
Study finds learning music won’t make children smart - pseudolus
https://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/music/put-down-the-banjo-timmy-study-finds-learning-music-won-t-make-children-smart-1.1055974
======
lhorie
I dislike the sensationalization in the article ("Put down the banjo, Timmy").
The headline makes it sound like learning music is about as useless as sitting
on your couch, as far as intelligence goes. But it goes on to say that the
study talks about looking at a wide range of studies and stating that quality
studies compare music learning with control groups that do other types of
activities, like sports.

You don't really need a PhD in psychology to figure out that any activity that
involves putting effort over long periods of time will yield _some_ sort of
result. Whether that actually translates directly to hyper-specific
measurements (e.g. school math grades) as opposed to only "soft" long-term
changes in behavior (e.g. developing an interest in the relationship between
music and math, leading to e.g. an interest in software engineering over
medicine, or an increased interest in arts, or whatever) seems to me like
asking the wrong question.

Both music and intelligence are incredibly multidimensional. Trying to
narrowly define a supposed correlation between two very narrow aspects of both
might be a disservice to the idea of the development of a well rounded
individual. I feel that many people take these sorts of soundbite titles to
heart as if they were little life hacks to "get ahead", rather than thinking
about life as a holistic experience.

~~~
Farow
> _The headline makes it sound like learning music is about as useless as
> sitting on your couch, as far as intelligence goes._

Isn't that kind of what the study says though? It specifically concludes:

> _Moreover, recent correlational studies have confirmed that music engagement
> is not associated with domain-general cognitive skills or academic
> performance._

What I understand from this study is that whether you learn music or sit on
your couch will have no difference on your cognitive abilities and only make
you better at music if you do the former.

The study also mentions that you can't transfer skills to different domains. I
think this further reinforces their conclusion.

> _While human cognition has been shown to be malleable to training, transfer
> of skills appears to be limited to the training domain and, at best, other
> similar domains. [...] Near transfer – i.e., the transfer of skills within
> the same domain – is sometimes observed, far transfer – i.e., the transfer
> of skills across two distant domains – is rare or possibly inexistent._

While music can have positive effects, those would be mostly limited your
general well-being, will not make you smarter and can be achieved through
other activities as well.

> _Music may be beneficial for non-cognitive constructs in children such as
> prosocial behavior and self-esteem. These possible advantages are not likely
> to be specific to music, though. In fact, any enticing and empowering
> activity may improve children’s well-being._

~~~
lhorie
> Isn't that kind of what the study says though?

Perhaps so for specific cognitive measurements, but you quoted yourself a
semi-contradictory blurb:

> Music may be beneficial for non-cognitive constructs in children such as
> prosocial behavior and self-esteem.

(at least, I'm not aware of any claims of sedentarism being correlated with
anything positive)

One could argue that some aspects of intelligence do fall in the "nature"
realm (as opposed to being nurturable), but for _practical purposes_, one
ought to consider the application of said intelligence to real life scenarios,
and I think improvements in prosocial behavior and self-esteem can certainly
be important factors there.

~~~
charwalker
> Music may be beneficial for non-cognitive constructs in children such as
> prosocial behavior and self-esteem.

Learning music, incuding an instrument to play on, teaches a ton of skills
(focus, effortful practice techniques, managing failure and your limits,
adapting what you have learned to different but similar music, work with other
musicians on duets and more, etc) that you can learn through other mechanisms
(athletics, LEGO/FIRST robotics, regular schoolwork). If anything, the ability
to encounter a new piece of music (say jazz), connect it to styles or pieces
you already understand, then to improvise off the style and make it your own
is a process many developers do week to week with reading and adapting old
code. You can't master one then immediately excel at the other but the base
skills related to patience and effort connect.

Anecdotally, I learned a few instruments growing up and although I resented
part of the process I think it benefited me a ton. I felt like I had a drop
off in focus and effort applied to tasks after I stopped paying after high
school. I met and kept a ton of awesome friends through music and playing in
school bands. I have a lot of memories and success stories that come from
learning an instrument and how music works. That was compelling when learning
about physics and sound or how in tune notes are created based on a
mathematical equation. It was super helpful to connect with others who learned
an instrument growing up, like a few of my friends I see (not anymore) or talk
to weekly. So I can be a data point for the prosocial argument as well as self
esteem. I think the process helped me get to where I am today, even if I don't
play anymore.

------
jonfw
The question becomes 'as opposed to what?'

The article says that studies which controlled against dance or sports showed
no additional effect. Which looks really good for music IMO- because exercise
has incredible benefits.

Maybe as compared to sports, music doesn't show additional benefit- how about
as compared to watching YouTube videos? Playing flappy bird?

I find it hard to believe that we can really 'prove' anything with respect to
child development. The studies have a phenomenally low lack of control on one
end, which produces a LOT of noise. On the other end- we have no effective
ways of measuring child development. Standardized tests or IQ produce metrics
that are somewhat useful to measure how productive a child may be, but is that
really what you want to optimize for as a parent?

What we really want to do for our kids is optimize for lifelong happiness. And
we aren't even remotely close to measuring that.

~~~
Hoasi
> The question becomes 'as opposed to what?'

A better question is: why do you learn or teach music?

Learning music provides plenty of benefits for the development of children,
but nobody teaches music with the specific goal of rendering people smarter.

~~~
nickff
Many people force their children to learn an instrument with the expectation
that it will make them more intelligent, and lead to better life outcomes.

~~~
fyz
Not trying to be argue for the sake of arguing, but is there some data to back
this claim up? Anecdotally I'm aware of many parents who think music makes
their kid well rounded, but I'm not aware of parents that specifically believe
learning music makes their kid more intelligent in non-musical areas.

~~~
woko
> I'm not aware of parents that specifically believe learning music makes
> their kid more intelligent in non-musical areas.

It is all anecdotal evidence, but I am aware of some parents who "forced"
their baby (and then little kid) to listen to classical music (specifically
Mozart), because the kid would become a genius. Apparently, after some
googling, it is called the "Mozart effect". Here are press articles about it:

[1] [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-
fiction-b...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-
babies-ex/)

[2] [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130107-can-mozart-
boost...](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130107-can-mozart-boost-
brainpower)

Could it be a motivation for teaching music to little kids? That is what is
suggested in the conclusions of the articles linked above, and which I quote
below. Some parents might be receptive to these conclusions.

From the Scientific American article [1]:

> Rather than passively listening to music, Rauscher advocates putting an
> instrument into the hands of a youngster to raise intelligence. She cites a
> 1997 University of California, Los Angeles, study that found, among 25,000
> students, those who had spent time involved in a musical pursuit tested
> higher on SATs and reading proficiency exams than those with no instruction
> in music.

From the BBC article [2]:

> There is a way in which music can make a difference to your IQ, though.
> Unfortunately it requires a bit more effort than putting on a CD. Learning
> to play a musical instrument can have a beneficial effect on your brain.
> Jessica Grahn, a cognitive scientist at Western University in London,
> Ontario says that a year of piano lessons, combined with regular practice
> can increase IQ by as much as three points.

------
yboris
Terrible reporting when it doesn't include a link to the publication:

[https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-020-01060-2](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-020-01060-2)

------
epx
This only concerns tiger moms. I learnt a bit of music when 10-12 and I am
forever grateful for that, because music is a bridge between your senses and a
lot of physics phenomena. It is a way to create bridges between
feelings/senses and knowledge. For example, you can hear how a DSP filter or a
modulator changes the original signal; you find the reasons why an engine with
a certain number of cylinders sounds better; and so on.

Having some IQ is one thing, using it is another.

~~~
omarhaneef
I learned to play the guitar, so I guess that is why I can recognize when my
gear makes that horrible grinding sound.

If I hadn't learned the chords to "All along the Watchtower", I'd probably be
stranded on the side of the road right now.

~~~
klft
And If you got stranded you don't worry because you know that there must be
some kind of way out of here.

~~~
temporallobe
Said the joker to the thief.

------
deeblering4
I’m not sure an IQ test is the best metric when looking at the benefits of
playing an instrument.

Music teaches patience, dedication and rewards self-motivation and self-
teaching, among other things.

~~~
mattmar96
Another benefit besides those you listed is teamwork. Playing together in a
band, there is no way to "game the system". Everyone needs to learn their part
to make the overall piece enjoyable. It proved to me at an early age that
people can come together to create something greater than themselves.

From the original study: "-evidence indicates that engagement in music has no
impact on people’s non-music cognitive skills".

My intuition says the evidence must not be comprehensive enough then.

~~~
tarentel
Team work isn't really a cognitive skill. I agree it can help with team work
but you don't necessarily need to play in a band to learn an instrument. Also,
from the actual study, "music may be beneficial for non-cognitive constructs
in children such as prosocial behavior".

~~~
mattmar96
Good point. Glad to see they mentioned the prosocial bit. Didn't catch that.

------
antman
Personal anecdote. I worked in a top lab in my country’s university. My lab
mates went off to work in top universities, as is the tradition. The lab
employed two top students in the country by some specific metric. People
working there had not a common background, upbringing or optimized method of
work I could identify.

The only thing in common was that they all been taught to play instruments at
a young age. We could have made an orchestra with the people working there.

The way I saw it at the time wasn’t that they were smarter, but that they had
the understanding that practicing was important and that looking or sounding
ridiculous at their first steps on anything was a usual process.

It wasn’t that they had developed intelligence, grit or perseverance, it was
just another day for them of engaging something new, a paper or work item, and
getting down to it.

Lack of self doubt and emotionless engagement in unfamiliar topics is probably
more important than a few points higher in an IQ scale.

~~~
bonestormii_
I think this is correct.

I've known many people who seem so much quicker to learn new things than me,
but they can't seem to _do_ anything serious because they immediately get fed
up with how "bad" everything is.

Write a poem? The title sucks. Write a song? It sounds like something else.
Write some code? This is ridiculously complicated and will take years.

May as well not try at all. :P

------
wintermutestwin
IMO, someone who perseveres through the horribly difficult early stages of
learning an instrument to the point where they can play something passably
well is learning delayed gratification. The ability to delay gratification is
directly correlated with success in life:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment)

~~~
Edman274
That correlation disappears once you control for wealth. People go for instant
gratification once they've learned that they can't trust that the thing
they're delaying gratification for will ever come. People like to make fun of
people who pick 100 dollars today over 200 dollars a month from now, but for
the "other half", 200 dollars a month from now might as well be an eternity
from now. And because wealth tends to be heritable and have other knock-on
effects, what the study is really testing for is how trustworthy a child
thinks adults are with offers, which is affected by whether that child is
raised in the kind of environment where nothing can be guaranteed since an
entire paycheck may have been entirely used up.

~~~
timack
"Why Rich Kids Are So Good at the Marshmallow Test" :
[https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmall...](https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmallow-
test/561779/)

------
odomojuli
Doesn't surprise me but the study also seems to be just trying to measure
academic achievement.

I mean sure, I'm incredibly skeptical of "baby Mozart" approaches to music.
Certainly starting young and practicing early goes a long way towards being
successful in anything. Discipline in any field builds discipline towards
others.

We can go on and on about the mathematical nature of music but I would argue
it's easier for people to do it by not thinking about those things and being
in touch with how it feels.

I'm kind of bothered that anything to do with IQ these days is pursued by
researchers or is given a fair shake by our dear readers at Hacker News.

Stop trying to max your kids stats. It's incredibly dehumanizing. I get that
we all want children to have the best opportunities, but maybe it'd be a more
equitable situation if we stopped reducing ourselves to a numbers game.

Maybe they'll be smarter when they learn to do things they feel passionate
about and not conditioned to perform like a trained monkey. We already have
enough performative identity for careerism in high school kids. Maybe
intelligence and success comes from knowing yourself, and not from being told
to do things because you get points?

Sorry parents! An essential part of culture and discipline of art and pleasure
might not be inherently advantageous to your child's ability to fill out tests
so while you're at it make sure they never do anything for themselves beyond
the sole purpose of getting in somewhere just so they can realize they don't
know who they are!

Edit: Also the use of "put down the banjo". Let's talk about that. This is a
study done in Japan and the UK. Are they even playing the banjo? Nothing wrong
with the banjo, banjo's great. But specifically going with the banjo as their
title and image lends itself to a specific tone for some readers. Not exactly
what some people would consider "intellectual" music for vague reasons in
class and race perhaps. I'm detecting a bias here against the "utility" of
folk music. I wish they'd link the actual paper. Did the researchers give a
bunch of banjos as part of a controlled study? I'm so sure a lot of well-to-do
parents in Tokyo and London are feeling burned by having to keep up with the
competitive nature among children in banjo culture.

~~~
sevensor
Exactly.

My kid is playing Tchaikovski on the piano at this very moment. (Well, a for-
beginners version of one of his themes, but still.) She's happy playing it,
I'm happy hearing it. If nobody gets any smarter, who cares? We both just got
happier. _Ars gratia artis._

------
wufufufu
Studying music will make you better at music. Studying IQ tests will make you
better at IQ tests.

I think we put too much emphasis on general intelligence when it's not well
defined and easily gamed. It's also a talking point for racists.

~~~
BurningFrog
How are IQ tests "easily gamed"?

I suspect that is only true for really smart people :)

~~~
lhorie
Easiest way to "game" it is to take it multiple times or practice/cram for it.

~~~
skinkestek
At least around here it seems people are allowed to take the Mensa test
multiple times.

I never took the official one but I understand a lot of effort goes into
constructing test sets that doesn't benefit from cramming but (except for
getting used to the format, which you can do online) only on raw "processing
power".

I'm not a scientists or a psychiatrist so take my word for just that: my
understanding.

Also I note that from what I hear on HN it seems to be that in USA IQ tests
contain both spelling and history questions which - in my ears sounds like
something very different from a raw IQ test.

------
pseudolus
A link to the referenced journal article "Cognitive and academic benefits of
music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis" published in Memory
and Cognition [0].

[0]
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-020-01060-2](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-020-01060-2)

------
oscargrouch
I have a subjective and still esoteric(be warned) theory about attention span.
As someone who have learned to play an instrument at my early teens, i've
learned that to be actually good at something, you need to learn to deal with
the primary discomfort feeling. You are learning to fighting your natural
'cavemen nature', the more primitive parts of your brain that are more
inclined to satisfying immediate pleasures. As i've said, is a subjetive
observation, but in my experience at least, people that tend to have lower
quality results in what they do, apparently have lower 'attention spans'.
Their effort to concentrate into something is faster, and if you see a puppy
dog, or a cat, or even a human baby, you can see they are distracted easily,
jumping from one subject to another very fast.

Now if we think about humans that we regard the most, like Newton, Beethoven,
Einstein, Curie, Rodin, etc..

The research or the product of their labor require a very big attention span,
as in, they need to meditate over long periods of time on the same subject.

Now, getting back to the point, i've learned that things like learning a
musical instrument, programming, learning some math, or reading classics,
helped me into acquiring long attention spans, resulting in a improvement on
the quality of my thoughts, ideas and products of the thinking process.

Maybe just learning music alone wont prove anything, but i bet that if you mix
the right kind of activities, you can have at least, a starting point to
sophisticated human beings.

------
dorkwood
My parents (who have both never played an instrument in their lives) signed me
up for piano lessons when I was a child. I'd regularly be sent home with
homework that I didn't know how to complete, no one taught me how to practice,
and I'd frequently show up to lessons without any idea of what I was doing.
I'm sure my parents paid a hefty fee, but I got zero value out of the
experience.

As an adult, I revisited the piano, and learned more by myself over several
weeks than I ever did going to lessons as a child. The experience taught me
how to practice better, and it gave me a stronger intuition for how the brain
learns.

The mistake my parents made was thinking that all the learning happens at the
music lesson. That simply attending classes was enough to make me a better
musician and a smarter child. I wonder how many other parents out there are
making that same mistake right now.

~~~
new_guy
When I first started lessons (as an adult) I too thought learning only
happened at the lesson, I thought it was enough to pay and turn up, in fact I
was so bad/lazy I was going to get dropped as a student.

But with constant daily practice now I'm not bad.

Regardless of 'studies' like this, learning music is incredibly beneficial in
so many different ways and every child should have the opportunity.

------
yboris
From the conclusion of the published article:

> music may be beneficial for non-cognitive constructs in children such as
> prosocial behavior and self-esteem ... [though] any enticing and empowering
> activity may improve children’s well-being

------
pibsd
I would say those who study music (classical) at young age come from quite
wealthy families, which mean easier access to resources, e.g., books, good
schools, dedicated teachers, etc which could eventually lead to better iq test
results.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Piano helped me incredibly as an emotional outlet, I wasn't good and can't
really play anything without music, but it gave me a tool for cathartic
expression.

That might have helped with school studies and such?

~~~
nonbirithm
I played piano also, but only because my parents prodded me to (not forced,
but essentially told me I ought to do and hired a teacher so I'd have to show
progress at weekly intervals).

I didn't like it at all. To this day I still have an adversity to touching a
physical instrument because of the memories I had of being 12, trying to
challenge myself to playing a piece I liked and completely failing to reach a
competent level, because I actually didn't care enough about piano as opposed
to spending my time on transient time-wasters like television shows about
video games, and I _knew_ that I didn't care enough to get good, but I was
encouraged to challenge myself anyways, and _then_ I felt inferior because of
seeing all the people the same age or younger around me that handled pieces
many times more difficult with ease.

I hated being told that I did great by everyone after a recital where I ended
up pausing in silence for an entire minute, because I knew they were only
trying to keep my mood from deteriorating afterwards and because I personally
knew from the heart that I did not do anything resembling "great."

Then I joined wind ensemble in high school.

As a result I can't listen to classical music without anxiety bubbling up any
longer because of the ingrained memories of being pushed to be better than
other people and being compelled to get into regional division X and not
realizing that as someone without a purposeful devotion to music all of that
was _hopeless_ to accomplish from the start, such that the disappointment in
my lack of abilities that followed was inevitable.

------
RedBeetDeadpool
Sounds like the same argument someone linked to chess - that playing chess
doesn’t make one smarter. Funny thing is, do you know what has a direct
influence on neuron growth? Lifting weights, running, exercise. Not saying we
have it all wrong, but I would question every sensational article that’s out
there.

~~~
cerebrum
> Lifting weights, running, exercise.

Your comment needs to be upvoted.

------
gumby
The benefit of playing music is that some people find it fun. What’s wrong
with that?

~~~
notahacker
This. Learning music definitely makes children smarter _at playing music_ ,
which is beneficial to anyone that might enjoy hearing their music or
performing with them, and definitely the bit that ought to matter to the kids
themselves if they're taking music lessons.

If you're learning/teaching music to get better at things you care about more
than music, you've got the wrong idea...

------
lopmotr
People have such weird attitudes to IQ. Either denial of it's significance or
hope to improve it by applying the right life experiences. It all seems based
around the fear of the possibility that some of us really are born inferior
and doomed to a worse life than others.

But we are. By far the easiest way to improve a child's IQ is to select
parents with high IQ. But nobody wants to deselect themselves so wanting a
high IQ child goes against the instinct of wanting to reproduce for most
people and they're stuck in a cognitive dissonance.

We can reduce it through neglect and trauma but there's no known lasting way
to enhance it beyond the natural limit each person is born with.

How about just accept that we're not all born equal? Nobody worries that a dog
is less intelligent than a person but we still have pet dogs and happily
accept their limitations.

------
madballster
I feel reminded of "gym science" when it comes to a lot of parental
development strategies for children. Everyone does it so there must be
something to it. If controlled studies can't replicate any effects it does not
appear to bother parents much.

Why is it so hard to accept that domain transfer does not exist. If kids learn
chess for a few years, they won't be better at mathematics. After five years
of practicing Violin kids don't find learning a foreign language easier.
Adding insult to injury, learning Latin (like many Europeans still do)
contrary to common sense does not improve scholastic results of students when
learning other languages.

~~~
benrbray
> Why is it so hard to accept that domain transfer does not exist.

I think, because, that's simply not true. The question is really "to what
extent does domain transfer exist, and how can we exploit it?"

> If kids learn chess for a few years, they won't be better at mathematics.
> After five years of practicing Violin kids don't find learning a foreign
> language easier.

If kids spend several years on intentional practice of chess or violin,
they're also practicing discipline. Compared to kids who spend these years
unfocused, I'm guessing this group will have an easier time learning math or
French simply because they have better learning habits.

~~~
EL_Loco
Ok, I agree, but is a kid who spent several years on intentional chess
practice better academically then a kid who spent several years on intentional
math practice?

~~~
benrbray
I think that depends on a lot of factors, and I wouldn't want to judge one way
or the other.

Perhaps a kid who spends several years in chess clubs and really enjoys it is
better off academically+socially than a kid forced by their parents to compete
in math tournaments against their will, simply because the latter will have
better emotional maturity and a support system to help them succeed later in
life.

Speaking to my own experiences, I can say my parents encouraged me to hyper-
optimize for grades and academics, but that I missed out on a lot of other,
irreplaceable experiences growing up. My parents taught me to look down on
people who choose sports, theater, etc. over academics, but as an adult I see
just how formative those activities can be when it comes to soft skills like
teamwork and leadership.

------
angst_ridden
"Smart" is one of those nebulous things, until people give it a too-narrow
definition like IQ. It's important to acknowledge that there are many kinds of
intelligence, not all of which are pure logic or knowledge-gathering.

~~~
rc_mob
I like this definition of intelligence

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
I think it's a poor definition. I don't like change. I don't like going to new
places, I like my routine. Change makes me uncomfortable and I'm slow to
accept it. I like my usual meals and sleeping in my own bed. Does that make me
unintelligent? Or does "change" need to be better defined?

~~~
weaksauce
i would imagine they mean a change in information not a change in routine.
updating your mental model of the world based on new incoming information.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
That's why I'd like the definition to be refined. There's also displays of
intelligence that have nothing to do with change - being able to do complex
math in your head would indicate you're intelligent, but has nothing to do
with change.

------
aaron695
You can't change IQ (You probably can, but it's not simple)

But you can change the second biggest life impacting testable factor in
people, conscientiousness.

Seems like learning music is a good way to learn conscientiousness.

This article is really bad advice.

But it does raise the question do people in the United Arab Emirates think
most Americans play the banjo or are they self aware about the ironic-ness, or
does the 44C weather temperate that day mean it's just to hot for them to
think much about the article they wrote.

------
PragmaticPulp
The study doesn't conclude that learning music is useless. They focused only
on generalized cognitive measures.

Dedicated learning of any activity over time, music or otherwise, likely has
long-term benefits in terms of learning how to focus, how to achieve goals,
how to manage time, and other structural improvements.

The authors even cite other studies showing that learning music can improve
well-being, improve self-esteem, encourage prosocial behavior, and even lead
to more narrow cognitive improvements in math fields that might not
necessarily appear on generalized IQ tests.

> First, music may be beneficial for non-cognitive constructs in children such
> as prosocial behavior and self-esteem (e.g., Aleman et al., 2017). These
> possible advantages are not likely to be specific to music, though. In fact,
> any enticing and empowering activity may improve children’s well-being.
> Second, elements of music instruction (e.g., arithmetical music notation)
> could be used to facilitate learning in other disciplines such as arithmetic
> (Azaryahu, Courey, Elkoshi, & Adi-Japha, 2019; Courey, Balogh, Siker, &
> Paik, 2012; Ribeiro & Santos, 2017).

------
ipiz0618
Sounds a bit counter-intuitive to me. I always thought the brains of musicians
are much more analytical as playing music requires a lot of understanding and
(usually) good memory. Classical and jazz musicians typically remember a lot
of music in their heads, which require tremendous effort and a rigid process.

Anyway, even if learning music doesn't raise IQ, there are so many benefits.
Other than having an enjoyable hobby, I always thought the process of learning
classical music properly is very similar to programming (or other aspects in
life). You start from small segments, practice until you're good enough to
move on, repeat, and slowly put larger pieces together. You then listen to
your playing, find out what's unsatisfying, then repeat the process until
you've mastered the piece. After learning a piece, you also need to maintain
it from time to time if you still want to play it well. This kind of learning
process cannot be shown in an IQ test, but is beneficial to a child's
development if adopted early.

------
sandworm101
Where did the idea come from that studying music was meant to make kids smart?
I don't see the presumed connection. Not everything we learn is meant to
increase our cognitive abilities. Schools teach music to product more well-
rounded individuals, not to make them smarter. Schools are something more than
IQ factories.

------
djsumdog
Not everything needs an objective quantifiable measure of academic performance
to make it a good thing people should know.

Even if Music may not have an affect on academic performance or cognitive
skills, it's still a fun skill. Most primary school programs introduce kids to
basic music reading, singing, and simple instruments. Some kids like it and
enroll in more music programs. Some kids say it's not for them and do other
things. But it's nice to give kids that introduction and those options.

If you like music, it can provides decades of enjoyment to learn how to play.
It doesn't make you better than people who just listen to and appreciate
music, but it can enhance your happiness to be able to pick and and fiddle
around with your fiddle or harmonic or guitar every once in a while.

What happened to learning just for the sake of learning and enjoyment?

------
Uhhrrr
If you take out "music", it becomes, "Study finds learning won't make children
smart".

------
dnprock
I see learning to play an instrument as a self improvement exercise. It's a
process. There's a lag between our hands and our ears. It's easy for the ears
to know a "good" song. It's hard for the hands to play a good song. To play a
song well is to bridge the skill gap of the hands. When you can play a song
well, you "complete" a task. The process improves our skills and our
cognition. We can recognize "good" from "not so good". Overtime, it can
improve our baloney detector. It improves self awareness. You know when you
suck. And you know if you work diligently, you'd be able to improve. I think
it's a valuable skill. It's more important than high SAT or IQ scores.

------
ergocoder
This sounds more like correlation.

The kids who gets music lessons probably come from richer families.

The cost is rather high. Instruments, uniforms, maybe private tutor, space and
time to practice. Irregular schedule because of music practice.

Kids from richer families are well taught and end up being more competent in
general.

------
unexaminedlife
I played music for several years when in school, starting in Junior High.
Didn't read the article, but the title inspired me to make a comment.

I think the skills you learn in music performance are extremely valuable.
Sure, there are plenty of people who "learn music" but don't apply themselves
like with any discipline.

This is only anecdata, but if I had to guess I'd say there is a correlation
between my ability to toggle into and out of a "flow" state when working as a
programmer and my past life when I spent a great deal of time learning music.

Sure everyone's experience will vary, but I found that "flow" is a phenomenon
I regularly experienced when performing music once I reached a certain skill
level.

------
ravedave5
Some of the best programmers I know were music majors turned programmer.
There's something about the creativity or learning of another abstract
"language" that music brings that seems to tie well into programming.

------
cerebrum
Are there similar studies regarding chess?

I found this, it seems chess doesn't make you smarter:
[https://theconversation.com/does-playing-chess-make-you-
smar...](https://theconversation.com/does-playing-chess-make-you-smarter-a-
look-at-the-evidence-76062)

Relevant quote:

"The fact that skills learned by training do not transfer across different
domains seems to be a universal in human cognition. In other words, you get
better, at best, at what you train in – which may just sound just like good
old fashioned common sense."

------
tunesmith
I think learning music is very effective for self-improvement for other
reasons, it's a very effective exercise in reconciling feelings with reality.
Do you love a particular section of the music in your head and it's really
hard? You just have to keep wrestling with reality to learn it. Are you trying
to express a certain feeling with music? You have to get skilled enough at the
music/instrument to be able to express it. I don't know if that means it
actually helps teach emotional self-regulation in general, but I wouldn't be
surprised.

------
wenc
Learning music might not may a child smarter, but it may teach the child
"metaskills" like character which cannot be learned directly. Here's an
(snipped) quote from something I read a while ago: [1]

 _" When a student learns piano, all Americans can see is that the student is
now equipped with the skill to play the piano. Under this view, unless the
student can put that skill into use in the future somehow, the time spent on
acquiring that skill is wasted. This is a deeply mistaken attitude, and the
ever-smart tiger cub Sophia Rubenfeld-Chua has the perfect answer showing the
flaw of that attitude:

''I’m never going to be a professional pianist, but the piano has given me
confidence that totally shapes my life. I feel that if I work hard enough, I
can do anything. I know I can focus on a given task for hours at a time. And
on horrible days when I’m lost and a mess, I can say to myself, "I’m good at
something that I really, really love." I want my kids to have that confidence
– confidence rooted in something concrete, not just "aww everyone’s a
winner!!!" confidence, because in your heart you never believe that.''

The point of learning the piano is NOT about acquiring the skill of playing
the piano so that the student can earn a living as a pianist. It is about
building the character of the person. Here is the thing about character -- you
can't build it by explicitly setting out to build it. Character is not a skill
like tying your shoelaces. If it must be put in terms of "skill", character is
a "meta-skill" \-- a foundational human skill that is necessary to perfect any
number of mechanical skills. And the only way to develop this meta-skill is to
develop at least one highly sophisticated mechanical skill, such that the
student may acquire the meta-skill in the course of building the mechanical
skill.

... it is about acquiring genuine confidence and iron discipline. With such
confidence and discipline, she can move on and do anything she wants in her
life because there is no task in life in which confidence and discipline
hinder success."_

[1] [http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2011/05/confucianism-and-
kore...](http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2011/05/confucianism-and-korea-part-v-
what-can.html)

------
jl2718
Music is one of the most enjoyable ways to create. I don’t really care what my
kids do specifically; I just want them to learn how to experiment and create
and have fun and never stop playing.

~~~
Forge36
Of all the hobbies I picked up. Music was never one I learned to be creative
in. I learned to memorize existing songs.

~~~
jl2718
I'm aware that this is the case for most people's music 'education'. Sometimes
I think the same for school-taught programmers. Actually I have a hard time
coming up with any kind of education that has enabled more than stifled
creation.

Long ago I had just one music lesson and then bailed forever; it was terribly
rote, but much later as an adult I did something that changed how I saw it. My
brother got a keyboard for Christmas, and nobody knew how to play, so I just
started practicing the finger placements for the 'Axis of Awesome' chords, and
about 4 hours later I was competently entertaining his kids with songs I was
making up as I was going along. That was an incredible feeling of
weightlessness and thoughtlessness, like some spirit I've never known was
playing through me.

------
analog31
A potential issue with music study is that only a certain fraction of kids who
are given music lessons actually thrive at it. Many people remember being
forced to take lessons and hating it. Others failed on multiple attempts until
it finally "took."

So for this reason, I'm not sure that music training is a single "thing" that
can be analyzed without looking into how each person experienced it.

Another possible study is to measure successful musical training by whether
someone is actually a musician or not.

------
flyGuyOnTheSly
I would argue that studying music (especially music theory) at a young age has
helped me tremendously as a programmer in my old age.

I am writing an algo trading bot right now and I make a habit of reading the
entire codebase fairly regularly to make sure I understand exactly what is
going on at all times while the bot is running.

Which seems similar to reading and understanding a sheet (or a book) of music
before you play it.

There must be some correlation there although I have no hard evidence.

------
InvisibleUp
It could simply be that growing up in an environment where being taught music
is possible (with tutors and teachers and instruments all paid for) is
correlated with doing better in school. If you're growing up with parents who
struggle to pay the bills, who can't afford the time or money to teach their
kids music, odds are those kids are struggling in other parts of their life
too.

~~~
soperj
Michael Jackson grew up dirt fucking poor. You don't need to be rich to play
music.

~~~
notahacker
You don't need to be rich or even middle class to play music, but you're _much
more likely_ to get a flute and lessons on how to play it if you've got
parents who aren't dirt fucking poor and/or totally uninterested in your
education. Thus there's obvious an association between music lessons and
family background that needs controlling for.

As for MJ, he might not have been born rich, but nobody would say his musical
accomplishments weren't linked to decisions his parents made for him.

------
supernova87a
Learning music doesn't make you smart. But for smart kids, learning music sure
as hell makes you more interesting and useful in life.

------
nottorp
Probably goes for anything children are forced to learn.

But this doesn't mean you shouldn't send young children here and there to TRY
stuff... just stop early if they don't like it.

Iirc my parents sent me to do music, football, computers and martial arts. Two
of them i HATED, two of them i stuck with for my lifetime.

------
qppo
But it does correlate with lower risks of dementia later in life.

[https://www.alzdiscovery.org/cognitive-vitality/blog/does-
mu...](https://www.alzdiscovery.org/cognitive-vitality/blog/does-music-
benefit-the-brain#ref-1)

~~~
refurb
Studied in 27 pairs of twins based on self-reported leisure activities.

------
RickJWagner
I love that the article shows a kid with a banjo. Something about the banjo
really appeals to me-- I started learning to play it a few years back.

It's truly fun. And you get to follow Steve Martin, who is both funny and
knowledgeable. It's a good hobby.

------
jacobwilliamroy
Learning music wont make your child smart, but it will come in handy when your
child grows up to be viceroy of a small overseas colony and must function as a
member of aristocratic society.

~~~
082349872349872
For a less extreme position, consider "Study finds learning to say 'please'
and 'thank you' won’t make children smart."

------
iron0013
This has been known for so long that the “Mozart effect” is routinely used as
an example of bad science in undergrad psychological research methods courses.

------
rjstreur
The idea that you shouldn't play music because psychologists say it won't make
you smarter by some quantitative metric is so on-brand for this site.

------
Juliate
Wait, because there are people who make their children "do" music "to make
them smart", and not for music itself (and all it encompasses)?

------
miles2
Not sure the smart the post talks about here is IQ, if it is, I believe there
is no such thing can make children's IQ higher.

------
fsociety
I like this and agree with it, however they should have a follow-up study to
measure music’s affect on language skills.

------
danielrhodes
Maybe it doesn't make children smart, but it certainly makes them look smart.

------
skybrian
Note that since we are talking about averages, it could be true both that
music training on average doesn't have a visible effect, but that some
specific ways of doing music training are helpful and others are harmful.
There are a wide variety of ways to teach music and a broad study won't figure
out which ones are better or worse.

Or it could be the musical training is effective for a certain people but
detrimental for others, and the average would be near zero.

However, there's a limit to how much research you can do. Chasing after
effects on subsets of the population has problems too.
[https://xkcd.com/882/](https://xkcd.com/882/)

------
sharker8
Wow first chess and now this?!?!?

------
Havoc
How about discipline?

------
m1117
Yes, and instead all the children should go smoke cigarettes instead and drink
alcohol.

------
gentleman11
I don’t care what a study says in my case: chess makes you smarter. It makes
you better able to concentrate, visualize, and plan. Not sure if it helps you
discover anagrams or find number patterns on an iq test but who cares

~~~
cerebrum
> chess makes you smarter

Why do you believe that? Did you do an assessment before and after practicing
chess?

Edit: I also linked to an article about studies in my other comment.

