The problem with pseudo-academic books without proper bibliographies is that if you find one error or non-scientific conclusion, the entire contents of the book and the credibility of the author are thrown into question. I have no doubt that most of Restak's claims are valid, but there was at least one that really rubbed me the wrong way.

Restak makes a classic argument from authority when he claims without justification that Mozart's music is somehow uniquely able to improve brain function (he doesn't state it quite so bluntly, but the intended conclusion is quite clear). When I was studying psychoacoustics in graduate school, I knew people who did research studying the effect of music on the brain, and they pretty vehemently argued that the "Mozart effect" was a crock. Just about any harmonic music can have a positive effect; there's nothing magic about Mozart. That conclusion doesn't sell CDs to insecure parents or make the nightly news, so we're inundated with "Baby Mozart" tripe.

If this was the only lapse, I'd give Restak a break, but there are other passages where he recommends very specific exercises that the reader can do to (supposedly) improve memory function. Perhaps these exercises do have some effect on the brain, but Restak gives no evidence to support that claim, and I'm not buying it. He also provides virtually no data to support his claim that one can fend off Alzheimer's disease by following his recommendations.

On the other hand, some of the other arguments make more sense. I agree that playing word games and strategy games (such as chess) can probably improve one's ability to see novel connections between objects and concepts, and I do believe that listening to and playing music is an extraordinarily worthwhile activity. And I do intend to follow Restak's suggestion to start keeping a private electronic journal to help make connections between ideas over time.