I caught a show this past weekend on the National Geographic channel that was documenting the ‘long tail’ kids, quasi-genius children on the far north side of the bell curve who display incredible abilities to perform at adult levels despite a very young age. The example in this particular episode was that of a young, eight-year old pianist who’s abilities to tickle the ivories seemed only limited by the small size of his hands. (At the time of filming, he was just at the point of playing a full octave, his hands stretching across — at their limit — eight keys of the piano. I can appreciate, despite being quite amateur on the piano myself, that an octave is a trivial task for an adult with average-sized paws, but a limiting factor smaller hands.) Admittedly, the parental pressure to perform seemed to be at times a little overbearing, but even a nagging mom can’t push an average kid to practice a musical instrument for four to six hours per day, as this young boy was inclined to do.

The documentary followed the typical media side-show format. I hesitate to use that term, but in more casual conversation the ‘side-show’ reference is an easy way to refer to any documentary or talk-show that puts a unique individual in the spotlight and ponders why they are different. Most readers are probably familiar with the formula: Individual X is unique in some way (either positively or negatively from the accepted average) and their life history is laid out in the format du jour. Depending on the tone of the piece, the analysis of their particular uniqueness is discussed anywhere on the spectrum from scientific curiosity and speculation down to raw and emotional familial discourse. This piece opted for the former (probably a good choice for a science-based channel) and placed the young boy in the spotlight repeatedly asking the quasi-critical questions; Is he smart because he is musical or is he musical because he’s smart?

I touched on this topic in an earlier post when I pondered the value of kids listening to classical music. And my analysis of this question will likely resemble my answer to that one: how does one set a baseline of intelligence in kids against which to measure, how does one differentiate between causation and correlation (which I think is more likely the real answer), and what does the risk/benefit comparison have to say on the topic?

Now, I have a particular interest in music and how it relates to kids. Suggesting I am musical by trade would be such an off-target suggestion it is laughable. But that said, I love music (I’m listening to Bach right now) and I would not trade my twenty years of (admittedly rough) experience on the saxophone for the world. Both my wife and I had music thrust upon us at a very early age and have full intentions of supplying our kids with that same opportunity.

I should note a couple things first. (1) As I experiment to find a format for this blog, I’ve been thinking about previous entries that leaned more towards a crude meta-analysis of the research. Rather than cherry-pick from literature, I might try a few entries steering towards the more blog-like critical analysis format, avoiding a handful of supporting references in favour of just asking strong questions. And (2) if I am in fact off base with the following analysis, someone please comment and let me know. My thoughts on the topic are, as above, wrapped around a three-part question:how does one set a baseline of intelligence in kids against which to measure, how does one differentiate between causation and correlation, and what does the risk/benefit comparison have to say on the topic?

1) How does one set a baseline of intelligence in kids against which to measure?

I need to sit down and write a more thorough bit on this one, but for now I’m going to follow-up on my previous assertion that even on a very good day this kind of work is a soft-science, and that while this can be a valid field of study, work here is often starting on a slippery slope of over-simplification and needs to be extra careful about falling over the metaphorical edge of logical fallacy. What is intelligence in children anyhow? As I stated before, 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.

2) How does one differentiate between causation and correlation?

Confusing correlation with causation is one of those key fallacies that is oh-so-easy to make. Simplified, correlation is data that seems connected because it follows a similar trend, but has no provable connection in a cause and effect relationship. Causation is that same connection in the trend of data, but there is a scientifically provable connection between the two: one causes the other and that can be measured in a quantifiable way. The question here, then, becomes NOT is he smart because he is musical or is he musical because he’s smart? Rather, we should be asking is there a measurable connection between musical learning and intelligence in children?

I quickly dug up one article that points out a number of correlations: The Effect of Music on Children. The author’s points are well-meant and tempting to get excited about. But, this kind of list is still no proof of causation.

3) What does the risk/benefit comparison have to say on the topic?

By training I am a scientist. By trade I am a project manager. This means that risk/benefit analysis is a tool of my professional life as common and as valuable as a hammer would be for a carpenter. The application of knowledge to a problem, particularly in the problem of child-rearing (where some would argue that you get one shot at getting it right), can be further managed by the understanding of the risks (costs, losses, negative outcomes, and worst-case scenarios) and the benefits (gains, profits, positive outcomes, and best-case scenarios) involved in the problem itself. In some ways this can be the more practical side of the overall analysis, asking questions such as:

If a family spends thousands of dollars on a piano and lessons for a child and there is no cause-and-effect link between music and intelligence, what are the consequences of that choice? Social, economic, etc…?

If it turns out that there is a strong cause-and-effect link between musical education and intelligence, what risk are parents taking if they do not choose to supply an education in music to their children? Future opportunity, societal, etc…?

If the cause-and-effect link is for the long term an immeasurable quantity, what are the potential gains and losses for parents when making the decision to invest in early childhood musical training, or not?

Of course,we can always hope that there is more research done. Of course, we can always hope that science defines better tools for measuring absolute intelligence in children (despite the numerous ethical debates that would open). But for now, I think it simply comes down to the question of value and basing the decision on what you value as parents for the social outcome of your family and not on apparent claims of ‘miracle’ brain boosting by simple correlations. In other words, until this is better understood teach music to have music in your home, not because you are looking for genius kids.