Shenk's message is more nuanced that it first appears, and the title belies it a bit. He draws from Patrick Bateson's idea of alternative developmental trajectories and emphasizes how gene x environment interaction is complex and how Galton got it wrong, but when he gets into the case studies you see the patterns of people working very hard at creating environments to suit themselves. What are they suiting? It always comes down to some accumulation of tiny gene x environment interactions. It makes me wonder how we ever get from conception to maturity without going off in some weird direction, or why children end up resembling their parents. He seems to mostly have environments as a stabilizing effect directing the canalization of development. I wonder. Complex models are hard to draw recommendations from.

David seemed intrigued by my review, he is starting a dialog about it. Be interesting to see how it plays out.

Thanks for your thoughts.