事情起因是看見一個視頻說 “如何提升智力的4個方法”? (1.獨立學(xué)習?2.音樂訓(xùn)練?3.鍛煉心臟?4.掌握一門新語言），但評論區(qū)有人說在2021.12月的英語六級考試中，有材料說學(xué)習和音樂對智力沒有幫助，114人點贊了該評論。

這評論有違背我的認知，因為我曾看過相關(guān)視頻，說音樂是可以提升智力的，因為人在練習音樂的時候，大腦各個區(qū)域活躍度都會變強，這樣有助于新建立的神經(jīng)鞏固，從而使新學(xué)到的東西更容易掌握。那視頻左邊是一女生在彈吉他，右邊是腦型圖。這畫面我記得很清楚。

但我看見114個贊的評論里，一個有關(guān)層主說的對不對的評論，一個都沒有！我很是震驚，怎么一個相關(guān)評論都沒有？這些人是如何確定層主英語閱讀理解是完全正確的？是如何確定在1個月之后 (12月考試，1月份回憶復(fù)述) 層主回憶相關(guān)內(nèi)容是完全沒有錯誤的？

層主的回復(fù)：

@也曾幻想改變

2021年12月的英語六級考試里提到：學(xué)習和聽音樂對于智力成長并沒有任何幫助，那些聽音樂并展示出很好的智力的人往往本身在家境和年少時的引導(dǎo)以及個人意志上本就超過正常人。就好像擁有私人飛機的人都很有錢，這并不是因為買了私人飛機使他有錢，而是他先有錢才能買私人飛機。

都是“拿來主義”？別人都說什么就信什么？丁點的獨立思考都沒有？我討厭這類人，注定是被人玩弄的這類人。所以我并不打算和這114人一起點贊，因為這和我的已有的認知有沖突。為了驗證層主說的對不對，我在網(wǎng)上花了2小時找到了相關(guān)內(nèi)容來證明層主說的對不對。

?(找內(nèi)容真是費勁，要錢、就是要注冊，或是關(guān)注公眾號，好煩……就算找到了，也是截圖……)??

以下是2021.12月份英語六級考試第三套試卷的相關(guān)文章。各位可以看看層主的回憶有沒有記錯。希望看到這文章的人不要像那114人哪樣，一個別人說啥他就信啥。這些人注定要被人玩弄的。

Do music lessons really make children smarter?

????????A recent analysis found that most research mischaracterizes the relationship between music and skills enhancement.

????????In 2004, a paper appeared in the journal Psychological Science, titled “ Music Lessons Enhance IQ.” The author; composer and psychologist Glenn Schellenberg had conducted an experiment with 144 children randomly assigned to four groups: one learned the keyboard for a year, one took singing lessons, one joined an acting class, and a control group had no extracurricular training. The IQ of the children in the two musical groups rose by an average of seven points in the course of a year; those in the other .two groups gained an average of 4.3 points.

????????Schellenberg had 1ong been skeptical of the science supporting claims hat music education enhances children’s abstract reasoning, math, or language sills. If children who play the piano are smarter, he says, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are smarter because they play the piano. It could be that the youngsters who play the piano also happen to be more ambitious or better at focusing on a task. Correlation, after all, does not prove causation.

????????The 2004 paper was specifically designed to address those concerns. And as a passionate musician, Schellenberg was delighted when he turned up credible evidence that music has transfer effects on general intelligence. But nearly a decade later, in 2013, the Education Endowment Foundation funded a bigger study with more than 900 students. That study failed to confirm Schellenberg’s findings, producing no evidence that music lessons improved math and literacy skills.

????????Schellenberg took that news in stride while continuing to cast a skeptical eye on the research in his field, Recently, he decided to formally investigate just how often his fellow researchers in psychology and neuroscience make what he believes are erroneous—or at least premature—causal connections between music and intelligence.?

????????His results, published in May, suggest hat many of his peers do just that.

????????For his recent study, Schellenberg asked two research assistants to look for correlational studies on the effects of music education. They found a total of 114 papers published since 2000. To assess whether the authors claimed any causation, researchers then looked for telltale verbs in each paper’s title and abstract, verbs like “enhance” ,“promote” ,“facilitate” , and “strengthen” . The papers were categorized as neuroscience if the study employed a brain imaging method like magnetic resonance, or if the study appeared in a journal that had “brain”, “neuroscience”, or a related term in its title. Otherwise the papers were categorized as psychology. Schellenberg didn’t tell his assistants what exactly he was trying to prove.

????????After computing their assessments, Schellenberg concluded that the majority of the articles erroneously claimed that music training had a causal effect. The overselling, he also found, was more prevalent among neuroscience studies, three quarters of which mischaracterized a mere association between music training and skills enhancement as a cause-and-effect relationship. This may come as a surprise to some. Psychologists have been battling charges that they don’t do “real” science for some time — in large part because many findings from classic experiments have proved unreproducible. Neuroscientists, on the other hand, armed with brain scans and EEGs(腦電圖), have not been subject to the same degree of critique.

????????To argue for a cause-and-effect relationship, scientists must attempt to explain why and how a connection could occur. When it comes to transfer effects of music, scientists frequently point to brain plasticity — the fact that the brain changes according to how we use it. When a child learns to play the violin, for example, several studies have shown that the brain region responsible for the fine motor skills of the left hand’s fingers is likely to grow. And many experiments have shown that musical training improves certain hearing capabilities, like filtering voices from background noise or distinguishing the difference between the consonants (輔音) ‘b’ and ‘g’.

????????But Schellenberg remains highly critical of how the concept of plasticity has been applied in his field. “Plasticity has become an industry of its own,” he wrote in his May paper. Practice does change the brain, he allows, but what is questionable is the assertion that these changes affect other brain regions, such as those responsible for spatial reasoning or math problems.

????????Neuropsychologist Lutz J?ncke agrees. “Most of these studies don’t allow for causal inferences,” he said. For over two decades, J?ncke has researched the effects of music lessons, and like Schellenberg, he believes that the only way to truly understand their effects is to run longitudinal studies. In such studies, researchers would need to follow groups of children with and without music lessons over a long period of time—even if the assignments are not completely random. Then they could compare outcomes for each group.

????????Some researchers are staring to do just that. The neuroscientist Peter Schneider from Heidelberg University in Germany, for example, has been following a group of children for ten years now. Some of them were handed musical instruments and given lessons through a school-based program in the Ruhr region of Germany called Jedem.

????????Kind ein Instrument, or“an instrument for every child,” which was carried out with government funding. Among these children, Schneider has found that those who were enthusiastic about music and who practiced voluntarily showed improvements in hearing ability, as well as in more general competencies, such as the ability to concentrate.

????????To establish whether effects such as improved concentration are caused by music participation itself, and not by investing time in an extracurricular activity of any kind, Assal Habibi, a psychology professor at the s University of Southern California, is conducing a five-year longitudinal study with children from low-income communities in Los Angeles. The youngsters fall into three groups: those who take after school music, those who do after-school sports, and those with no structured after-school program at all. After two years, Habibi and her colleagues reported seeing structural changes in the brains of the musically trained children, both locally and in the pathways connecting different parts of the brain.

????????That may seem compelling, but Habibi’s children were not selected randomly. Did the children who were drawn to music perhaps have something in them from the start that made them different but eluded the brain scanners? “As somebody who started taking piano lessons at the age of five and got up every morning at seven to practice, that experience changed me and made me part of who I am today,” Schellenberg said. “The question is whether those kinds of experiences do so systematically across individuals and create exactly the same changes. And I think that is that huge leap of faith.”

????????Did he have a hidden talent that others didn’t have? Or more endurance than his peers? Music researchers tend, like Schellenberg, to be musicians themselves, and as he noted in his recent paper, “the idea of positive cognitive and neural side effects from music training (and other pleasurable activities) is inherently appealing.” He also admits that if he had children of his own, he would encourage them to take music lessons and go to niversity. “I would think that it makes them better people, more critical, just wiser in general,” he said.?

????????But those convictions should be checked at the entrance to the lab, he added. ????????????????????Otherwise, the work becomes religion or faith. “You have to let go of your faith if you want to be a scientist.”?