Robert Dimand wrote:  
> Albert Himoe   
> cites Philip Rushton as the only support for his claim that   
> "it is by now well established that blacks have on average   
> lower intelligence than whites." Rushton's "research"   
> (including his obsession about an inverse relationship   
> between intelligence and penis size across races) is   
> generally viewed as completely discredited.  
  
  
I cited Rushton's review because it is a recent comprehensive review of  
the evidence on the matter. In every large scale test, black IQ turns up  
to be about 1 standard deviation lower than whites. There are few if any  
exceptions to this finding. The only question is the reason for this  
finding. Are the observed measured differences in IQ entirely due to the  
environment, or substantially due to genetics. This is the question  
which Rushton and Jensen specially address in their review.   
  
There are many other confirmations of Rushton's conclusions, for example  
the last two chapters in Arthur Jensen's magnum opus, "The 'g' factor".  
I believe it is Rushton's critics, not him, that harp on penis size. He  
does mention this along with a long list of biological and psychological  
traits in which whites are intermediate between blacks and East Asians.  
I suppose if you only read the popular press on the subject, Rushton's  
view might be considered "discredited". Among evolutionary psychologists  
and psychometricians, his views are rightfully treated with respect.   
  
Anyone on this list who is unfamiliar with this topic could profit from  
reading Rushton's "Race, Evolution, and Behavior", and any article  
Professor Dimond cares to nominate which claims all observed race  
differences in IQ are due to the environment and not genetics. I, of  
course, stand by my previous statement.  
  
Albert Himoe