common reader, perhaps because such a contemplative mental en- terprise comes so naturally to each author when reading. Perhaps individual differences do exist between those able to be touched and healed by simply reading texts, whether or not ancient. This volume does not answer definitely its central question. Nor does it really return again to it, except to describe the bewailing torment characteristic of a particular time. The repeated echoes from time immemorial to time historical are what emerge holisti- cally from reading this entire text. There is at least similarity, if not continuity, between chapters and ages. Each period felt unrest. Each period actively addressed with action that unrest. Each moved into a relatively peaceful time . . . until the next moment (or moments) of turmoil visited .... Some spi- raling basic-ness may exist. Editor Lois Barker notes that this fluidity of time is ignored at peril. Yet as noted by Lao-Tzu, nature has its own agenda and is not really concerned with our petty outlook or desires; so as the Bible’s Eccelesiastes (9:7–10) suc- cinctly summarizes in this volume, “Life may not be fair, but since it is the only life you have, use it to the fullest while it is yours” (p. 121). The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong by David Shenk, Doubleday, 2010, 320 pp. ISBN 978-0-385-52365-3. $26.95 Disquisitiones Ingenia: Reviewed by John Protzko, New York University; and Scott Barry Kaufman, Center Leo Apostel, Free University of Brussels, and New York University DOI: 10.1037/a0020110 With a title like “The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About Genetic, Talent, and IQ is Wrong”, we admit we were eager to read every word. After tearing through 300 pages (half of which are endnotes) in only a few hours, however, we were left mostly disappointed, feeling as though major parts of the story remain untold. Let’s be clear, Shenk’s book makes you feel good. He explains (correctly) that the story of genes as blueprints is wrong; they don’t solely determine abilities. Instead, genes are reactive to the envi- ronment in what is a constant interaction between nature and nurture. Shenk argues that talent is not born but instead develops through lots of hard work and deliberate practice. To Shenk, this means there is no such thing as genetic determinism given that genes can turn on with the right environmental stimuli. There is also no such thing as innate talent; most evidence we have shows that child prodigies tend to fizzle out and not achieve greatness in adulthood. Those prodigies who do succeed as adults have done so primarily because of their early and intense environments. Also, some people do not blossom until later in life and are thereafter considered to be one of the utmost elite. Shenk also believes that IQ is a poor predictor of many measures of intelligent behavior; therefore, it is an invalid predictive construct. He also believes that there are ways you can make yourself and your children great, and he attempts to show you how. We have heard many of these points before in two other recent bestsellers: Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World- Class Performers From Everybody Else by Geoff Colvin and The Talent Code: Greatness Isn’t Born. It’s Grown. Here’s How by Daniel Coyle. Consumers are eating up these books, and for good reason: They make you feel like anything is possible and the world is your oyster. But are all of these claims true? Or at the very least, does the evidence that Shenk presents support his main arguments? We take up each line of argument in turn. Genes Shenk argues that the latest research shows that genes do not act alone, but instead are reactive to environments. Shenk notes, “Genes are involved, of course. They’re a dynamic part of the process as they come activated” (p. 56). This is surely true, but the more relevant question for a book that claims there is a genius in all of us is whether individual differences in genetic makeup contribute to this constant interaction of nature and nurture. Some genotypes may be more reactive to particular environments than other genotypes. This point is particularly applicable to Shenk’s discussion of the heritability of IQ, a paradigm that intentionally controls for genes in order to assess the contribution of the envi- ronment. The work on heritability comes to us not through biological testing of genomes, but from the study of people, twins to be specific. Shenk backs himself into a paradox by ignoring the implications of the behavioral genetic research on genetic expres- sion and the heritability of IQ. According to Shenk, if you put a pair of fraternal twins in a wealthy home where they are given every opportunity to grow their intellectual abilities, for example, a home where 30 million more words are spoken to them than if they grew up poor (Hart & Risley, 2003), this wealthy home should help make each twin smarter. And now the paradox: Fraternal twins from these households are only weakly similar to each another (correlating only about .3) on measures of verbal IQ and vocabulary when they are adults (Akerman & Fischbein, 1992; Rijsdijk, Vernon, & Boomsma, 2002). One of two points must be conceded; either these environ- mental effects have a minor lasting impression on the children as they grow into adulthood (which Shenk vehemently disavows), or the enriched environment would have to turn on “vocabulary genes” in one of the twins who had the gene and not the other. There is no doubt that genes can interact with the environment, but this finding and the little evidence that exists for such an interac- tion in the heritability of intelligence (Fischbein, 1980; Turkheimer et al., 2003) do not support the position of ignoring the fact that these effects of the home, including all the other opportunities wealthy parents give their children, wash out as the children grow into adulthood. In fact, there is actually no evidence for a G  E (Genes  Environment) interaction in the heritability of IQ. The work of Fischbein (1980) and Eric Turkheimer and his colleagues (2003), on which Shenk bases some of the data on such interactions, does not provide evidence for such an interaction. From the studies mentioned, all we see is a difference in the heritability of twin sets at different levels of socioeconomic status. We do not actually have evidence that the direct genetic effects of intelligence are being altered; we do have evidence that the heritability score is being altered. As Shenk continually wishes to remind us, herita- bility is not a synonym for genes; it is the confluence of direct and 255 BOOK REVIEWS