The science of intelligence
Can you raise your intelligence?
Short answer
Somewhat, and mostly through education. A meta-analysis of over 600,000 people found each extra year of schooling raises cognitive ability by about 1 to 5 IQ points. Working memory training, brain games, music lessons and listening to Mozart show little or no effect on intelligence beyond the tasks people practiced.
Want your own number? The test is 25 visual puzzles, about 12 minutes, no sign-up.
The short version
| Approach | What the best evidence found |
|---|---|
| More years of education | About 1 to 5 IQ points per extra year, lasting across life (Ritchie & Tucker-Drob, 2018) |
| Working memory training | Short-term gains on the trained skill, no convincing transfer to intelligence (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016) |
| Brain-training games | Better at the games, little effect on everyday cognition (Simons et al., 2016) |
| Music lessons for children | About zero once study quality is controlled (Sala & Gobet, 2020) |
| Listening to Mozart | Small, task-specific effect at most (Chabris, 1999) |
What works: education
The strongest evidence that intelligence can be raised comes from schooling. A 2018 meta-analysis of 142 effect sizes from 42 data sets, with over 600,000 participants, found that an additional year of education raises cognitive ability by approximately 1 to 5 IQ points (Ritchie & Tucker-Drob, 2018). The effects persisted across the life span and showed up on every broad category of ability studied. The authors called education the most consistent, robust and durable method yet identified for raising intelligence (Ritchie & Tucker-Drob, 2018).
Reading may be part of the story. In 1,890 identical-twin pairs, the twin who read better earlier tended to show higher intelligence later, and not only on verbal measures (Ritchie, Bates & Plomin, 2015). Early childhood programs are less encouraging: scores in Head Start and similar programs often rise during the program but fade with time (Neisser et al., 1996). The environment page covers these studies in more depth.
What does not work: working memory training
Working memory is closely tied to reasoning, so training it seemed a promising route. A 2013 meta-analysis of 23 studies found reliable short-term gains on working memory itself but no convincing evidence that they generalize to verbal or nonverbal ability (Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013). A larger 2016 analysis (87 publications, 145 comparisons) found no convincing evidence of far transfer when trained groups were compared with a treated control group, and concluded the effects are short-term and specific (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016). More on the skill itself is on the working memory page.
Try one · Pattern Recognition
Which tile comes next?
Tap the option you think is right, or show the answer.
Show the answer
The missing tile shows a very large hatched arrow pointing down (option 3).
How to solve it
- Compare neighboring tiles and name what changes each time.
- From tile to tile, the arrow turns a quarter turn counterclockwise.
- The fill cycles hatched, outline and solid, then starts again.
- Everything else stays the same from tile to tile.
- The last tile shows a very large solid arrow pointing left. Apply each change once more.
- So the missing tile shows a very large hatched arrow pointing down.
That was 1 puzzle. The full test has 25.
Brain games
A 2016 review examined the studies cited by leading brain-training companies. It found extensive evidence of improvement on trained tasks, less on closely related tasks, and little on distantly related tasks or everyday cognition. None of the cited studies met all the best practices the authors consider essential (Simons et al., 2016). Scientists were split in public: in 2014 one open letter from more than 70 scientists said brain games do not offer a scientifically grounded way to improve cognition, and another from 133 scientists and practitioners said the opposite (Simons et al., 2016). See the brain-training myth.
Music and the Mozart effect
A multilevel meta-analysis (N = 6,984, 254 effect sizes, 54 studies) found the overall effect of music training on children's cognitive and academic skills is about zero once study quality is controlled; small effects appeared only in studies without random allocation and with non-active control groups (Sala & Gobet, 2020). Learning an instrument can be worth doing for its own sake, but not as an IQ booster.
The original Mozart effect report claimed 10 minutes of Mozart raised abstract reasoning scores by 8 or 9 IQ points. A 1999 meta-analysis found any enhancement was small and limited to one type of task (Chabris, 1999), and a 2010 meta-analysis of about 40 studies with more than 3,000 participants found no support for spatial gains specifically due to Mozart (Pietschnig et al., 2010). The full story is in the Mozart effect myth.
Practice raises scores, not ability
Retaking cognitive tests raises scores by about a quarter of a standard deviation on average, roughly 4 IQ points, and more when the same form is reused (Hausknecht et al., 2007). That is familiarity with the format. It is worth knowing so you do not mistake a second-attempt bump for real change, as explained in can you increase your IQ?
Protecting what you have
One practical point comes from research on executive functions, the control skills behind focused thinking. Stress, lack of sleep, loneliness or lack of exercise each impair them (Diamond, 2013). Looking after those basics will not rewrite your IQ, but it helps you think at your usual level.
Sources
- Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 29(8), 1358-1369. doi.org/10.1177/0956797618774253
- Ritchie, S. J., Bates, T. C., & Plomin, R. (2015). Does learning to read improve intelligence? Child Development, 86(1), 23-36. doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12272
- Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D. F., Loehlin, J. C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R. J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77
- Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 270-291. doi.org/10.1037/a0028228
- Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C. (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of "far transfer." Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 512-534. doi.org/10.1177/1745691616635612
- Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016). Do "brain-training" programs work? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(3), 103-186. doi.org/10.1177/1529100616661983
- Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2020). Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis. Memory & Cognition, 48, 1429-1441. doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01060-2
- Chabris, C. F. (1999). Prelude or requiem for the "Mozart effect"? Nature, 400(6747), 826-827. doi.org/10.1038/23608
- Pietschnig, J., Voracek, M., & Formann, A. K. (2010). Mozart effect-Shmozart effect: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 38(3), 314-323. doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.03.001
- Hausknecht, J. P., Halpert, J. A., Di Paolo, N. T., & Moriarty Gerrard, M. O. (2007). Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 373-385. doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.373
- Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135-168. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750