I hope that in a 2nd edition the occasional editorial typos (mostly omitted words, repeated words and sentences) will be corrected.
For a taste of both Rushton's writing and ideas;
"The geographic divisions between Africans, Europeans, and East Asians help explain the pattern of racial differences in behavior. Evolutionary selection was different in the hot savanna, where Africans lived, than in the cold northern regions to which Europeans and East Asians adapted. The ecological pressures in the north, relative to south, selected for larger brains, greater intelligence, slower rates of maturation, lower levels of sex hormone, greater longevity, increased family and social stability, and all other life history traits. Human personality was also affected such that Europeans and East Asians gained in advanced planning, self-control, rule-following, cooperativeness, and lower aggression. However, increased brain size was obtained at a cost, a "tradeoff" involving a weaker musculo-skeletal system, lower levels of sex-hormones with concomitant decreases in sexual and aggressive activity." (p. 35)
"The central thesis of political correctness is that culture (especially social inequality) determines all the important human traits. The Marxist invasion of liberal political sentiment has been so extensive that many of us think that way without realizing it. We censor ourselves lest we dare to think the forbidden thoughts." (p. 52)
“The barbaric nature of Nazi eugenic policies, culminating in the Holocaust led to a total revulsion against eugenics following World War II when the extent of the death camps became apparent. Nevertheless, compulsory eugenic sterilization continued to be carried out occasionally in the United States, in Scandinavia, Switzerland, and in the Canadian province of Alberta up until the 1970s. (Voluntary sterilizations such as vasectomies and tubal ligations, of course, continued to be used as methods of birth control and were only rarely called into question.)” (p. 147)
"Why is it taboo to say that Blacks are, on average, better at certain sports? First and most importantly because it opens the door to more questions - and answers - about genetics, as opposed to purely social, cultural, and economic, race differences. Next because it leads to the specific question, "Why do Blacks have narrower hips that Whites and East Asians and so make better runners?" To which the answer most likely lies in the fact that Blacks give birth, on average, to smaller-brained babies than Whites and East Asians. During evolution, as the head size of newborns increased, women had to have a wider pelvis. This, in turn, leads to questions and answers about genetic race differences in the brain size and intelligence. A final reason why it is taboo is because the hormones that give Blacks the edge in sports also tend to make them more masculine in general. This in turn can make them more prone to crime and give them a higher sex-drive. Because they are, on average, physically more active in school (by White standards), Blacks can get into trouble and often end up being diagnosed as hyperactive." (p. 195)
Ps. One of the more stimulating things for me in Rushton's account is that while I have an education in science I have never pursued a career in it, so that I have missed out on the kinds of intellectual ferment which Ruston met at his professional conferences. The scientific side interests me, while the political side just disgusts me, and so I have increasingly dropped out of the scientific world. As a result, some of the things I read in Rushton's account shocked me. For instance, I was under the (apparently naive) assumption that the notion of progress in evolution was a given, in effect baked into the theory. I can see now how a true scientist would want to reserve such subjective value judgment (although apparently many have no reserve in making such judgments when it comes to more politically correct ideas), but I'm really surprised that it's not an accepted part of the theory. As Rushton puts it;
"The issue I most wanted to raise with Shockley [1956 Nobel Prize winner in Physics] and the others was whether there was any true biological "progress in Evolution."
"It was difficult to look at Chart 7-1 and not see that the r-K continuum implied some progression from simpler r-type organisms that produced thousands of eggs and provided no parental care to more complex K-type ones that produced very few offspring and provide them with high levels of care. I found very few colleagues, if any, who agreed with me that there were progressive trends in evolution and many who vehemently disagreed...who looked at me with worry when I raised the topic, making me wonder if I was a "crank" or an "extremist" for taking my theorizing so many steps beyond where others dare tread.
"...When I asked Shockley whether "progress in evolution" seemed a sensible idea to a physicist, he replied unhesitatingly that he thought it did, and he strongly encouraged me to pursue it and not be afraid of nay-sayers." (p. 178)
I'm a little surprised how well Philippe Rushton (1943-2012) writes (very readable and VERY detailed), organizes his thoughts (cool, calm and clear), and effectively promotes himself, but really shouldn't be considering how well he dealt with all the public protest and venom against his work over the years (at least once it turned to addressing specific differences of race in the late 80's). This is an autobiography, but it's not so much the personal kind (he covers his ancestry, birth, childhood and education through post-doctoral studies in a succinct chapter of a mere 14 pages) as much as about his professional work and the context of the times (how that work evolved - specifically his transition from being a social-learning scientist to a sociobiologist - has been received, and fits into the larger stream of such evolutionary social-science).
The book is nicely organized and catches one's attention from the start by beginning with a detailed account of the "firestorm" that followed an American Association for the Advancement of Science conference presentation he made in January of 1989. He then goes back to outline the basics of his controversial theory (more specifically his specific application of Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson's idea of r-K Life reproductive strategies within the context of Life-History Theory to intra-human race differences). He continues with many more short chapters introducing both the general cultural context (beginning with the rise and roots of "Political Correctness", development of intelligence and personality testing and the global eugenics movement - a fascinating detailed presentation) and then his specific professional path (accomplishments and controversies, beginning with the development of his Genetic Similarity Theory in the early 80's and culminating in his extensive research on brain size, intelligence, and personality in support of his Differential K Theory in the last two decades of his life) within the broader field of Evolutionary Psychology/Biology.
By keeping his chapters small and specific the effect is bite sized lessons about the background history of the research topics he found interesting, the content of his own extensive research and how it fit in with that of his mentors, colleagues, critics and detractors. The effect is a fascinating story and a wonderfully vast view of humanity (one evolved to adapt to regional/geographical differences yet increasingly constrained by ideological dogma - i.e. closed minded Marxism vs open ended Darwinism). It made me appreciate indirectly and by example how good of a professor he must have been.
Overall, a very informative and stimulating read! My only negative feedback on this book is about the editing/proof-reading, and I hope that in a 2nd edition the occasional editorial typos (mostly omitted words, repeated words and sentences) will be corrected.
For a taste of both Rushton's writing and ideas;
"The geographic divisions between Africans, Europeans, and East Asians help explain the pattern of racial differences in behavior. Evolutionary selection was different in the hot savanna, where Africans lived, than in the cold northern regions to which Europeans and East Asians adapted. The ecological pressures in the north, relative to south, selected for larger brains, greater intelligence, slower rates of maturation, lower levels of sex hormone, greater longevity, increased family and social stability, and all other life history traits. Human personality was also affected such that Europeans and East Asians gained in advanced planning, self-control, rule-following, cooperativeness, and lower aggression. However, increased brain size was obtained at a cost, a "tradeoff" involving a weaker musculo-skeletal system, lower levels of sex-hormones with concomitant decreases in sexual and aggressive activity." (p. 35)
"The central thesis of political correctness is that culture (especially social inequality) determines all the important human traits. The Marxist invasion of liberal political sentiment has been so extensive that many of us think that way without realizing it. We censor ourselves lest we dare to think the forbidden thoughts." (p. 52)
“The barbaric nature of Nazi eugenic policies, culminating in the Holocaust led to a total revulsion against eugenics following World War II when the extent of the death camps became apparent. Nevertheless, compulsory eugenic sterilization continued to be carried out occasionally in the United States, in Scandinavia, Switzerland, and in the Canadian province of Alberta up until the 1970s. (Voluntary sterilizations such as vasectomies and tubal ligations, of course, continued to be used as methods of birth control and were only rarely called into question.)” (p. 147)
"Why is it taboo to say that Blacks are, on average, better at certain sports? First and most importantly because it opens the door to more questions - and answers - about genetics, as opposed to purely social, cultural, and economic, race differences. Next because it leads to the specific question, "Why do Blacks have narrower hips that Whites and East Asians and so make better runners?" To which the answer most likely lies in the fact that Blacks give birth, on average, to smaller-brained babies than Whites and East Asians. During evolution, as the head size of newborns increased, women had to have a wider pelvis. This, in turn, leads to questions and answers about genetic race differences in the brain size and intelligence. A final reason why it is taboo is because the hormones that give Blacks the edge in sports also tend to make them more masculine in general. This in turn can make them more prone to crime and give them a higher sex-drive. Because they are, on average, physically more active in school (by White standards), Blacks can get into trouble and often end up being diagnosed as hyperactive." (p. 195)
Ps. One of the more stimulating things for me in Rushton's account is that while I have an education in science I have never pursued a career in it, so that I have missed out on the kinds of intellectual ferment which Ruston met at his professional conferences. The scientific side interests me, while the political side just disgusts me, and so I have increasingly dropped out of the scientific world. As a result, some of the things I read in Rushton's account shocked me. For instance, I was under the (apparently naive) assumption that the notion of progress in evolution was a given, in effect baked into the theory. I can see now how a true scientist would want to reserve such subjective value judgment (although apparently many have no reserve in making such judgments when it comes to more politically correct ideas), but I'm really surprised that it's not an accepted part of the theory. As Rushton puts it;
"The issue I most wanted to raise with Shockley [1956 Nobel Prize winner in Physics] and the others was whether there was any true biological "progress in Evolution."
"It was difficult to look at Chart 7-1 and not see that the r-K continuum implied some progression from simpler r-type organisms that produced thousands of eggs and provided no parental care to more complex K-type ones that produced very few offspring and provide them with high levels of care. I found very few colleagues, if any, who agreed with me that there were progressive trends in evolution and many who vehemently disagreed...who looked at me with worry when I raised the topic, making me wonder if I was a "crank" or an "extremist" for taking my theorizing so many steps beyond where others dare tread.
"...When I asked Shockley whether "progress in evolution" seemed a sensible idea to a physicist, he replied unhesitatingly that he thought it did, and he strongly encouraged me to pursue it and not be afraid of nay-sayers." (p. 178)
Displaying 1 of 1 review