Are you smarter because of the month you were born? A newly trending wave of expert and pop-psychology opinion pieces claims that some birth months may be linked to higher intelligence—yet, beneath the headlines, the science remains far from settled. As discussions heat up online, Thai parents and educators are asking: can a child’s birth in January, February, or even the autumn, make a difference in their academic and intellectual prospects?
The fascination with how birth month might shape intelligence is not new, but a recent article from Good Housekeeping has reignited public interest by suggesting that children born in certain months—especially January, February, and March—are more likely to display qualities linked to intelligence. The article features the views of Aycee Brown, a self-described “psychic channel” and human design expert, who attributes distinctive intellectual strengths to individuals born in each of these early-year months. According to Brown, January-born people are “quiet powerhouses,” planners with strategic minds; February births produce “disruptive” innovators; March brings wise, reflective questioners. Additional media sources, such as YourTango and AOL, have also published lists suggesting months like September and November are linked to high IQs, adding further to the public’s curiosity about the supposed seasonal effects on intelligence (Good Housekeeping, AOL, YourTango).
For Thai readers, this topic resonates due to the country’s intense cultural and educational emphasis on maximizing children’s academic potential from an early age. Schools, families, and even policy makers are continually searching for evidence-based ways to optimize learning outcomes. Could something as immutable as the calendar shape a child’s prospects?
To separate superstition from science, it is essential to review what peer-reviewed research says about the relationship between birth month and intelligence. A major study published in BMJ Open analyzed the IQ scores of tens of thousands of children, specifically investigating whether season of birth correlates with cognitive ability. The results revealed that children born in the spring had, on average, a slightly lower non-verbal IQ—about 1.2 points—compared to those born in summer. The authors noted, however, that this difference is minor and could be related to school starting age cut-offs or unexamined confounding variables, rather than any inherent developmental advantage (BMJ Open). Other studies cited in media reports have suggested minor associations, largely dependent on cultural and educational systems rather than biology.
Crucially, much of the recent discourse stems from expert opinion, astrology, or interpretations by self-proclaimed life coaches, rather than direct scientific evidence. While there are known seasonal effects on health—such as links between birth month and disease risk due to maternal vitamin D levels, or differences in schooling age cut-offs—the idea of a “smartest month” is not strongly supported by neuroscience or developmental psychology (YourTango).
Expert voices in child development and education emphasize caution. A senior lecturer in Thailand’s Ministry of Public Health, who specializes in adolescent mental health, notes that “Intelligence is the result of complex factors, including genetics, environment, nutrition, and education. While some international studies point to small differences by birth month, these are generally explained by school enrollment policies, not by any astrological or mystical cause.” This view is supported in a review article from the Harvard Graduate School of Education that found school-entry cut-off dates, not astrology or cosmic cycles, drive most differences in academic performance tied to birth months (Harvard GSE).
For Thailand, where the academic year starts in May and school admissions are highly competitive, a child’s age relative to classmates can affect early performance. Students who are older in their grade—often born just after the academic year’s cut-off—may have slight developmental advantages in primary school. However, this effect typically diminishes with age, and is overshadowed by factors like quality of teaching, parental involvement, and a child’s individual temperament.
Thailand’s cultural landscape adds another layer of complexity. There is a tendency in local communities to look for auspicious dates and seasonal cycles, sometimes extending into admissions planning and even conception timing. Belief in “lucky” birth dates is widespread, as seen in traditions like the selection of birth times by monks or astrologers. Yet, leading Thai pediatricians consistently remind parents of evidence-based priorities: good nutrition, rich stimulation, loving relationships, and a stimulating environment. These, rather than the pages of the calendar, form the true foundation for intellectual growth.
Some of the new online coverage has pointed to studies where autumn-born children, especially in Western countries, tend to perform better academically. However, these advantages are almost entirely explainable by school start policies and cut-off effects, as children who are older when starting school enjoy brief cognitive and social benefits (BMJ Open, Harvard GSE). This effect is sometimes termed the “relative age effect,” and is well documented in both Western and Asian educational settings, including Thailand’s own education system.
Historical context reveals a longstanding human fascination with astrology and fate. In Thailand, many parents also turn to the Chinese zodiac or numerology when making decisions for their newborns. While these customs enrich the country’s cultural tapestry, it is important to distinguish between tradition and the requirements of evidence-based parenting.
Looking ahead, rapid developments in child cognitive research may enable even more nuanced understanding of how children learn. Emerging studies increasingly highlight the importance of equity in education—such as making sure all children, regardless of birth month, get appropriate support within their developmental window. Policy reforms in some countries have already begun to adapt to these findings, offering flexible entry ages or enrichment support for relatively younger students. There may be lessons here for Thai educators seeking to make classrooms more inclusive and fair.
In practical terms, Thai parents are best served by focusing on what they can control: a supportive home environment, ensuring access to books and educational resources, and nurturing children’s curiosity. Educational experts recommend that, rather than stressing over “lucky” birth months, parents should advocate for fair admission policies, monitor for age-related differences in the classroom, and work in close partnership with teachers to support their child’s learning journey.
In conclusion, while social media and expert opinion pieces have popularized the notion that some birth months are linked to higher intelligence, the scientific evidence points to a far more complex—and reassuring—picture. For Thai families, teachers, and policy-makers, the key message is clear: true intelligence grows from continuous learning, opportunity, and support, not the tail of the year. Parents are encouraged to celebrate their child’s potential every month, every day, and to focus their efforts on proven, nurturing strategies that help all Thai children shine.
Sources: