ContemporarySociology

July 2010 • Volume 39 • Number 4American Sociological Association

A JOURNAL OF REVIEWS

Cover.indd 1 23/06/2010 9:48:11 AM

EDITORAlan Sica

MANAGING EDITORAnne Sica

ASSISTANT EDITORSKathryn Densberger

Richard M. Simon

EDITORIAL BOARD

Pennsylvania State University

A JOURNAL OF REVIEWSJuly 2010 – Volume 39 – Number 4

Jimi AdesinaRhodes UniversitySouth Africa

Paul AmatoPennsylvania State University

Robert AntonioUniversity of Kansas

Karen BarkeyColumbia University

Sharon BirdIowa State University

Victoria BonnellUniversity of California,Berkeley

Rose BrewerUniversity of Minnesota

Craig CalhounNew York University

Bruce CarruthersNorthwestern University

Donatella Della PortaEuropean University InstituteItaly

Paul DiMaggioPrinceton University

Elaine DraperCalifornia State University,Los Angeles

Anthony ElliottFlinders UniversityAustralia

Yen Le EspirituUniversity of California,San Diego

Eric FassinÉcole Normale SupérieureFrance

Eva FodorCentral European UniversityHungary

Joan H. FujimuraUniversity of Wisconsin

Joe GerteisUniversity of Minnesota

Janice IrvineUniversity of Massachusetts,Amherst

Devorah Kalekin-FishmanUniversity of HaifaIsrael

Caglar KeyderBoğaziçi ÜniversitesiTurkey

Nazli KibriaBoston University

Chyong-fang KoAcademia SinicaTaiwan

Judith LorberBrooklyn College, CUNY

Marcello ManeriUniversity of Milano-BicoccaItaly

Ruth MilkmanUniversity of California,Los Angeles

Valentine MoghadamPurdue University

Mignon MooreUniversity of California,Los Angeles

Ann MorningNew York University

Andrew NoymerUniversity of California, Irvine

Jennifer PierceUniversity of Minnesota

Harland PrechelTexas A&M University

Wendy SimondsGeorgia State University

Neil SmelserUniversity of California,Berkeley

Nico StehrZeppelin UniversityGermany

Alenka SvabUniversity of LjubljanaSlovenia

Judith TreasUniversity of California,Irvine

Stephen TurnerUniversity of South Florida

Jeff UlmerPennsylvania State University

John UrryLancaster UniversityUnited Kingdom

Cover.indd 2 23/06/2010 9:48:12 AM

CONTENTS

387 Editor’s Remarks SociologyandGlobalizedPublishing

SYMPOSIUMRICHARD E. NISBETT’S INTELLIGENCE AND HOW TO GET IT: WHY SCHOOLS AND CULTURES COUNT

389 Suzanne Model TheIQWarsReconsidered

391 François Nielsen IntelligenceofCulture

REVIEWESSAYS Author Title Reviewer

Curb Cutting and Other Epistemological Challenges

397 Brooke A. Ackerly Universal Human Rights in a World Judith Blau of Difference

War: Causes and Consequences

399 Michael Schwartz, War Without End: The Iraq War in Context Morten G. Ender

Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery

Pandora’s Box: Or, What Did Financial Deregulation Let Loose?

402 Dan Immergluck Foreclosed: High-Risk Lending, Bruce G. Carruthers Deregulation, and the Undermining of America’s Mortgage Market

Rapid Climate Change: What Is to Be Done?

406 Nico Stehrand Climate and Society: Climate as Scott G. McNall Hans von Storch Resource, Climate as Risk

Glenn Adelson, Environment: An Interdisciplinary James Engell, Anthology Brent Ranalli, and K.P. Van Anglen (eds.)

Donald Kennedy Science Magazine’s State of the Planet, 2008-2009

Joane Nagel, Workshop: Sociological Perspectives Jeffrey Broadbent, on Global Climate Change and Thomas Dietz

Giddens and the Developing Nations Examine Global Warming

410 Anthony Giddens The Politics of Climate Change Charles Perrow

Rob D. van den Bergand Evaluating Climate Change and Osvaldo Feinstein (eds.) Development

Terri Tanielian, andLisa H. Jaycox (eds.)

Author Title Reviewer

REVIEWS417 Mohammed A. Bamyeh Anarchy as Order: The History and Future David Baronov of Civic Humanity

418 Amanda K. Baumle, Same-Sex Partners: The Social Mignon R. Moore D’LaneCompton,and Demography of Sexual Orientation Dudley L. Poston Jr.

420 Piers Beirne Confronting Animal Abuse: Law, Criminology, Brian M. Lowe and Human-Animal Relationships

421 Susan E. Bell DES Daughters: Embodied Knowledge and Linda M. Blum the Transformation of Women’s Health Politics

423 Mayra Buvinic, Equality for Women: Where Do We Stand Rae Lesser Blumberg Andrew R. Morrison, on Millennium Development Goal 3? A. Waafas Ofosu-Amaah, andMirja Sjöblom (eds.) 425 Amalia L. Cabezas Economies of Desire: Sex and Tourism in Silvia Dominguez Cuba and the Dominican Republic

426 Howard Campbell Drug War Zone: Frontline Dispatches from Robert Garot the Streets of El Paso and Juárez

428 Margarita Cervantes- Caribbean Migration to Western Europe and Regine O. Jackson Rodríguez, the United States: Essays on Incorporation, Ramón Grosfoguel,and Identity, and Citizenship Eric H. Mielants (eds.)

430 Xiangming Chen(ed.) Shanghai Rising: State Power and Local Wai Kit Choi Transformations in a Global Megacity

431 Yuet Wah Cheung A Brighter Side: Protective and Risk Factors Jia-shin Chen in the Rehabilitation of Chronic Drug Abusers in Hong Kong

433 Kelly H. Chong Deliverance and Submission: Evangelical Jerry Z. Park Women and the Negotiation of Patriarchy in South Korea

435 Cedric Cullingford Computers, Schools and Students: Andrew A. Zucker andNusrat Haq The Effects of Technology

436 Frank Dobbin Inventing Equal Opportunity Vincent J. Roscigno

438 George W. Dowdall College Drinking: Reframing a Social Problem Cecile A. Marczinski

439 Morten G. Ender American Soldiers in Iraq: McSoldiers James Burk or Innovative Professionals?

440 Umut Erel Migrant Women Transforming Citizenship: Katja M. Guenther Life-stories From Britain and Germany

442 Robert R. Faulkner “Do You Know ...?”: The Jazz Repertoire Morris B. Holbrook andHoward S. Becker in Action

444 John Bellamy Foster The Ecological Revolution: Making Paul K. Gellert Peace with the Planet

Author Title Reviewer

445 David Gartman From Autos to Architecture: Fordism Mauro F. Guillén and Architectural Aesthetics in the Twentieth Century

447 Gerald Grant Hope and Despair in the American City: Richard Arum Why There Are No Bad Schools in Raleigh

448 Mary Grigsby College Life through the Eyes of Students Tim Clydesdale

450 W. Norton Grubb The Money Myth: School Resources, Sandra L. Wong Outcomes, and Equity

451 Bret Gustafson New Languages of the State: Indigenous S. Neyooxet Greymorning Resurgence and the Politics of Knowledge in Bolivia

452 Mark Hickson III Deviance and Crime in Colleges and Tammy L. Anderson andJulian Roebuck Universities: What Goes on in the Halls of Ivy

454 E. D. Hirsch Jr. The Making of Americans: Maureen T. Hallinan Democracy and Our Schools

456 D. Bradford Hunt Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Lincoln Quillian Chicago Public Housing

457 Jane S. Jaquette(ed.) Feminist Agendas and Democracy in Ana Maria Goldani Latin America

459 Natasha Kirsten Kraus A New Type of Womanhood: Discursive Ann Branaman Politics and Social Change in Antebellum America

460 Hellmuth Lange and The New Middle Classes: Globalizing Arthur S. Alderson Lars Meier (eds.) Lifestyles, Consumerism and Environmental Concern

462 Jodie Michelle Lawston Sisters Outside: Radical Activists Working Jaye Cee Whitehead for Women Prisoners

463 D. W. Livingstone Education and Jobs: Exploring the Gaps Kenneth I. Spenner

465 Lois Ann Lorentzen, Religion at the Corner of Bliss and Nirvana: Helen Rose Ebaugh Joaquin Jay Gonzalez III, Politics, Identity, and Faith in New Migrant Kevin M. Chunand Communities Hien Duc Do(eds.)

466 JoAnn Millerand Problem Solving Courts: New Approaches John H. Kramer Donald C. Johnson to Criminal Justice

467 Francine A. Moccio Live Wire: Women and Brotherhood in the Nancy C. Jurik Electrical Industry

469 Raymond Murphy Leadership in Disaster: Learning for a Eugene A. Rosa Future with Global Climate Change

470 Serguei Oushakine The Patriotism of Despair: Nation, War, Jane Zavisca and Loss in Russia

472 John Pitts Reluctant Gangsters: The Changing Wenona Rymond- Face of Youth Crime Richmond

473 Kane Race Pleasure Consuming Medicine: The Queer Wendy Chapkis Politics of Drugs

475 Jo Reger, Identity Work in Social Movements Robert W. White Daniel J. Myers, and Rachel L. Einwohner(eds.)

476 Jeffrey G. Reitz, Multiculturalism and Social Cohesion: Rekha Mirchandani Raymond Breton, Potentials and Challenges of Diversity Karen Kisiel Dion,and Kenneth L. Dion

477 Frank Ridzi Selling Welfare Reform: Work-First and Rebecca Joyce Kissane the New Common Sense of Employment

479 Massimo Rosati Ritual and the Sacred: A Neo-Durkheimian Terry Godlove Analysis of Politics, Religion and the Self

481 Neil J. Smelser The Odyssey Experience: Physical, Social, Jeffrey C. Alexander Psychological, and Spiritual Journeys

482 Sarah A. Soule Contention and Corporate Social Davita Silfen Glasberg Responsibility

483 Ashwini Tambe Codes of Misconduct: Regulating Svati P. Shah Prostitution in Late Colonial Bombay

485 Gregory M. Thomas Treating the Trauma of the Great War, Jeffrey Prager Soldiers, Civilians and Psychiatry in France, 1914–1940

486 Jackson Toby The Lowering of Higher Education in Peter Kaufman America: Why Financial Aid Should Be Based on Student Performance

487 Jonathan H. Turner and On the Origin of Societies by Valerie A. Haines Alexandra Maryanski Natural Selection

489 Loïc Wacquant Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal David F. Weiman Government of Social Insecurity

491 Florian Wettstein Multinational Corporations and Global Alessandro Bonanno Justice: Human Rights Obligations of a Quasi Governmental Institution

492 Emilio Zamora Claiming Rights and Righting Wrongs Veronica Terriquez in Texas: Mexican Workers and Job Politics During World War II

BRIEflYNOTEd495 Susan Buck-Morss Hegel, Haiti, and Universal History

495 Eric M. Carter Boys Gone Wild: Fame, Fortune, and Deviance among Professional Football Players

496 Mathieu Deflem The Policing of Terrorism: Organizational and Global Perspectives

496 Norbert Elias, edited Essays I: On the Sociology of Knowledge and the Sciences

Essays II: On Civilising Processes, State Formation and National Identity

497 Jon Elster,translated Reason and Rationality bySteven Rendall

Author Title Reviewer

byRichard KilminsterandStephen Mennell

498 Sir James Fergusson ‘The Personal Observations of a Man of Intelligence’: Notes of a Tour in North America in 1861

498 Albert R. Smith Gavarni in London: Sketches of Life and Character, with Illustrative Essays by Popular Writers

498 W. T. Stead The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon: Report of the Secret Commission

498 Mark Freemanand Vicarious Vagrants: Incognito Social Explorers and Gillian Nelson (eds.) the Homeless in England, 1860-1910

498 Antony E. Simpson(ed.) Witnesses to the Scaffold — English Literary Figures as Observers of Public Executions: Pierce Egan, Thackeray, Dickens, Alexander Smith, G.A. Sala, Orwell

499 Gerald E. Frugand City Bound: How States Stifle Urban Innovation David J. Barron

500 Marco Giugni(ed.) The Politics of Unemployment in Europe: Policy Responses and Collective Action

500 David C. Hammack and Globalization, Philanthropy, and Civil Society: Steven Heydemann(eds.) Projecting Institutional Logics Abroad

500 Jennifer Leila Holsinger Residential Patterns of Arab Americans: Race, Ethnicity and Spatial Assimilation

501 Birgit Jentsch and International Migration and Rural Areas: Myriam Simard(eds.) Cross-National Comparative Perspectives

501 Jill Jepson Women’s Concerns: Twelve Women Entrepreneurs of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries

502 Lake Lambert III Spirituality, Inc.: Religion in the American Workplace

502 Catherine Davis Marcum Adolescent Online Victimization: A Test of Routine Activities Theory

503 Tamar Mott African Refugee Resettlement in the United States

503 Manuel Pastor Jr., This Could be the Start of Something Big: How Social Movements Chris Benner,and for Regional Equity are Reshaping Metropolitan America Martha Matsuoka

504 Colin Rochester, Volunteering and Society in the 21st Century Angela Ellis Paine, and Steven Howlett

504 Paul C. Rosenblatt Shared Obliviousness in Family Systems

504 Edward A. Tiryakian For Durkheim: Essays in Historical and Cultural Sociology

505 Stephen Valocchi Social Movements and Activism in the USA

507 CommentandReply

507 eRRatum

508 publiCationsReCeived

515 indexofauthoRsbyCategoRy

Author Title

Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews (ISSN 0094-3061) is published bimonthly in January, March, May, July, September, and November by SAGE Publications, 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320, on behalf of the American Sociological Association, 1430 K Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20005. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Contemporary Sociology c/o SAGE Publications, Inc., 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320.

Copyright © 2010 by American Sociological Association. All rights reserved. No portion of the contents may be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher. Periodicals postage paid at Thousand Oaks, California, and at additional mailing offices.

Concerning book reviews and comments, write the Editor, Contemporary Sociology, Department of Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University, 211 Oswald Tower, University Park, PA 16802, E-mail: cs@la.psu.edu. CS does not accept unsolicited reviews, nor self-nominations for reviewing a specific book. We do, however, welcome vitae of prospective reviewers. Also, CS will not process review-copies of books sent by any person or organization other than the original publisher. Authors wanting to assure consideration of their book by CS should advise their publisher to send a review copy directly to the journal’s editorial office. The invitation to review a book assumes that the prospective reviewer has not reviewed that book for another scholarly journal. Comments on reviews must be fewer than 300 words and typed double-spaced. Submission of a comment does not guarantee publication. CS reserves the right to reject any comment that does not engage a substantive issue in a review or is otherwise unsuitable. Authors of reviews are invited to reply.

Non-Member Subscription Information: All non-member subscription inquiries, orders, back issues, claims, and renewals should be addressed to SAGE Publications, 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320; telephone: (800) 818SAGE (7243) and (805) 499-0721; fax: (805) 375-1700; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; http://www.sagepublications.com. Subscription Price: Institutions: $276 (online/print), $248 (online only). Individual subscribers are required to hold ASA membership. For all customers outside the Americas, please visit http://www.sagepub.co.uk/customerCare.nav for information. Claims: Claims for undelivered copies must be made no later than six months following month of publication. The publisher will supply replacement issues when losses have been sustained in transit and when the reserve stock will permit.

Member Subscription Information: American Sociological Association member inquiries, change of address, back issues, claims, and membership renewal requests should be addressed to the Executive Office, American Sociological Association, 1430 K Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20005; Web site: http://www.asanet .org; e-mail: customer@asanet.org. Requests for replacement issues should be made within six months of the missing or damaged issue. Beyond six months and at the request of the American Sociological Association, the publisher will supply replacement issues when losses have been sustained in transit and when the reserve stock permits.

Abstracting and Indexing: Please visit http://cs.sagepub.com and click on the Abstracting/Indexing link on the left-hand side to view a full list of databases in which this journal is indexed.

Copyright Permission: Permission requests to photocopy or otherwise reproduce material published in this journal should be submitted by accessing the article online on the journal’s Web site at http://cs.sagepub.com and selecting the “Request Permission” link. Permission may also be requested by contacting the Copyright Clearance Center via their Web site at http://www.copyright.com, or via e-mail at info@copyright.com.

Advertising and Reprints: Current advertising rates and specifications may be obtained by contacting the advertising coordinator in the Thousand Oaks office at (805) 410-7772 or by sending an e-mail to advertising@sagepub.com. To order reprints, please e-mail reprint@sagepub.com. Acceptance of advertising in this journal in no way implies endorsement of the advertised product or service by SAGE or the American Sociological Association. No endorsement is intended or implied. SAGE reserves the right to reject any advertising it deems as inappropriate for this journal.

Change of Address for Non-Members: Six weeks’ advance notice must be given when notifying of change of address. Please send the old address label along with the new address to the SAGE office address above to ensure proper identification. Please specify name of journal.

Cover art by Tina Burke; coloration advice by Jennifer Norton.

Printed on acid-free paper

EDITOR’S REMARKS

SOCIOLOGY AND GLOBALIZEDBOOK PUBLISHING

After nearly two years of studying the bookswhich flow into the CS mailroom for review(over 1000 in 2009), several observationsbecome empirically supportable. In sheerquantity, the most active anglophone pub-lishers of unambiguously sociological mono-graphs and edited collections are British,most notably Ashgate, Blackwell, Cam-bridge, Oxford, Palgrave Macmillan, Polity,Routledge, and Sage. U.S. presses whichbetween the ’50s and the ’80s kept in printlong lists of distinguished sociologicalworks—Basic, Doubleday/Anchor, FreePress, Harper and Row, Penguin, Random/Vintage, and the most renowned universitypresses (e.g., California, Chicago, Columbia,Harvard, and so on) have either droppedtheir ‘‘serious’’ sociology lines entirely or sig-nificantly cut back in their offerings, movingto other fields or to niche markets that wereonce part of sociology, but now stand ontheir own, serving scholarly communitiesbeyond one discipline (e.g., gender studies,queer studies, border studies, postcolonialstudies). Women’s studies saturates allscholarly zones, as ever more authors arefemale, whose books are aimed at that verybroad audience. The commercial presses(and those at universities when they canwin manuscript competitions) now favorjournalistic works with strong sociologicalundercurrents, e.g., Barbara Ehrenreich’sbooks, Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matterwith Kansas?, and dozens of instant booksexplaining the financial crisis, written asmuch from a quasi-sociological as an eco-nomic viewpoint.

This situation poses an interesting dilem-ma or opportunity for the current editorand his Editorial Board. For much of CS’slife, since 1972, books written by U.S. sociol-ogists were in most cases reviewed by theircolleagues within this country or Canada,with a few ‘‘guests’’ from the United King-dom and Europe handling the more exoticworks. As everyone now knows, the world

of publishing moves, daily it seems, moreand more resolutely from printed paper tothe sphere of screens, and the roles andinterests of publishers and readers corre-spondingly shift. British publishers werebequeathed by Margaret Thatcher and herpolitical followers a great gift—an unintend-ed consequence if ever there was one—inthat the dreaded annual evaluations (for-merly the ‘‘Research Assessment Exercise,’’now the ‘‘Research Excellence Framework’’)under which professors in the United King-dom labor require fresh vita lines that canonly be filled with substantial publications.A recent academic commentator referred tothis as ‘‘the pseudo-corporate model of uni-versity governance imposed by Conserva-tive and Labour governments since 1979’’(Geoffrey Alderman, ‘‘Why UniversityStandards Have Fallen,’’ The Guardian, 3/10/10). Thus, the internal push for book-making remains very strong there in a waythat seems less the case among sociologistsin the United States, many of whom favorarticles. Yet there are very few British univer-sity libraries large or rich enough to absorbthis avalanche of books, so the search formarkets shifted some time ago to the UnitedStates, Japan, and a few other rich countries.Meanwhile, as U.S. publishers followed therightist cultural tendencies of the publicsphere, engendered by Reagan and elaborat-ed ever since, sociologists in this countrybegan to look ever more hopefully to Britishpublishers as outlets for their monographsand collections.

Where does this leave the only major bookreview journal in English dedicated exclu-sively to works in sociology? If I and myBoard tried to match every book selectedfor review (about 40 percent of thosereceived) country for country, so thata book by a French sociologist would bereturned to France for review, we wouldvery quickly exhaust our known pool of pos-sible reviewers. Yet at the same time, there

� American Sociological Association 2010DOI: 10.1177/0094306110373231

http://cs.sagepub.com

387 Contemporary Sociology 39, 4

are ever fewer domestic reviewers with suit-able expertise to handle the more exoticstudies—e.g., about Scandanavian laborpractices, or Slovenian health issues—thatwe receive. Many such books are fascinating,and clearly sociological, but are not at alleasy to match with informed reviewers onour side of the Pond. The simplest reviewsituation—a monograph by a U.S. sociolo-gist on an important topic published bya notable publisher, here or abroad, forwhich there are many possible reviewers—becomes ever rarer. And even if the Boardidentifies, say, a dozen likely reviewers,half or more will refuse for the usual rea-sons. A mismatch is taking shape in thesociological world of scholarly publishing,reading, and reviewing that in ways mimicssimilar developments in the humanities. Rel-atively idiosyncratic studies emerge fromunexpected corners of the intellectual andgeographical worlds, some of them wellworth study and reviewing, while the popu-lation of ‘‘perfectly matched’’ potentialreviewers steadily shrinks—for all the rea-sons routinely discussed in journals thatdeal with scholarly literacy. If scholars, liketheir students, spend ever more hoursanswering emails and checking their citationcounts, they have less time, energy, and

interest in reading dense monographs ontopics which may not exactly fit their ownresearch, or their scholarly ambitions. Wehave become hyper-particularized in our‘‘interests,’’ even while the ideological chat-ter about globalization becomes a daily roar.

At the urging of my Editorial Board, I haveadded a dozen foreign scholars to the Board,from Australia, France, Germany, Hungary,Israel, Italy, Slovenia, South Africa, Taiwan,Turkey, and the United Kingdom. Thus theopportunity presents itself in theory to out-source our reviewing opportunities, as wehave done with manufacturing and datahandling for the last 20 years. We haveindeed begun to offer books for review toforeign readers, including some of U.S. prov-enance. Whether this will work as a longterm solution to the ongoing crisis of review-ing remains to be seen, not least becauseEnglish language capability among foreignreviewers cannot usually be established inadvance of sending invitations for review.But with the globalization of knowledgeand book production, actual and imagined,that surrounds us, CS must try to swim instrong and unusual currents without losingsight of its principal goal: to review fairlyand thoroughly as many works of sociologi-cal merit as its pages will accommodate.

388 Editor’s Remarks

Contemporary Sociology 39, 4

A SYMPOSIUM ON RICHARD E.NISBETT’S INTELLIGENCE AND

HOW TO GET IT: WHY SCHOOLS ANDCULTURES COUNT

The IQ Wars Reconsidered

SUZANNE MODEL

University of Massachusetts, Amherstmodel@sadri.umass.edu

Forty years ago, Arthur Jensen (1969) pub-lished his controversial article ‘‘How MuchCan We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achieve-ment?’’ Drawing on a variety of sources, heconcluded that genes were sufficientlyimportant to IQ that efforts to improve intel-ligence were a waste of time. He alsoasserted that genes contribute to social classdifferences in IQ. Fifteen years ago, Herrn-stein and Murray (1994) offered a similarargument in The Bell Curve. Going even fur-ther, they contended that modern labor mar-kets so effectively sort individuals bycognitive ability that the resulting inequal-ities are fair. Not surprisingly, these state-ments stimulated a stream of rebuttals.Even the American Psychological Associa-tion felt impelled to issue a position paper(Neisser et al. 1996).

It is in this tradition that psychologistRichard Nisbett has published Intelligenceand How to Get It, which opens with the claimthat: ‘‘Many, if not most experts on intelli-gence in the late twentieth-century believedthat intelligence and academic talent aresubstantially under genetic control . . .’’(p. 1). However, this is not the interpretationoffered in the American Psychological Asso-ciation position paper described above. Tobe sure, the hereditarians have not yetdied: in 2005, J. Philippe Rushton andArthur Jensen re-iterated their geneticclaims. But their viewpoint does not attractmany followers in the academy. Perhapsmost laypeople believe that mental ability

is substantially genetic in origin. That mightbe one reason why Nisbett’s book receivedsuch a warm reception in the pages of TheNew York Times (e.g. Holt 2009, Kristof2009a, 2009b).

The book is certainly aimed at readers ofpublications like The New York Times. Thisis evident from its title, as well as from itsfinal chapter: ‘‘Raising Your Child’sIntelligence . . . and Your Own.’’ Highly tech-nical details are placed in two appendices.The first provides an introduction to statisti-cal terms and ideas; from it, the reader learnsthat Nisbett has less patience with the flawsof multiple regression than with the flaws ofsocial scientists’ laboratory experiments. Thesecond argues that the IQ differencesbetween blacks and whites are entirely dueto environment. This appendix could havebeen strengthened by incorporating someof the findings of Harvard’s AchievementGap Initiative, especially those of Fryer andLevitt (forthcoming). Still, neither appendixis likely to hold the attention of the readerwithout a background in methodology,which implies that Nisbett is hoping a fewsocial scientists will read his book, too.

Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schoolsand Cultures Count, by Richard E.Nisbett. New York, NY: W. W. Nortonand Co., 2010. 320pp. $17.95 paper.ISBN: 9780393337693.

389 Contemporary Sociology 39, 4

� American Sociological Association 2010DOI: 10.1177/0094306110373233

http://cs.sagepub.com

Nisbett summarizes his argument at theoutset: ‘‘The accumulated evidence ofresearch, much of it quite recent, providesgood reason for being far more optimisticabout the possibilities of improving the intel-ligence of individuals, groups, and society asa whole, than was thought by most expertseven a few years ago’’ (p. 2). What followsis essentially a literature review accompaniedby critical commentary. The heart of the bookexamines the causes of group variation incognitive skills and evaluates remedies forshortfalls. Nisbett focuses on the effects ofhome and school; he also considers culture,both in terms of class and race/ethnicity.With respect to class, he acknowledges thatmiddle class parents engage in more behav-iors that promote cognitive functioning thando lower class parents. Yet, he is not con-vinced that controlling for social class makesracial and ethnic differences in child rearingstyles disappear. This possibility leads himto consider black culture as a source of theblack-white differences in cognitive skills.Unfortunately, in pursuing this question, hedraws on the work of Thomas Sowell.

Sowell (1978) distinguished three types ofblack origins: free blacks in the United States,black slaves in the United States and blackslaves in the West Indies. For reasons toocomplex to outline here, he argued that thehistorical conditions associated with theserespective experiences were particularly del-eterious to the culture of black slaves in theUnited States. Taking a cue from Sowell, Nis-bett writes that during the Great Migration,the descendants of southern black slaves‘‘overwhelmed the descendants of the freepersons of color, changing the nature of theindigenous black community and bringingconsiderable social pathology to the citiesof the North’’ (p. 108). This view of blackmigrants has been discredited for quitesome time (e.g. Long and Heltman 1976).

Nisbett also follows Sowell in arguing thatthe work ethic fostered by West Indian cultureis responsible for the economic advantage thatWest Indian immigrants register over AfricanAmericans. But, as Model (2008) has shown,African American internal migrants are aseconomically successful as West Indian immi-grants. Thus, West Indian attainment is betterexplained by the selectivity of migration thana unique work ethic. Such complexities aside,

the questionable lesson Nisbett draws fromWest Indian success is that: ‘‘However severeracism may be, it does not prevent blacks fromattaining high levels of achievement if theyhave good skills and favorable attitudestoward work’’ (p. 111).

Nisbett also considers East Asians. They arerelevant because their academic achievementis well above average, though their IQs arenot. Nisbett, who has written a book compar-ing eastern and western ways of thinking,offers a multi-faceted explanation. He creditsthe Asian belief that grades and test scoresare largely a matter of effort, as opposed tothe American belief that these are largelya matter of genes. Asians also imbue their off-spring with a collectivist stance, which exhortschildren to bring credit to their families. Hecites studies showing that Asian teens spendfar more time on homework than whites,who in turn spend more than blacks. Clearly,culture, as transmitted through child rearingpractices, can boost achievement.

Finally, Nisbett considers Jews. UnlikeAsians, the IQs of Ashkenazi (European)Jews are above average, but, like Asians,their academic achievement is higher thantheir IQ predicts. Nisbett would like to attri-bute these findings entirely to Jewish cul-ture, but the evidence he presents on thispoint is not compelling. The best one cansay is that the verdict is still out on the deter-minants of Jewish ability.

The book concludes with recommenda-tions on how cognitive skills can beimproved; recommendations like exercise,breast feeding, praising children for effortrather than results and avoiding inexperi-enced teachers. Slightly humorous is Nis-bett’s suggestion that parents teachchildren patience by ‘‘modeling delay ofgratification’’ (p. 188). One wonders whetherthe middle class persons who will choose toread this book need this advice.

What about the cognitive skills of disadvan-taged minority children? As Nisbett shows,there has already been some improvement.Evidently, he believes that in order for furtherimprovement to occur, Americans must beconvinced that the remaining shortfalls arewholly environmental in origin. But this seemsunnecessary, for three reasons. First, as long assome portion of group differences is attribut-able to environment (either directly or through

390 Symposium

Contemporary Sociology 39, 4

interaction with genes), environmentally-induced change is possible. Second, theimprovement that has already taken placeseems to have been largely unintended: it isthe result of a general upgrading in school cur-ricula and an increasingly sophisticated popu-lar culture. Hence, additional unintendedupgrading cannot be ruled out. Third, evenNisbett concedes that more research is neededbefore the government could justify expendinglarge sums on intensive interventions.

In the meantime, since poverty is correlat-ed with cognitive deprivation, Nisbett recom-mends that income inequality be reducedthrough strategies like a higher minimumwage and child tax credits. There are ofcourse a number of additional policy innova-tions that would have an indirect effect onimproving cognitive skills. These includelowering the minority incarceration rate, pur-suing housing desegregation with vigor, andproviding affordable, quality health care,especially to expectant mothers and theirchildren. Whether American opinion leanstowards nature or nurture is less importantthan whether these kinds of changes canoccur. Unfortunately, the current politicalatmosphere suggests that reforms of thissort will not be implemented any time soon.

References

Fryer, Roland G. Jr. and Steven D. Levitt. Forth-coming. ‘‘Testing for Racial Differences in the

Skills of Young Children.’’American EconomicReview. Retrieved August 14, 2009 from http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/fryer_levittbabiesrevision.pdf

Herrnstein, Richard and Charles Murray. 1994.The Bell Curve. New York: Free Press.

Holt, Jim. 2009. ‘‘Get Smart.’’ New York Times,March 27. Retrieved August 14, 2009 fromhttp://www. nytimes.com/2009/03/29/books/review/Holt-t.html?scp=7&sq=nisbett&st=nyt

Jensen, Arthur. 1969. ‘‘How Much Can We BoostIQ and Scholastic Achievement?’’ HarvardEducational Review 39:1-123.

Kristof, Nicholas D. 2009a. ‘‘How to Raise Our IQ.’’New York Times, April 15. Retrieved fromhttp:/ /www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/opinion/16kristof.html?scp=6&sq=nisbett&st=nyt

———. 2009b. ‘‘Rising Above IQ.’’ New York Times,June 6. Retrieved August 14, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/opinion/07kristof.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=nisbett& st=nyt

Long, Larry and Lynn Heltman. 1975. ‘‘Migrationand Income Differentials Between Black andWhite Men in the North.’’ American Journal ofSociology 80:1391-409.

Model, Suzanne. 2008. West Indian Immigrants: ABlack Success Story? New York: Russell Sage.

Nesser, Ulric, et al. 1996. ‘‘Intelligence: Knownsand Unknowns.’’ American Psychologist 51(2):77-101. Retrieved August 14, 2009 from http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html

Rushton, J. Philippe and Arthur Jensen R. 2005.‘‘Thirty Years of Research on Race Differencesin Cognitive Ability.’’ Psychology, Public Policyand Law 11(2):235-94.

Sowell, Thomas. 1978. ‘‘Three Black Histories.’’Pp. 7-64 in Essays and Data on American EthnicGroups, edited by T. Sowell. Washington, DC:The Urban Institute.

Intelligence of Culture

FRANCxOIS NIELSEN

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hillfrancois_nielsen@unc.edu

Research on intelligence, normally carriedout away from public eyes, periodicallyerupts to public consciousness with contro-versial works emphasizing the central roleof intelligence in modern life and the roleof heredity in its determination, most recent-ly The Bell Curve (Herrnstein and Murray1994). Richard Nisbett offers in Intelligenceand How to Get It a comprehensive mani-festo of the non-hereditarian position,emphasizing the role of culture in generating

differences in intelligence among individu-als and social classes, and along racial andethnic lines.

Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schoolsand Cultures Count, by Richard E.Nisbett. New York, NY: W. W. Nortonand Co., 2010. 320pp. $17.95 paper.ISBN: 9780393337693.

Symposium 391

Contemporary Sociology 39, 4

The book contends that while differencesin intelligence among individuals may beaffected to some extent by genetic factors,and IQ differences among social classesmay also reflect in part genetic differences,genes play no role in average IQ andachievement differences among people ofEuropean, African, East Asian and Jewishancestry. Differences among racial and eth-nic groups (when they exist at all) are entire-ly due to such cultural and environmentalfactors as parenting style, strength of familybonds, differential access to quality school-ing, or a cultural tradition of learning. Nis-bett is well acquainted with the literatureof intelligence research and confesses havingonce held hereditarian beliefs. Some of hisstated positions—that intelligence is a majorfactor in individual socioeconomic success,that social class differences in IQ may reflectin part genetic differences, and that heritabil-ity of IQ may be substantial in high-SESfamilies—are compatible with the hereditar-ian model dominant in mainstream intelli-gence research. Nisbett’s ‘‘culture only’’approach to understanding the black-white(B-W) IQ gap and the conspicuous successesof East-Asians and Jews is more at variancewith that outlook. In this review I will dis-cuss some of the book’s central themes inthe context of the larger intelligence researchliterature.

Genes, Class, and IQ

Nisbett’s thesis that culture plays a predomi-nant role in class and group IQ differencesnecessitates an engagement with the behav-ior genetic model that underlies mainstreamintelligence research. Outlines of the elabo-rate corpus of linked theories, methodolo-gies and findings of intelligence researchare found in Gottfredson (1997) or Neisseret al. (1996). Jensen (1998) is a treatise-lengthsynthesis.

Intelligence research uses behavior geneticstudy designs—such as comparisons ofidentical and fraternal twins—to distinguishthree components of the variance in a mea-sure of intelligence, such as an IQ test score.Heritability is the proportion of varianceattributed to all causes of genetic variability.The shared environment is the proportion of

variance attributed to all environmentalinfluences that are shared by siblings butvary between families—variables suchas social class, quality of local schools, orethnic culture. The shared environmentreflects the potential effect on IQ of raisingthe quality of the most disadvantaged rear-ing environments to the level of the mostadvantaged ones. It thus represents anupper bound on improvement in the traitachievable by policy intervention withinthe existing range of environmental varia-tion (Rowe 1994). Finally the unshared envi-ronment represents the combined effect offactors that tend to make siblings differenton the trait.

Over the past two decades a systematicpattern of change in the components of IQvariance over the life course has emerged.Heritability of IQ is typically found to beabout 45 percent in childhood, with theshared environment at 35 percent. In lateadulthood heritability rises to over 80 per-cent, and the role of the shared environmentvanishes. Throughout the life course theunshared environment (which includesmeasurement error) represents some 20 per-cent of the IQ variance (Jensen 1998). Nisbettis well aware of these findings. As class andethnic cultures vary between families andare thus part of the shared environment,the vanishing shared environment effect inadulthood seems to preclude an importantrole of culture in determining intelligence.

Nisbett engages this difficulty by invokingthe possibility of interaction between geno-type and environment. This phenomenon,denoted G 3 E, occurs when a characteristicof the family environment, such as SES,moderates the expression of genes so the rel-ative values of the variance components arechanged. There is evidence that heritabilityis lower (and the shared environment corre-spondingly larger) for families with lowerSES or lower levels of parental education (lit-erature cited in Nielsen 2006). Higher valuesof the shared environment component forlower-SES families implies greater potentialeffectiveness of environmental interventionin raising IQ levels of children in these fam-ilies. He further argues that shared environ-ment effects estimated from twin studies(through differential attrition of low-SEStwin pairs) and from adoption studies

392 Symposium

Contemporary Sociology 39, 4

(because of the restricted environmentalrange due to screening of adoptive families)are downwardly biased.

On the other hand Nisbett emphasizesa unique French study in which researchersidentified from administrative records andtested for IQ 38 cases of children put up foradoption. Cases were chosen in which thebiological mother and the family of adoptioncould be classified as either high SES or lowSES (excluding cases with intermediate SESvalues for either the biological mother orthe adoptive family), forming an almost per-fect cross-fostering design of a kind that isusually only possible in animal studies.The researchers found both a genetic effect(children of high SES biological mothershad higher IQ) and a strong family environ-ment effect (children raised in high SES fam-ilies had a 12–18 points advantage comparedto low SES families) (Capron and Duyme1989). Nisbett interprets this finding as evi-dence of a powerful environmental effect ofsocial class on intellectual development.

In the last chapter Nisbett concludes thatgenes may explain as much as 70 percentof the variation in intelligence in upper mid-dle class families, but perhaps as little as 10percent of the variation in low SES families.Based on the 12–18 point difference foundby Capron and Duyme (1989) he concludesthat being raised in a high SES versusa low SES family can raise IQ by as muchas 0.8–1.2 SD. His recognition that genescontribute importantly to variation in IQ, atleast for high SES families, is a point ofagreement with mainstream intelligenceresearch. However many researchers wouldhesitate drawing such a strong conclusionfrom the single study of Capron and Duyme(1989)—because of the small sample, theyoung age at which the subjects were tested,and the typical pattern of vanishing sharedenvironment by late adolescence found inmost studies.

Nisbett attributes to a majority of IQexperts the belief that the class structure ofmodern society largely reflects innate differ-ences in cognitive and other abilities. Heagrees that intelligence is a powerful predic-tor of socioeconomic success, and that therelationship between social class and cogni-tive outcomes in children may reflect inpart genetic transmission of cognitive

abilities from parents to offspring. Arguingagain on the basis of the 12-18 IQ points classeffect in the French adoption study, however,he suggests that most of the 10 IQ point gapbetween children at the lower and upperthirds of the SES distribution must be dueto environmental differences, not genetictransmission.

What are the specific environmental fac-tors responsible for the class effect on IQ?Lower class disadvantages in nutrition,lead exposure, breast-feeding, quality ofmedical care, and alcohol consumption, aswell as more frequent moving and higherstress levels, may be contributing to lowerIQs and academic achievement. Nisbettemphasizes cultural factors, notably classdifferences in parenting. Higher-SESparents, he argues, raise their children soas to provide them with (p. 85) ‘‘the kindsof questioning, analytic minds they willneed as professionals and high-level manag-ers’’ while lower-SES parents raise children‘‘who will eventually be workers whose obe-dience and good behavior will stand them ingood stead with employers who are notlooking to be second-guessed or evaluated.’’

The Black-White IQ Gap

Two chapters and one long technical appen-dix address the vexing issue of the B-W IQgap. Nisbett contends that (1) the B-W gapis, in fact, declining, and (2) the gap hasa purely environmental, nongenetic basis.His exposition may be contrasted with thesystematic development of the hereditarianapproach in Jensen (1998, Chapters 11 and12) and the comprehensive review by Rush-ton and Jensen (2005a), which Nisbett targetsin his discussion, together with critical com-mentaries by a number of experts includingNisbett (2005) and Gottfredson (2005), andthe rejoinder by Rushton and Jensen(2005b) as well as their detailed review ofNisbett’s book (Rushton and Jensen 2009).

The B-W IQ gap question originates in thelarge difference in average black and whiteIQ scores found in many studies from thebeginning of IQ testing in the early 1900s.Nisbett invokes recent data indicating thatthe B-W IQ gap—which had been mostly sta-ble at about one SD (15 points) for most of the

Symposium 393

Contemporary Sociology 39, 4

past century—decreased between 1972 and2002. He further interprets National Assess-ment of Education Progress (NAEP) datashowing a decrease in the combined mathand reading gap as indicating a narrowingof the IQ gap. However the size and interpre-tation of the decline are controversial (Gott-fredson 2005) and the most recent NAEPdata (for 2004-2008) show no narrowing ofthe gap (Rushton and Jensen 2009).

In the B-W gap debate ‘‘direct’’ evidencefor a genetic basis refers to evidence of a rela-tionship between IQ and individual racialancestry. It is estimated that the ancestry ofAfrican Americans is about 20 percent Euro-pean. If ancestry affects IQ there should bea correlation between proportion of Europe-an genes and IQ. Nisbett points out thatdirect studies—involving correlation ofskin color or blood-group with IQ—are oldand largely inconclusive, providing littlesupport for or against an hereditarian con-clusion (see also Loehlin 2000). This situa-tion may soon change, with attendantethical and political dilemmas, as it hasbecome technically feasible to carry outdirect tests of the relationship betweenancestry and IQ. Molecular genetic technolo-gy allows accurate estimation of the ancestryof an individual, on the basis of a few dozengenetic markers, as a continuous measure ofEuropean (or other continental) ancestry.Such measures are routinely used in medicalgenetic research, where ‘‘population stratifi-cation’’ (racial heterogeneity) of the subjectpool must be measured to control for thepossibility of spurious findings (e.g., Tanget al. 2005). An exceedingly simple design—correlating IQ score of African Americansubjects with the estimated proportion ofEuropean ancestry—would yield resultsmore powerful than any of the earlierstudies.

The bulk of the hereditarian case for a sub-stantial genetic basis of the B-W gap thatNisbett confronts is based on ‘‘indirect’’ evi-dence. The hereditarian ‘‘default hypothe-sis’’ is that the B-W IQ gap is determinedby the same mechanisms as individual(within group) differences (Jensen 1998).Given the high heritability of IQ and negligi-ble role of the shared environment in indi-vidual differences beyond adolescence, themean environmental disadvantage that

would have to be assumed to explain theB-W difference of about one SD is implausi-bly large. Jensen (1998), for example, calcu-lates that the mean environment of blackswould have to be at the 6th percentile ofthe white distribution to account for theB-W IQ discrepancy, a difference muchgreater than any measured differencebetween black and white households in edu-cation, income, and other dimensions ofenvironment quality.

The hereditarian case, and Nisbett’s refu-tation of it, involves a large array of interre-lated findings, too numerous to be reviewedhere, such as the greater gap for culture-fairthan for culture-loaded tests; lower meanIQs of sub-Saharan Africans compared toU.S. blacks; worse black performance onmore g-loaded subtests; greater heritabilityof more g-loaded subtests; more pronouncedgap for subtests more susceptible to inbreed-ing depression; correlation of cranial capaci-ty and brain size with IQ; larger averagebrain sizes for whites than blacks; correla-tion of IQ with speed of information process-ing; regression of black children to a lowermean than white children, given equalparental IQ.

The hereditarian argument that an envi-ronmental explanation of the B-W gapwould have to involve average environmen-tal differences of improbable magnitude hasprompted efforts at identifying specific fac-tors of disadvantage that would differential-ly affect all members of one group ascompared with members of another, withoutaffecting IQ variation within groups. Jensen(1998) has dismissed such arguments as adhoc and untestable ‘‘factor X’’ theories. Nis-bett, aware of this pitfall, argues from hisearlier conclusion that heritability of IQmay be only 10 percent in lower-SES fami-lies, that regular environmental, especiallycultural factors play a role in the B-W gap,especially for low-SES blacks. He proposesthat wealth disadvantage, teenage mother-hood, discrimination, caste-like status inhib-iting ‘‘effort optimism,’’ unstable marriages,stereotype threat, parenting practices dis-couraging inquiry, and youth culture placingemphasis on athletic and entertainmentachievement rather than academics can allcontribute to black IQ disadvantage, con-cluding that these factors ‘‘could have

394 Symposium

Contemporary Sociology 39, 4

a powerful effect on how much each groupdoes ‘mental exercise’ and on the cognitiveproblem-solving skills they each develop.And none of these things has to behavelike the implausible factor X’’ (p. 213).

East-Asian and Jewish Achievement

The achievements of East-Asians, both asimmigrants in the United States and in inter-national comparisons of test scores in sci-ence and mathematics, are remarkable.Intelligence researchers estimate the averageIQ of East-Asians at 106, about one third ofa SD higher than Europeans (Rushton andJensen 2009), but on the basis of a study byFlynn (2007) Nisbett reckons that East-AsianIQ is no higher than European IQ. He con-tends that East-Asian achievement reflectsnot higher IQ but a greater drive for achieve-ment. East-Asians overachieve because ofhard work and persistence in the face of fail-ure. Their drive is rooted in turn in culturalvalues going back to the philosophy of Con-fucius, that emphasize a collective, family-oriented motivation to succeed. The centralrole of the family in motivating individualmobility through education is itself rootedin the traditional examination-based Chinesegovernment service system. Nisbett moregenerally contrasts East-Asian values orient-ed toward harmonious interdependence ofindividuals and holistic habits of thought,with a Greek tradition of independence, indi-vidualism, and analytical habits of thought,the latter accounting for the greater scientificachievement of Western culture.

Nisbett describes how Jews or half-Jews inthe United States have received 40 percent ofNobel Prizes in science, comprise 33 percentof Ivy League students, and similar propor-tions of the faculty at elite colleges, anover-representation of more than 15 to 1 rel-ative to their two percent share of the popu-lation. These remarkable successes and 10-15points IQ advantage of Ashkenazi Jews aretraced to the AD 64 edict by Jewish highpriest Yehoshua ben Gamla ordering thatall males be able to read the Talmud. Nisbettseems to argue that this single eventaccounts in large part for lopsided Jewishsuccess. Jewish culture—with its traditionalrespect for education and intellectual and

artistic achievement and the strength of fam-ily ties (the legendary Jewish mother) isdeemed sufficient explanation for highachievement, so a genetic explanation isunnecessary. There is little discussion of thespecific cultural mechanisms that wouldtranslate Jewish cultural values into suchconspicuous advantage. By analogy withthe East-Asian case, however, Nisbett propo-ses a possible cumulative intergenerationalprocess ‘‘The Asian American example ofone generation building IQ on the socioeco-nomically advanced shoulders of the pre-ceding generation shows that culture couldaccount for a significant portion of the IQgap between Jews and non-Jews—perhapseven all of it—by scaffolding to ever higherlevels’’ (p.181).

Nisbett cites, but dismisses, an evolution-ary model proposing that high AshkenaziIQ, along with a distinctive profile of highverbal and mathematical but average spa-tial ability, are a product of natural selectionstemming from the unusual social niche(financial and managerial occupations)occupied by Jews in Medieval Europefrom about AD 800 to 1600, when all therequired preconditions for such selec-tion—low inward gene flow, unusuallyhigh economic reward for certain cognitiveskills, and demographic circumstances inwhich economic success led to increasedreproductive success—existed (Cochran,Hardy, and Harpending 2006). Theseauthors note that there is no equivalent ele-vation of intelligence in Sephardic and Ori-ental Jews today, and that distinctivecharacteristics of Ashkenazi genetic dis-eases (such as their relation to nerve cellgrowth) can be explained as genetic by-products of a strong selection for IQ.

Conclusion

Nisbett recognizes a substantial role of IQ insocioeconomic achievement, a role of genesin individual IQ differences (up to 70 percentof the variance in high-SES families), andsome role of genes in class differences.However he rejects any role of genes in IQand achievement differences between racialand ethnic groups, specifically the B-W gapand East-Asian and Jewish success. His

Symposium 395

Contemporary Sociology 39, 4

demonstration is knowledgeable and capti-vating. However issues remain.

First, the paramount role Nisbett attributesto culture in the determination of intelligenceis implausible given the accumulated find-ings of intelligence research that IQ isgenetically heritable to a considerable degreeand that the shared environment—whichincludes such cultural factors as family val-ues and parenting style—has essentiallyzero effect on IQ after adolescence.

Second, the extraordinary degree of cultur-al continuity that Nisbett assumes is hardlyplausible. Is it really believable that Jews—who were not renowned for high intelligencein Antiquity—would be faithfully passing ontheir high regard for education and intellectu-al prowess over centuries following Yehoshuaben Gamla’s edict in AD 64? Or that Greekanalytic and individualistic habit of thought,recognizable in the thinking of Euclid orPlato, have somehow passed on through theages and a multilingual succession of peoplesto become part of the Western culture oftoday, down to a propensity of Western sub-jects to describe fish swimming in a tankless holistically than East-Asian subjects?

Nisbett’s book may well be the mostsophisticated exposition of the non-hereditar-ian thesis on the origin of IQ and achieve-ment differences written to date. It isinstructive, entertaining, and hopeful. Manyreaders will be encouraged by Nisbett’s the-sis that IQ differences among individuals,and between classes and racial and ethnicgroups, are fundamentally cultural andthus, perhaps, reducible by cultural and envi-ronmental means. There is an insatiable thirstfor this message, and the book will no doubtbe highly successful. Given the strengths ofthe hereditarian case, however, the author’sclaims may well be illusory.

References

Capron, Christine and Michel Duyme. 1989.‘‘Assessment of Effects of Socioeconomic

Status on IQ in a Full Cross-Fostering Design.’’Nature 340:552-553.

Cochran, Gregory, Jason Hardy and HenryHarpending. 2006. ‘‘Natural History of Ash-

kenazi Intelligence.’’ Journal of Biosocial Science38(5):659-693.

Gottfredson, Linda S. 1997. ‘‘Mainstream Scienceon Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signato-ries, History, and Bibliography.’’ Intelligence24:13-23.

———. 2005. ‘‘What if the Hereditarian Hypothe-sis is True?’’ Psychology, Public Policy and Law11:311-319.

Herrnstein, Richard J., and Charles Murray. 1994.The Bell Curve. New York, NY: Free Press.

Jensen, Arthur R. 1998. The g Factor. Westport, CT:Praeger.

Loehlin, John C. 2000. ‘‘Group Differences inIntelligence.’’ Pp. 176-193 in Handbook of Intelli-gence, edited by Robert J. Sternberg. Cam-bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Neisser, U., G. Boodoo, T.J. Bouchard, Jr., A.W.Boykin, N. Brody, S.J. Ceci, et al. 1996. ‘‘Intelli-gence: Knowns and Unknowns.’’ AmericanPsychologist 51:77-101.

Nisbett, Richard E. 2005. ‘‘Heredity, Environment,and Race Differences in IQ: A Commentary onRushton and Jensen.’’ Psychology, Public Policy,and the Law 11(2):302-310.

Nielsen, Francxois. 2006. ‘‘Achievement andAscription in Educational Attainment: Geneticand Environmental Influences on AdolescentSchooling.’’ In The Linking of Sociology andBiology [special section], edited by GuangGuo. Social Forces 85:1(September):193-216.

Rowe, David C. 1994. The Limits of Family Influ-ence: Genes, Experience, and Behavior. NewYork: Guilford.

Rushton, J. Philippe and Arthur R. Jensen. 2005a.‘‘Thirty Years of Research on Race Differencesin Cognitive Ability.’’ Psychology, Public Policyand Law 11:235-294.

———. 2005b. ‘‘Wanted: More Race Realism, LessMoralistic Fallacy.’’ Psychology, Public Policyand Law 11:328-336.

———. 2009. ‘‘Race and IQ: A Theory-BasedReview of the Research in Richard Nisbett’sIntelligence and How to Get It.’’ Online athttp://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Intelligence and How to Get It(Working Paper).pdf. Retrieved 11 Aug 2009.

Tang, H., et al. 2005. ‘‘Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confoundingin Case-Control Association Studies.’’ Ameri-can Journal of Human Genetics 76:1-7.

396 Symposium

Contemporary Sociology 39, 4