I really did try to read this book, but the theme was apparent after about 30 pages. It is filled with venom and hate. There is no rational discussion of issues, just a long list of complaints because the world is not perfect.

This book is an excellent overview of how in many countries, a racial minority can dominate economically. Unfortunately, Amy Chua just doesn't get the connection between the observation made and what causes it. In reading this book, every page was a vindication of two primary principles: some races are more intelligent than others and they do better economically. Also, group evolutionary strategies dictates that some highly ethnocentric races will establish racial boundaries, form working coalitions with kin, and consolidate wealth based on kinship relationships. Chua does admit that class struggle does not account for ethnic conflict and dominance.

One other thing that jumped out at me was her belittling of anything Caucasian. She seems to have a special hatred for Whites, while giving all other races a pass - she appears to be highly Anglophobic.

This is another recent book that tries to turn the clock back on racial studies, brain size, psychometrics, and all of the research that has been developed over the past few decades by basically ignoring that research. The arguments are weak when they are present, and often they are just plain missing. Graves has the unique ability of disproving a theory by alluding to a proof he has said to have shown somewhere else in the book, but the reader will be hard pressed to understand the elliptical arguments that are never quite complete or are just outright lies.

Still, I almost recommend this book, because it again shows how far sociobiology, genetic studies, psychometrics, and intelligence studies have left these new pseudoscientists in the dust. They have no more good arguments against Jensenism, and so they are left only with deception to try and turn back the clock.

I'll just mention some of the egregious deceptions that Graves commits. The book is published in 2001, and yet he completely ignores the American Psychological Association's 1995 task force report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns." He also mentions the Flynn Effect as if it is true, while another book by the APA entitled The Rising Curve dismisses the Flynn Effect of rising intelligence stating that: it is an anomaly that to date has very little meaning.

But the most glaring omission (though they occur on almost every page of the book) is his treatment of intelligence and brain size. Like Gould, he only mentions the studies carried out over 100 years ago (and now known to be fairly accurate after all). In the last few years, MRI and other imaging studies have shown solid correlations between intelligence and the neocortex, as well as convolutions, density, etc. How could Graves not be aware of these numerous studies? Either like Gould he is a liar or he is very selective in his readings. I must assume, as other's reviewed his book before publication, that these omissions were pointed out to him. Finally, what is really sad is that Graves is Black. And his special pleading does other Black scholars a disservice.

Finally, there is the issue of race. He uses the old tried and true means of denying race by using an archaic definition of "pure race." As anyone in science understands, races are in fact just arbitrary taxonomies that look at the frequencies of genetic alleles between population groups. It is the only definition used, and is scientifically unchallengeable because it does not in fact make any statements for example between someone's color and their intelligence, though Graves tries to make this ancient claim also. This book would have been somewhat interesting reading perhaps in 1901. But his arguments are addressing the science of over 100 years ago. Science of course waits for no one, not even Graves.

This is a very well written book, meant to entertain as well as inform. Ridley does a great job of presenting many aspects of genetics in an easy to understand storytelling style. The book opens up many interesting aspects that are missed in more academic books.

The most interesting chapters for me, as a neoeugenicist, were on intelligence, eugenics and free will. He does a superb job on eugenics and opens up new insights on free will, pointing out that environmental determinism and genetic determinism are not germane with regards to social policy.

He falters a bit however when he gets to intelligence. He can't bring himself to either leave the subject alone when it comes to differences in the average intelligence between races, or just come clean and tell the truth. He has seen too well what has happened to his colleagues who have been forthright on this subject -- censorship and intimidation from the Left.

Instead he states that, "Indeed, the implication [of racial differences in intelligence] is not only logically false, it so far looks empirically wrong, too. Thus does a large pillar of support for part of the thesis of the recent book 'The Bell Curve' crumble. There are differences between the average IQ scores of blacks and whites, but there is no evidence that these differences are themselves heritable. Indeed, the evidence from cases of cross-racial adoption suggests that the average IQs of blacks reared by and among whites is no different from that of whites." This last sentence is plain flat out lying. And of course he must know that this whole argument is absurd, and furthermore to be academically honest he needs to address "The g Factor" by Jensen, a more recent book than "The Bell Curve."

To give an example of how absurd this statement is, and also how common similar statements have become to dance around the subject of intelligence by scholars, it is as if to say that heritability of stature is 80% amongst both pygmies and the Bantus of Africa. But there is no evidence that pygmies are on average shorter than the Bantus because of genetic differences. We would all be bewildered by such a statement, and yet that is the standard politically correct statement when it comes to intelligence. (Would we not expect pygmy children adopted into a Western family to be somewhat taller than the average pygmy, but still much shorter than the average American?) But by now we should be used to these dismissive statements by scholars who fear retribution for not being sensitive to the new egalitarian ethos.

Aside from this one cowardly act of intellectual dishonesty, the rest of the book seems to be free of bias.

The title of this book is a little misleading, because it is an excellent book on evolution in general. That is, it is much broader than the title implies, is very well written, and brings some new perspectives to the subject of human behavior and evolution. It is one of the better books that covers the subject as completely as possible and I would recommend it as an introduction to the subject for the novice or for additional reading for those already versed in the subject.

Therefore, rather than giving and overview of the book, I will comment on just a few points Low makes that I found especially interesting. He advances the recent research that has been done on group evolutionary strategies. That is, we have evolved our higher intellect not for dealing with a harsh environment but for the sake of competing with each other. Humans, forming cohesive groups thousands of years ago, cooperated together to compete against other groups. That included genocide, warfare, etc. The smarter and more cohesive the group, the more likely it would win out over the less cohesive or less intelligent group.

He also sheds light on our irrationality or our illogical behavior. As a species that evolved in social groups, we are far too responsive to the rare events that we feel threatened by. This means we are quick to pass laws or try to remedy problems that are essentially quite rare but become sensationalized in the press. We as a species are also quick to blame others for their bad behavior based on their flawed character, while our own failures are attributed to circumstances. We have an incredible ability to rationalize our own shortcomings. In addition, we are easily led by people with status, and are easily duped by their explanations of social situations. That is, we believe too readily what we are told by leaders.

His covering of war and deception is also rich in explanations and insight. With regards to a one world government he states, "In a major work on the kin selection roots of warfare, after eloquent analysis, the authors are reduced to calling for 'some form of world government, some management force that might stabilize the most immediate threat to humanity --- nuclear destruction.' The entire work, however, is an acknowledgment that the power of in-group amity and out-group enmity would likely force any such world government to be a conquest state, a chilling prospect."

It is refreshing to read an evolutionist that both understands our genocidal nature as part of our journey into modernity, but does not fall for the egalitarian solutions that so many of these authors try to put forth to save us. Low understands how such simple solutions will bring us once again into the folds of the totalitarian state.

In reading this book, in order to understand its real content, I had to look beyond what was being stated. I had to "deconstruct" the motive or purpose of this hateful diatribe against Whites, and especially White males. Feagin is a Marxist and uses his dialectics to tell a story about how White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASP's) were the most vile oppressors to have ever inhabited the earth, primarily against African slaves and Native American Indians, and how this legacy of oppression still exists today. According to Feagin, who relies on story telling rather than empirical facts, all of the current wealth held by these WASPs was stolen through slavery and that the wealth is still present today. That is, much of what WASPs have, own or control comes from past oppression. But he does not stop there.

He goes on to claim that there is a conspiracy amongst these WASPs still going on today to oppress and exploit Blacks. He calls this systemic racism, and he tells some pretty tall tales about how it takes place. Apparently, within the inner essence of these WASPs, they are maintaining a racist system in order to continue the oppression of Black people to further use Black labor for their own financial gain. How WASPs do this, all acting in concert, he doesn't really address. In fact, most people who put forth such conspiracy theories are usually looked at with great skepticism or as just plain paranoid. But in the circles of Marxist identity theories they seem to have an almost mythical explanation about the White human ant-hill acting as automatons, following some central dictum that keeps their mischief highly coordinated. It reminded me of the conspiracy theories put forth in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, where Jews were conspiring to dominate the world in some fiendish plot.

But in simpler terms, Feagin just hates WASPs, especially males, with his hatred for Whites diminishing as the vile nature of Whites in general gets farther away from the center core, like concentric circles. In fact, the hate portrayed against Whites in this book was just a tad less ludicrous than Malcolm X's The End of White Racism, where Whites are portrayed as beasts with tails and all, no better than dogs. But is this hatred just another form of bigotry? Perhaps not. It has more to do with an ongoing power struggle between the old Marxists and the general White population that is, contrary to Feagin's thesis, quite apolitical and unwilling to yield to a new totalitarian egalitarian state (Communism). The very fact that Whites are so accepting of any and all races today, unlike in the past, poses a great threat to these Marxists.

First, it is a very good book that covers a lot of material that is of interest to evolutionists and eugenicists. That is, 95% of the material is not new but it is useful for those interested in the subject matter. So like many books in this genre it has two purposes: to establish Dr. Will's knowledge of the subject matter and make it appear to be objective and empirical, while at the same time promoting a political agenda that falls into the abyss of the utopian dream of universal egalitarianism. While he intermittently lashes out at nationalists and religious fanatics as if they have no right whatsoever for holding the views that they do, he then demands that all human races be forced to intermarry so that we are all mixed up genetically. He then claims that we will accelerate the evolutionary process, but he doesn't really explain to what purpose.

So the really fascinating reading of this book is the inherent contradictions, deceptions, and moral positioning Dr. Wills uses to try and advance what is in essence his own form or nationalism and religious fanaticism. That is the nation as one global nation under totalitarian control by the egalitarian elite, and the religious fanaticism of Marxism, universalism, socialism, or whatever name you attach to this neo-Marxist lot of academics.

Before I take apart this sophomoric proposal for universal brotherhood, let me lay out what the basic premise is: When subspecies (human races) that are genetically different begin to interbreed, the results are "profound" and "generally positive." Keep this simple message in mind as you read this review. But first let me point out at the beginning just a few reasons why it is nonsensical.

First, it is based on the premise that different races are in some real way genetically different, a premise that Wills repeatedly denies to be true throughout the book. For example, he claims that human races are now interbreeding and we are also [all] getting smarter. The fact is for example that if sub-Saharan Blacks with an average IQ of 70 were to interbreed with Ashkenazi Jews with an average IQ of 117, the offspring would in fact be somewhere between the two groups; somewhere around an average of IQ of 90! This IS "profound" but it is hardly "generally positive!" Those offspring are more likely to end up in jail or on welfare than the offspring of the pure Ashkenazi Jew. ...

This book was written as a response to the 1994 book "The Bell Curve" by Herrnstein and Murray. But unlike several other books that condemned TBC without any empirical data, this book actually does expand the issue of racial differences intelligence and is well worth reading by any one interested in this ongoing debate. At least in this book, while still motivated by an egalitarian goal to deny racial differences in intelligence, the authors do give TBC credit for being essentially a very sound book empirically, while picking away at some of the issues at its periphery. But as they do this, they also make many fundamental errors and omissions. This is to be expected however because TBC is very hard to refute on empirical grounds alone.

As an example, the authors take TBC to task for using heritability in the broad sense rather in the narrow sense like breeders do, which reduces the heritability between races supposedly by about 20% or so. The problem is, as shown by Jensen in "The g Factor", heritability in the broad sense should be used in comparing group averages, while heritability in the narrow sense should be used in predicting the expected intelligence of one's children. TBC was not a book on how to have smart kids or breeding cows for higher butter fat production. So the argument was a feeble attempt at obfuscation.

Later in the book they admit that Blacks almost make as much money as Whites when wages are adjusted for the average difference in intelligence between the two groups. But they go on to say that "almost" is not good enough. The error here of course, as even they argue in this book, is that earnings are not just a matter of intelligence. It is the most important trait with regards to wages, but other traits are also important. Research has shown that conscientiousness is the second most important behavioral trait after intelligence in occupational success, and one would have to assume that conscientiousness would vary among racial groups as easily as intelligence due to evolutionary forces on selection under different ecological conditions. And Rushton has shown that many behavioral differences exist between Whites and Blacks on average, including conscientiousness.

So this book is a mixed bag on not denying that there are differences in the average intelligence between Blacks and Whites while trying at the same time to ameliorate the damage that recent research has produced showing that the differences are in fact real and persistent. But the funding for this book was such that the authors had no choice but to use some very fancy footwork to dance around the primary issue and try to diffuse its impact with regards to education and equality. Politics always comes into play, depending on who is paying the piper.

This book is an amazing compilation of the battle between Marxists and traditionalists in their debates over primarily sociobiology; but also morals, intelligence, racism, religion and the individual philosophies that the players brought to the debate. The author was there, interviewing the players over thirty years, collecting their comments and observing the fireworks.

She concludes that the debates were good for neo-Darwinists, and that they perfected their scientific methodologies faster because of the attacks from the left -- attacks that if looked at carefully were contradictory and without substance. But the book concludes that it was not a battle for truth, but rather a battle for status, positioning, morality, etc. Even for those scholars who were eventually made to look rather foolish in their Marxist attempts to discredit neo-Darwinism, and especially determinism, they won big time for their stalwartness in the face of facts. That is, they could not be shaken in their beliefs. And this is why this book, excellent in every way, stops short of answering the question -- What was it all about?

Actually, the author almost stumbled upon it once in the book, when she noted that the neo-Darwinists seemed to be "rural" in their outlooks, and the Marxists "urban." She then noted the rural Christians, but fails to mention the urban Jews. Was this book really about group evolutionary strategies all along? Of course the players did not fall neatly into ethnic or political categories. And yet in many ways the battle lines did seem to be drawn between a Jewish and a gentile viewpoint.

I will suggest that when reading this book, keep "group evolution" in mind. It seems to be playing itself out in academia and the media in these genetic wars. That is, this book looks only at the proximate causes of the debates -- status, morality, self-deception in serving the tribe, aggression, intolerance of other's belief systems, etc. What is not seen, because humans have a great deal of difficulty with seeing themselves as loyal tribesmen, is the ultimate cause of the debate -- the cultural warfare between Jewish and Caucasian intellectuals who are about equal in numbers in academia, even though Jews only make up about 3% of the U.S. population. This is a battle for power by the elites from two different tribes.

Then after reading this book, read Kevin MacDonald's recently published trilogy on Jewish-gentile evolutionary strategies. The same players are discussed, but with the ultimate causes included in the warfare. And it portends that these battles are again flaring up, and in reality they only subsided briefly after WWII and are likely to return with a full head of steam. As yet, many scholars are side-stepping the real issue of multiculturalism, diversity, and what it means if humans did in fact evolve with strong tribal ethos in place of any universal moral system. So let the games begin!

Every person born is a highly probabilistic creature, having been randomly put together by a chance selection from twenty-three chromosomes from each parent. The combinatorial variation is remarkable even in extremely homogeneous populations, and even more so in multicultural populations where there are great disparities in the average abilities of different groups. Blacks excel in sports of speed leading to their total dominance in professional sports. Jews excel in verbal intelligence leading to their remarkable dominance in law, academics, politics, and the media. And other groups fall in between these group-based genetic differences. However, it is evident throughout this book that these issues will not be dealt with honestly and directly. They will be tip-toed around, especially intelligence.

This book ignores the more communitarian morality of Asian countries and/or western particularistic moral theories. They do take it up in Appendix II, "Methodology." There they state simply that a communitarian moral theory only exists as a condemnation of liberalism -- it does not attempt to put forth its own communitarian moral theory as rigorously as has been put forth by liberalism or a Rawlsian theory. Notice the irony here, that the same charge can be made against those (Gould, Lewontin, Rose, Kamin, et al.) who claim that there is no difference in the average intelligence of races or that genes do not matter. They also, like the communitarian moralists, have only attacked empiricists who have developed sociobiology and intelligence as genetically based. So now we have the kettle calling the stove black.

These authors are concerned that society will become more stratified with regards to genetic capital by various groups. That is, the well-to-do will be able to use genetic engineering to eliminate unwanted genes as well as enhance their children's potential by inserting new "improved" genes into their genetic code -- including altering the germ line genes that will be carried on to successive generations. Is this a fair criticism? Not really, because this is how evolution progresses and it has already occurred as I stated above. Groups, because of breeding are not the same. Again, using the example of Ashkenazi Jews or east Asians who dominate the economies of south Asian countries, multiculturalist societies are already made up of groups who are not equal. Ashkenazi Jews have and average IQ of 117 and live among populations with an average IQ of 100. Malaysians have an average IQ of 90 with a troublesome east Asian minority, that will not assimilate, and has an average IQ of about 106 that dominates the economy. Australians have a troublesome minority of aborigines with a low IQ. These and many other examples show that there is nothing new about some groups eugenically rising above other groups, in terms of intelligence at least. But now that we have new tools at our disposal, those of us who would like to acquire the high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews for example are told that it is somehow unjust!