Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

How can I put this as bluntly as I can?

We aren't interested. In other words, you don't get to peddle biased research that has no real foundation in science here.

just a quick question about this, Boss Bells...
why is this in human science and not in a pseudoscience thread?

 

[brucep]

Richard Feynman's IQ was measured at 123.

So anyone here who is trying to sort the human races by "cognitive ability" based on IQ tests, and whose IQ is higher than that, we expect superior cognitive abilities from you than were possessed by the subject of this biography: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/98685.Genius

Either that, or certain factors need your attention, in the sorting protocol.

My guess would be Professor Feynman didn't put much stock in IQ testing.

I'll chime in, damn it.

First, Bells, thanks for that!

Phill, to begin:



As well, we need to bin the data geographically, with annotations for things like Zika, lead, mercury or arsenic levels, iron deficiency in the local diet, insular or cosmopolitan society, and so much more.

Provide a decent dataset and I'll bet some programmers can debunk or support whatever it is you're trying to sell. We could do heat maps for all the variables, in all the vaguely-defined locations you gave as study areas, and have a look at it in R, for instance.

Or do you just want to keep gigging people for answering you?

Ditto Toad. Bells: Good job recognizing the nonsense for what it is. Thanks.

 

[PhysBang]

So you've decided a priori that there are no racial difference in genetic cognitive abilities because of the word "racist" (as yet undefined)? That's pretty far from a scientific argument.

No, I've just done enough reading on the topic to know that racists tend to bring up these topics.

 

[brucep]

I've really no idea what this is about, it seems pretty vague, kind of "big science words" arranged with little meaning. Unless you can reference your claims here I cannot see their relevance.



You mean it could train people to pass the test? You do know that most cognitive tests are largely immune to training right? Which tests are you thinking about here? You should also consider whether interventions have a persistent or temporary effect. And how does adoption grab you as an intervention? Do you have any data on these points? It's usually better than guessing stuff.



Definitely. I think they tend to use the WAIS. Of course IQ is not stable in children.



The main justification of IQ is the general factor of intelligence, derived from the fact the subtest scores tend to be highly correlated. So no we do not see this.



The genetic portion of heritability indicates maximum potential under the best conditions. Of course it represents genetic potential under actual conditions. But the question is what is the genetic portion of heritability between races and nations?



Let's stick with intelligence, measured by IQ. I think we'll have to agree on that first.

What's your IQ. LOL. Based on the logic path of the subject matter you introduced I'd say not to high. If you believe there's a strong correlation between the tests and actual intelligence. Based on my years of discussing science topics I've noticed a strong correlation between a proclamation of a high IQ and crankism.

 

[Bells]

just a quick question about this, Boss Bells...
why is this in human science and not in a pseudoscience thread?

Because the field of these tests fall within the realm of psychology.

The problem with Phill's OP and his argument is that instead of looking directly at the hereditary aspect of intelligence, it is looking solely at race. Those involved in these fields of research and the organisations listed who received notice of the survey and those who participated in the survey are firm proponents of the connection of race and intelligence. In other words, they believe that white people are more intelligent than anyone else. It is based on a false premise with no scientific basis. The questions in the survey detailed in the OP are not only vague, but open to wide interpretation and designed to give a certain response from the people the survey was sent to.

The survey itself was bogus and was based on an equally bogus study that was compiled by people I can only describe as being white supremacists. The survey was sent to very few people who belong to organisations that peddle the belief that race is connected to intelligence and try to sell it by applied the valid study of the genetic aspect of intelligence.

I had considered simply closing the thread, but at present, I think educating those who falsely believe that people of different races are somehow less or more intelligent than others may prove more productive in the present context. To wit, I prefer to out the idiocy of racism and bigotry than to pretend it does not exist or to hide it because it is so offensive.

The paper I linked in my previous thread makes very good and valid points as to why measuring intelligence and the manner in which it is used and utilised by certain individuals is unethical. And the research has been misused historically and presently, as the survey linked in the OP clearly demonstrates.

In reviewing the neurobiological bases of intelligence it is not necessary, on scientific grounds, to consider race. Most of the variance in intelligence is within racial groups not between them 9 , and the causes of individual differences are relatively tractable with available methods, whereas the causes of racial differences are not. Although the topic of race differences is only a minor area within the field of intelligence research, it has had a disproportionately large (and strongly negative) impact on the public perception of intelligence research5,132,133. Science is generally perceived as a noble and honourable pursuit, yet “The field of intelligence itself is widely suspect”132. Given the history of misuse of intelligence research7,10, a statement about biology and intelligence that ignores the question of race can be mistaken as being complicit with a racist agenda. To a non-specialist, the field of intelligence research has become stereotyped as elitist and socially divisive. We disavow — and hope to weaken — these unfortunate and unnecessary associations​

 

[EgalitarianJay]

I want to thank Bells for not closing this thread. I think that is the wrong way to deal with Scientific Racism. Arguments like this should not be censored, they should be subjected to rigorous critique. We should be able to have an open discussion on topics like this. To answer Phill's question in the OP I believe that environment and only environment is causing racial gaps in IQ. There is actually a wealth of psychometric literature supporting this view point (Nisbett, 2005). Evolutionary arguments for a genetic component to racial IQ gaps have been thoroughly refuted (Graves, 2002). There is bias in scholarship and Bells did an excellent job of pointing out how this survey can be misused to project the false perception that the majority of the intelligence research community believes that genes play a major role in the cause of racial gaps in IQ.

In order for racial gaps in IQ to be caused by genetic differences between races you would have to establish that race is a biologically meaningful category. Science indicates that in reality race is a social and not a biological construct (Templeton, 2013). We know for a fact that environment can have major effects on the nurturing of intelligence and that there is environmental inequality between demographic groups and nations, so while it may appear that there is a correlation between "race" and intelligence that tells us nothing about the underlying cause of differences in IQ (Sternberg et al., 2005).

 

[Phill]

Mod Note
Each of the "experts" who belong to these groups read like a member list of a white power conference. They surveyed those who believe just like they do. There was no 'outside' expert surveyed.

Can you give us some examples? The people who contribute to Intelligence read like a member list of a white power conference?

In short, the "science" behind these studies and its history has been debunked more times than one can count and the history of this kind of research has often been the basis to support racial segregation.

It may be your opinion that it has been debunked. The point here is show how it was debunked, if you can. Certainly many scholars would disagree with you.

It would explain why this particular "study" can only be found on websites that support racism and racial segregation. Sites such as American Renaissance, who publish many such racist and bigoted 'papers' that promote racism and racial segregation.

It is also why this study and others like it, never appear in actual science journals. It is shoddy science. No, shoddy is too nice a word. It is bunk science.

It did appear in an actual science journal: Frontiers in Psychology. Again, we have your opinion and the opinion of someone that agrees with you. Good call linking "The Guardian" by the way.

Now, Phill, I notice that you have been posting this thread on various other forums, from legitimate science sub-forums, to right wing and frankly racist forums like "st0rmfront".

Not true. I think a lot of people are discussing this survey. But if it was, so what? Would posting something on Stormfront somehow prove it wrong?

Your belief that race matters in this instance is, frankly, wrong.

It is important to remember that many environmental factors affect intelligence either favourably or adversely... In a recent study of 320 pairs of twins born in the 1960s and given IQ tests at age seven, Turkheimer et al.102 found that environmental factors have a much greater influence on childhood IQ in impoverished families relative to those in families of higher socioeconomic status. The heritability of IQ at the low end of the wealth spectrum was just 0.10. By contrast, it was 0.72 for more wealthy families, indicating that nature is more significant than nurture when socioeconomic status is high, while the reverse is true when socioeconomic status is low. That the genetic contribution to intelligence differs in different environments is a caveat against general inferences based on heritability data.​

Inherited intelligence plays a much smaller part and frankly, comparing between races is incorrect. The reason it is wrong is because the groups that are tested are never matched in that they are unequal in parental education, health, nutrition, how often they are tested and pre and post natal environment, from what drugs or medications the biological parents consumed prior to and during pregnancy, to breastfeeding and duration the test subjects were breastfed, to where they live and their socio-economic status within their given communities, to how the test subjects grew up.

Childhood IQ is found to be much more affected by environmental factors and stabilises due to genes in adulthood.

How can I put this as bluntly as I can?

We aren't interested. In other words, you don't get to peddle biased research that has no real foundation in science here.

It seems you know less about this topic than you think. Please refrain from speaking for the board as if you know everything and everybody here agrees with you. Others may then be able to learn something.

 

[Phill]

No, it wouldn't. It doesn't make any difference how they are distributed, as long as the distribution is not random over the defined populations. Are you going to claim that - for example - childhood lead exposure is randomly distributed over the sociological races, or the genetic populations, or any relevant category, in the US?

You are claiming that any environmental factor which does not have a random distribution among populations makes a heritability estimate impossible? So, for example, national heritability of height estimations are also impossible because of varying availability of milk? This is nonsense. Heritability estimate methods are designed to account for this, by looking at the relationship between the variable in question and the outcome eg. Japanese in America. It seems you have a problem with the entire concept of heritability rather than race IQ heritability. So yes, obviously it makes a difference how the variable you claim explains everything ("lead") is distributed.

There is no such thing as a genetically defined race of human beings, as far as I know. All the genetic identification of "race" in use these days is based on correlating certain genetic markers with prior sociologically identified racial category or a geographical proxy thereof - so a 99% correlation of self-identified race with some of those markers is a 99% self-identification of one's sociologically identified race. That's not surprising. People generally know what race other people think they belong to, and that's how the genetic markers were assigned in the first place.

No, genetic clusters are formed independently of racial information and individuals are matched to the clusters post facto.

The immediate memory is of a big wheel graph published in Scientific American - which was of course second hand, a compilation or overview of the conventional understanding at the time. But there's all kinds of stuff - here's another, 5 second netsearch (I was looking for the wheel graph) : http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...rica-startling-new-genetics-of-human-origins/

Ah, Tishkoff 2012, based on 5 individuals. Try looking at this. This has some good commentary.

btw: Note the word "probably" in my post: my argument does not depend on the African races outnumbering all the others, or even the black races outnumbering the non-black (which is a no-brainer, think of the SE Asia/Pacific Islander populations), merely that several sociologically unidentified races must exist in any genetically based racial classification scheme that hands us the US standard sociological "white" race as a genetically defined - not identified, defined - race.
Let's say what I said, which would be more reasonable: that Africans are several genetic races and so are non-Africans (because that's the only way to end up with a "white" genetic race that doesn't have sociologically non-white people in it). Of course that eliminates nothing - it just means you have to be careful, when attributing population traits to genetic influence, to accurately classify your genetic populations. They are not going to correspond to your sociological races, or ethnicities, or religions, automatically. Any such correspondence has to be carefully demonstrated.

Sure, I agree with all of this. But defining race by ancestry or genetic similarity we do actually get clusters which match "social" races and indeed races inferred from non-metric cranial traits a la Blumenbach. Rather than raising potential problems can you show me some genetically based clustering which doesn't match the "social" or the phenetic based scientific concept?

And that goes a long way toward explaining the current uncertainty - to the point of uselessness - in the identification of genetic causes for population differences in measured cognitive ability.

Not at all. You are just raising vague data-free objections that clustering based on ancestry and genetics doesn't match "social" race. The problem is that it does. Besides, we can also classify people nationally, or clinally, whatever. A global difference remains which needs to be explained. Objecting to the race concept is a red herring.

 

[Phill]

As well, we need to bin the data geographically, with annotations for things like Zika, lead, mercury or arsenic levels, iron deficiency in the local diet, insular or cosmopolitan society, and so much more.

Provide a decent dataset and I'll bet some programmers can debunk or support whatever it is you're trying to sell. We could do heat maps for all the variables, in all the vaguely-defined locations you gave as study areas, and have a look at it in R, for instance.

Or do you just want to keep gigging people for answering you?

Bin what data? Data on national IQs? Isn't that data our starting point before we look at environmental variables that may be affecting it? You seem to have got it backwards.

 

[Phill]

What's your IQ. LOL. Based on the logic path of the subject matter you introduced I'd say not to high. If you believe there's a strong correlation between the tests and actual intelligence. Based on my years of discussing science topics I've noticed a strong correlation between a proclamation of a high IQ and crankism.

My IQ is irrelevant. I think IQ is a good indication of intelligence. So do the vast majority of academic psychologists. Do they also have a low IQ because of their "logic path"? Why do you think IQ is not a good measure of intelligence?

 

[Phill]

(Nisbett, 2005)

See Lee 2010.

(Graves, 2002)

Graves claims that falsifying an evolutionary theory (r/K) based on data and a heritability estimate invalidates the data and heritability estimate. Of course this is nonsense.

There is bias in scholarship and Bells did an excellent job of pointing out how this survey can be misused to project the false perception that the majority of the intelligence research community believes that genes play a major role in the cause of racial gaps in IQ.

Where is your survey showing this? Are you just making stuff up? Is anybody that disagrees with your personal opinion of no human variation "white power"?

In order for racial gaps in IQ to be caused by genetic differences between races you would have to establish that race is a biologically meaningful category. Science indicates that in reality race is a social and not a biological construct (Templeton, 2013).

Templeton is based on misrepresenting Sewall Wright for a 0.25 FST subspecies limit. Many subspecies and species are below this value. And ignoring race, how do we explain national differences?

We know for a fact that environment can have major effects on the nurturing of intelligence and that there is environmental inequality between demographic groups and nations, so while it may appear that there is a correlation between "race" and intelligence that tells us nothing about the underlying cause of differences in IQ (Sternberg et al., 2005).

Is your logic "there is an environmental effect, environments are not equal, so the difference is 100% environmental"? That's all I'm seeing. Could you develop your argument beyond nonsense?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Since yesterday was Easter, the date of the OP, and I spent all my cognitive energy trying to find where that damn bunny hid those eggs, I'm not going to start from from scratch.

So, did anyone mention religion stifling intellectual prosperity? I mean, those Arabs were awesome at stuff till it seems religion got in the way. Ya' know, numbers n'stuffs.

 

[Phill]

It is bunk science.

I just read through this and the entire argument is that we should ban research into race and IQ because it's "racist". No definition or expansion is given beyond this. Pretty hilarious.

The above clarification has left some readers puzzling over whether my whole post was a joke.

Quite. Let's dismiss entire fields of scientific enquiry by calling them meaningless names.

 

[sculptor]

From the linked: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00399/full

"... Second, in the current study, data collection procedures were designed to ensure anonymity. The anonymity was implemented to reduce pressure for socially desirable responses, and to increase the likelihood of obtaining honest opinions. Opinions made in anonymity (without fear of retribution) may differ from public appraisals..."

The problem of delivering a socially acceptable- politically correct--opinion vs one based in the actual science has been a long standing problem for at least 4 decades(personal experience) and most likely much more.

Denying any genetic or regional differences in the test results is indeed denying the science of psychology!
Accepting the data as genuine, then leads to seeking an understanding of "Why?".

From the linked:
"...Education was rated by N = 71 experts as the most important cause of international ability differences. Genes were rated as the second most relevant factor but also had the highest variability in ratings. Culture, health, wealth, modernization, and politics were the next most important factors, ..."
"... Genetic factors have provoked particularly heated disputes, but even the mere description of international ability differences has been contentious....One solution to reduce conflict would be to survey experts—scientists who have conducted research on cognitive ability and who have an informed opinion about group differences. Such a solution was adopted in the current study,..."

Curiously, we see the same bias in comments in this thread..............Oft times we do indeed seem to be a microcosm of the greater world.

What we end up with is still an ongoing problem in testing for cognitive ability.
Let us consider pre-literate societies, cultures, and peoples.
Do we assume that our preliterate ancestors were significantly less intelligent (lower cognitive ability) than are we?
If so, Why so?

And, there, once again, we run into the problem of testability.(see #10 and #18 above)

May I suggest that participants in this thread take the time to read the linked article?
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00399/full

............................
Phill
Yes, I guess a lot:
However 13 years in 5 universities, 3 degrees---(one in psychology) my guesses are usually well founded in the science----------we had roughly the same discussions in Psyc. seminars over 35 years ago.-----------------I seriously doubt that the dust will ever settle on this contentious subject-------but that remains for another generation to work on.

anecdote: I once wrote a 17 page paper laying out an hypothesis, and supporting materials and dismissed one null after another----------then, in the closing paragraph, I presented yet another null which had not been investigated-----------The professor complained that I had completely sold him on the concept/hypothesis, then dashed his hopes in the closing paragraph----to which I responded---------"I'm just a student. If you were hoping for answers you've come to the wrong place. All I have is questions."

That said:
I leave you with the author's closing paragraph.

Finally, the expert survey did not address the interdependence of factors. Factors related to cognitive ability may influence each other in complex ways. For example, culture may influence education, genes, health, and cognitive ability, which in turn may influence wealth and economic development (e.g.,Rindermann et al., 2013, 2015). These interdependencies could be examined using path models and longitudinal datasets. Although expert surveys cannot replace empirical research, the current survey provides a snapshot of expert opinions, gives a balanced appraisal of current trends, and highlights targets for future studies (e.g., educational quality and genetic factors).

Much work remains to be done.

 

[sculptor]

On another note:
I suspect that those who would see racism in subjects that are not inherently racists, nor intended to be so are themselves racists.
Physician heal thyself.

 

[PhysBang]

On another note:
I suspect that those who would see racism in subjects that are not inherently racists, nor intended to be so are themselves racists.
Physician heal thyself.

The racism lies in those who would deny racism just because they haven't looked for it.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I had considered simply closing the thread, but at present, I think educating those who falsely believe that people of different races are somehow less or more intelligent than others may prove more productive in the present context. To wit, I prefer to out the idiocy of racism and bigotry than to pretend it does not exist or to hide it because it is so offensive

I gotcha...
Thanks for the feedback

... my comment was not so much about racism as it is about the evidence, and considering the study (regardless of it's origin) is contested and not validated...

 

[sculptor]

as/re #35 above:
For those who have not had the benefit of a course of study into psychology...

Defense mechanism
3. Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry(racist) feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile(racist) thoughts.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/projection-psychology

Which does not mean that everyone who sees racism in subjects that are not inherently racists, nor intended to be, are racists.
Which does not mean that anyone who sees racism in subjects that are not inherently racists, nor intended to be, is not a racists.

It ain't just the ones who have been certified as mentally ill who project.
Just a heads up, look to yourself, examine your life and prejudices, and live a more fruitful life. The unexamined life is not worth living. Strive for objectivity.

(there ain't no easy answers)
When doing research one finds clusters of like groups, then one must investigate the why of those clusterings.
Analyse the data, re-evaluate the testing mechanism--refine--retest--analyse the data---re-evaluate the testing mechanism--refine--retest--analyse the data---re-evaluate the testing mechanism--refine--retest--analyse the data---re-evaluate the testing mechanism--refine--retest--analyse the data---

With any luck at all, distinct patterns will appear.
And, again, the most important question in science presents it's self--------Why?

So, if all you racist wannabees, closet racist, and racist phobics would make a conscious effort to stay the hell off of the backs of those who would do research, maybe some good science comes out of their work.

 

[brucep]

My IQ is irrelevant. I think IQ is a good indication of intelligence. So do the vast majority of academic psychologists. Do they also have a low IQ because of their "logic path"? Why do you think IQ is not a good measure of intelligence?

Your discussion is irrelevant. Anybody whose logic path includes your discussion in academia is confused. That doesn't mean their not intelligent. It just means they're confused. But my guess would be academic psychologists are not interested in bullshit correlations. My second guess would be you're the author of this bullshit.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

See Lee 2010.

I've read it. I emailed Nisbett for feedback on Lee's article. He didn't feel that Lee challenged his best arguments regarding the environmental hypothesis for the cause of racial IQ gaps which were expanded on in a more recent article (Nisbett, 2012).

Graves claims that falsifying an evolutionary theory (r/K) based on data and a heritability estimate invalidates the data and heritability estimate. Of course this is nonsense.

Graves didn't say anything in that paper about invalidating a heritability estimate. The paper is a detailed critique of Rushton's evolutionary arguments which rely on r/K selection theory as the foundation for his own Life History Theory. What Graves argued is that r/K selection theory was falsified by critical experiments that tested its predictions based on data from a wide variety of organisms. Graves said that Rushton's theory was invalid and that his data was inadequate for testing any specific hypothesis concerning the evolution of human life histories.

These are his summary points:

1. Rushton's arguments rely on r- and K- life history theory. These designations are general descriptions of investment in reproduction and somatic tissue on opposite ends of a spectrum (r- = more reproduction/less soma and K- = less reproduction/more soma.) The problem with this notion is that it has been shown to be incorrect in a series of experiments with a wide variety of organisms. No one took this theory seriously after about 1990.

2. Even if r- and K- theory were correct, I showed that Rushton applied it backwards. By the theory, Africans should be K- selected (K selection occurs in stable environments, such as the tropics) while r-selection was to be favored in fluctuating environments, such as the temperate zones. So by Rushton's reasoning, Africans should be more genetically capable of intelligence, and Europeans/Asians less.

3. Throughout his work, Rushton selectively uses examples to support his ideas. I have caught him manipulating data in unclear ways, for the purposes of making his points.

4. Rushton requires the existence of biological races, which humans do not have. The existence of geographically based genetic variation is not the same as proving races exist, or that in life history features all Africans are different from all Europeans.

Now why is this important to this discussion? The reason it is important is because evolution is the only scientific means to explain human genetic variation. If racists can not explain mechanistically why we should expect to find genetic differences related to intelligence between races then their argument collapses like a house of cards. Rushton failed in his reasoning and Graves has shown us why racial theories of human intelligence are based on pseudoscience.

Here is an email exchange I had with another biologist who explained why r/K selection theory is not applicable to humans. He read Graves paper and agrees with his arguments.

From: (Egalitarianjay02)
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 14:01
To: David Reznick
Subject: The application of r/K selection to humans

Hello Dr. Reznick,

I recently read your 2002 article titled "r - AND K -SELECTION REVISITED: THE ROLE OF POPULATION REGULATION IN LIFE-HISTORY EVOLUTION". I am currently involved in debating racists on the internet who are supporters of J. Philippe Rushton. Rushton argued that humans evolved differences along the r/K continuum which led to genetic tradeoffs resulting in racial differences in reproductive strategies as well as traits such as intelligence and behavior. Scholars such as Joseph L. Graves say that r/K selection theory was discarded and that Rushton's arguments are wrong. Some racists have used your paper, which is cited on Wikipedia, to claim that r/K selection was only modified and not completely discarded. I would like to hear your thoughts on Rushton's work if you are familiar with it and what your beliefs are about the application of r/K selection to human races.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

(EgalitarianJay02)



From: David Reznick (david.reznick@ucr.edu)
Sent: Wed 9/23/2015 6:12 PM
To: (EgalitarianJay02)

Dear (EgalitarianJay02),

Well, I had said in that paper that r and K selection was dead, but my graduate student co-authors made me delete that part. r and K selection carries some implicit assumptions that are hard to defend so my deleting that part was more out of politeness than because I thought the theory remained viable. However, it is still generally accepted that organism life histories array themselves along a "slow-fast" continuum, meaning that there is correlated variation in the age at maturity, rate of reproduction and lifespan. One end of the continuum is fast maturation, high reproductive rate and short life span, the other end is the opposite array of traits. This really oversimplifies things but it does account for much of the variation among species.
With regard to humans, there is no evidence I am aware of for genetic variation among populations in these traits. Also, there is precious little evidence for genetic variation among races for anything, even though there is abundant evidence for genetic variation among populations. What I have said may seem contradictory, but the problem is that people have a very poor understanding of the level at which we see meaningful genetic variation. For humans, it is among populations, not races.

The human populations of Africa (which are considered one race) actually harbor more genetic variation than all of the rest of humanity so it hardly makes sense to characterize them in a unitary fashion. This is because humans originated in Africa and all humans outside of Africa represent descendants of those who migrated out of Africa around 50,000 years ago. Very often new populations were established with few individuals and harbored little genetic variation. Another source of confusion is the difference between environmental and genetic effects. One example is the age at marriage, first birth and family size. All of these factors are strongly influenced by the level of education of the mother and can change within a generation if the level of education is enhanced. I suspect your antagonists have little appreciation of the differences between environmental and genetic effects and the fact that we have very little knowledge of genetic differences among human populations. It is easy to separate them for guppies, with their short generation times and the ease with which we can breed them in the lab. Humans are a different story.

I do not know Rushton.

The bottom line is that there are elements of r and K selection that remain intact, but the theory as originally coined has little validity, which is what I argued in that paper. There is no evidence I am aware of for a genetic basis of differences among human populations for the traits that comprise r vs K selected populations. I am sure we could find some subtle genetic variation for some traits among human populations, but not among races because races are aggregates of diverse populations. I am not sure that this answers your questions. I will be happy to try again if you have more.
You should try to track down essays by Jared Diamond about genetic variation among human populations in physiological traits. He has written some for popular science magazines, like Natural History. They do a great job of describing the kind of genetic variation we see among human populations, plus they often show how this variation cuts across racial boundaries. For example variation in skin color and sodium metabolism varies among population in a way that cuts across races (meaning that there are Caucasion and Oriental populations almost as dark skinned as Africans in association with adaptation to persistently sunny environments).

Sincerely, David