Article

Headphones on the Belly

I’m sure there are statistical averages and baselines that could be established, but at such a young age, with so many other factors, I find it difficult to trust the data on so-called baby intelligence when there are a multitude of uncontrollable variables.

Scientific American recently published an editorial in their “weird science” category pondering the scientific validity of the so-called “Mozart Effect.” This, of course, refers to the apparent boost in intelligence resulting from pre-term and post-term infants, as well as young children, exposed to classical music. But whether one should play classical music to an infant still in the womb, to a newborn babe still in its crib, or even a walking, talking young child is not up for debate as an exercise in musical education. Rather, the theory implies that setting aside time and resources to play classical music for a kid at any of these stages will have a qualitative impact on real intelligence down the road and towards adulthood. But does it?

Put thoughts on the numerous education, entertainment, and relaxation benefits of music aside. I’m not suggesting that kids shouldn’t listen to music — I think they should. Music is a wonderful aspect of our culture and part of being human. That said, however, my own critical analysis of this theory — the theory that classical music will somehow make them smarter — encourages me to ask the following skeptical questions:

1) How is relative intelligence being measured both (a) between individuals and (b) against historical data for an individual child with a very short (perhaps non-existent) history?

What is intelligence in children? Yes, I’m sure there are statistical averages and baselines that are and could again be established. But when there are a multitude of variables needing tight control this quickly becomes one of those studies where it seems virtually impossible to (ethically) eliminate all external factors and prove a cause and effect relationship. It quickly becomes one of those studies where a simple correlation is likely the real answer anyhow.

Again, we move into the realm of qualitative results over quantitative data. “He seems smarter.” We respond to the results that we FEEL and BELIEVE are what we want to happen, rather that judging the results against fact, data, and other quantitative measurements. We need to ask ourselves; How can define “smarter” and how would I know it if I could measure it? What impact do other factors play in developing intelligence in youth? To whom, to what, at when, and by how are we comparing the child?

So, here we have the very real problem of finding patterns in scientific data and attributing those patterns to causes that may not have any true effect on their presence. Maybe there is some truth in the notion — as a skeptic I’m willing to submit to hard evidence — but vague comparisons and pattern-building is not the approach to take. Even on a very good day this kind of work is a soft-science, and I’ve often had the feeling that while these can be valid fields of study they often start on a slippery slope of over-simplification and need to be extra careful about falling over.

2) What other aspects of child development are being ’short-changed’ in favour of the ‘Mozart Sessions?’

One might only imagine parents eagerly stepping away from their roles of stronger and more personal parent-child interaction with the (well-intentioned) excuse that listening to music is helping their child develop cognitive skills better than anything they could provide.

Sure, listening to classical music, or reasonable ‘baby-friendly’ music of any kind for that matter, is probably preferable to silence. (Although, recently someone pointed out that the ‘jury is still out’ on the effects of infant ‘over-stimulation.’) As I stated at the outset, I’m not suggesting that kids shouldn’t listen to music — I think they should. Music is a wonderful aspect of our culture and part of being human. And true, what harm is really being done by holding a set of speakers close to a pregnant belly? (Anyone?) But, that is not the basis of my argument here.

Opting for a child to spend time listening to music, in place of the option of having a caregiver play, read, or otherwise interact — which seems to be what is suggested by the theory in question — should be considered an odd choice for any parent. To me this is more like ‘miracle cure’ mentality, than practical, well-thought-out child-rearing. Not only does this step away from two common sense ideas around parenting philosophy — (a) that an interactive activity probably beats a passive activity, anytime and (b) that variety in play is the spice of life — but from a scientific and cognitive development point-of-view we need look no further than recent studies that suggest social interaction and active play has a far more important role in developing cognitive function. For example, a 2000 study from Annual Review of Public Health states that “an emphasis on intellectual functioning misses the most compelling evidence on the role of the early social environment in mediating establishment of neural networks that regulate a child’s response to stress and capacity for self-control.“[1] In other words, play with and read to your kids.
Skepi 5

3) What is really driving the interest in this theory and practice in the public sphere?

“You want a smart kid, don’t you?” Marketers often have clever ways of adding guilt to the other pressures parents face on a daily basis. And marketers often have clever ways of dipping into ’science’ when it suits their purpose to sell a product. I have little doubt that I could find a study of some sort to back this up, but one only needs to ask the practical question: is someone making money off of this and are they telling us the full, unbiased story? A book, a magazine, a recording, or a toy — there are branded products that base their profits on a bit of scientific research tagged to the idea that classic music makes smart kids. Those companies are likely to fight tooth and nail to maintain that notion in the public sphere, regardless of new evidence to the contrary. (Note: As write this article I wonder if someday one of those folks will track down this article and refute everything I’ve stated for just such a purpose. Probable, yes.)

Instead, I’m more likely to subscribe to the closing remarks of the article that originally prompted this entry. As a guy who learned to play (though poorly) a couple of musical instruments in his youth, including a moderate mastery of the alto saxophone, I think I agree with this notion: “Rather than passively listening to music, Rauscher advocates putting an instrument into the hands of a youngster to raise intelligence.” [2]

In the end it comes down to three simple solutions: (1) classical music is classical music — and some of the best stuff can be had for but a quarter of the price of those albums branded with the promise of a so-called super-baby, (2) play the music, but don’t expect the music to replace any aspect of child-rearing, and (3) enjoy your child for what she is and remember intelligence goes much deeper than a few old tunes.

[1] DiPietro, J. BABY AND THE BRAIN: Advances in Child Development Annual Review of Public Health Vol. 21: 455-471
[2] Swaminathan, N. Fact or Fiction?: Babies Exposed to Classical Music End Up Smarter, Scientific American, September 13, 2007

The SkepDad Blog is meant to casually reflect on questions surrounding parenting and raising kids to become critical thinkers by asking questions and examining parenting ideas with a skeptical eye for facts and science. Each article is one dad's personal opinion, backed (where relevant) by literature and published research, or otherwise based on personal experiences and insights. SkepDad welcomes balanced discussion, comments, and ideas.

September 21, 2007 by Brad
Filed as: Encounters of the Mind

Popularity: 18%

Posts and Pages that might have similar content:


On Writing a Blog Like This… >> I'll admit it. I started this thing with grand delusions of peppering a skep-themed domain with well thought-out essays and articles on raising critically thinking kids. It's not that such a blog is a bad idea -- it's still a

Guide >> This page will slowly evolve over time to be a central navigation point and operations guide for the skep/dad blog. Of course, that capacity will depend on the writing of articles, the linking of information, and the growth of the blog itself.

Over-Educated Toys >> My daughter received numerous toys as presents for the holidays from friends and family. (Not from me. I bought her books.) I appreciate that -- and I especially appreciate the care with which some of the toys were chosen.

 
Tags: , , ,

Comments

Leave a Reply