Welton the fraud. In all cases emphasis added.
Sallis right once again: Der Movement Inc. whitewashing Rushton the Fraud.
I like how this turd makes it seem like Dutton’s book is wholly supportive of Rushton and Rushton’s “theories.” If that is the case, why are Rushton’s hysterical fans attacking Dutton and his book on Amazon, eh Welton you despicable mendacious dishonest scum? But what do you expect from fundamentally dishonest HBD?
Here is the liar Welton again trying to make it seem that Dutton (*) was supportive of Rushton and was giving explanations to explain “anomalies”:
Dutton’s book makes sense of anomalies with the model, arguing that as a group becomes more K-selected, it becomes more evolved to an extremely specific niche.
Is there any way of accounting for these counterexamples to Rushton’s theory? Michael Woodley and his colleagues have argued that as a race or species adopts a slower Life History Strategy, the traits that make up that strategy will correlate less closely with one another. In Dutton’s words:
Under conditions of intense selection—of the kind experienced by Northeast Asians—you end up with a very high-K group and thus extreme specialization and a weak relationship between K traits. So, we would expect them to be less K than Europeans on some measures. It is likely that, in a very harsh ecology, a group which was highly cooperative but also hostile to outsiders (breeding with whom would only be maladaptive because the children would be less adapted to the harsh ecology) would have been more likely to survive. Foreigners also potentially undermine community trust, particularly crucial for extreme K-strategists.
So the anomalies Dutton reports are by no means beyond the possibility of evolutionary explanation, but Rushton neglected to mention them altogether. Dutton considers this cherry-picking of the evidence on Rushton’s part, whether conscious or unconscious.
Dutton occasionally overstates his case: e.g., when describing Rushton as a “pathological liar.” The examples of Rushton’s dishonesty he cites appear motivated either by bias in favor of his theory or a desire to conceal the less creditable aspects of his personal life or family history.
Contra Welton’s indirect implication, others like Woodley tried to explain Rushton’s errors using “just so” stories and other spin; Dutton himself was generally critical, hence the hysterical attacks against Dutton by Rushton’s supporters. And as regards the arguments of “Michael Woodley and his colleagues” together with Welton’s screed – notice how Welton cherry picks dementia findings to support Rushton, but when other traits don’t fit the theory, we get hand-waving hypotheses of “intense selection” causing a “weak relationship between K traits.”
Well, if there is a “weak relationship” between the very traits that define Rushton’s theory, then what is the point of the theory to begin with? Any and all anomalies can be explained away in this fashion. Therefore, Rushton’s hypothesis is not falsifiable and therefore it is no longer science – in other words, when data fit the theory, then the theory is supported, and when data contradict the theory, that also supports the theory because of, in this case, “intense selection” causing “weak relationships.” That’s the essence of HBD – a pseudoscience that refuses to even acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, a pseudoscience impossible of falsification because even contradictory data – when not overtly ignored – is “spun away” as more support of the very hypotheses the data actually refute.
HBD is merely politics supporting Whites being enslaved by Jews and Asians. And Rushton was, according to Dutton, a race-mixer, a cuckolder, an adulterer, and a cherry picker (at best; and a “pathological liar” at worst) of data. To Welton to excuse that by saying “that’s what geniuses do” and then, in the grand HBD fashion, cherry picking data to cite a few examples (Rushton – the HBD Einstein), is laughably stupid and morally obtuse.
*Technically, yes, “Dutton’s book” makes the case by citing the opinions of Rushtonite spin doctors, but let us be honest: casual readers pf Welton’s article will assume that Dutton himself was supportive, rather than just quoting those others. Welton’s whole piece is misleading.