>michael perelman wrote: > >>Sabri, please be more respectful of Dr. Rushton. He will probably win >>the Nobel Prize or even imortatlity, I believe, for having discovered >>the inverse relation between IQ and penis size. > >I know this is a joke, Michael, but the bourgeois science thinks >Rushton is a fraud and an embarrassment. Before Hitler, racist >science got plenty of respect, but it doesn't really anymore.
Cultural differences are made the explanans but the question of the persistence of cultural differences is left unasked, allowing racial assumptions to fill in the gap. Blacks have 1/10th the wealth of whites (defining wealth to include stocks, bonds, homes, cars, jewlery, etc; this is not wealth defined in Marxian terms). Why? At the very least, a racial world view could remain entrenched behind the curtain as economists reason from the assumption that those individuals who remain miserable proletarians as opposed to joining the wealthy have a very steep present time preference, i.e., lack of fortitude and foresight to forgo present consumption. For those who content themselves with the assumption that persistent cultural differences explain individual variance in time preference and thus the non random distribution of wealth across ethno-racial groups, all Rushton does is force them to their own implicit conclusion that such persistent cultural difference is most plausibly explained by probable heritable group differences. That's exactly where D'Souza ended up despite his attempt at a purely cultural theory of racial inequality. I suggest that the hostile reaction to Rushton is merely the return of the repressed. Rakesh
