Slashdot Mirror
Brain Scans Show the Impact of Neglect On a Child's Brain Size
An anonymous reader writes "A shocking comparison of brain scans from two three-year-old children reveals new evidence of the remarkable impact a mother's love has on a child's brain development. The chilling images reveal that the left brain, which belongs to a normal 3-year-old, is significantly larger and contains fewer spots and dark 'fuzzy' areas than the right brain, which belongs to that of a 3-year-old who has suffered extreme neglect. Neurologists say that the latest images provide more evidence that the way children are treated in their early years is important not only for the child's emotional development, but also in determining the size of their brains. Experts say that the sizeable difference in the two brains is primarily caused by the difference in the way each child was treated by their mothers."
Does this mean that children raised by gay men are more likely to wear dunce caps and children raised by lesbians could have super brains?
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Were both children same sex, race....other variables with genetic implications?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
While I agree in theory with the findings in theory (though I haven't read TFA due to them putting two of the same obnoxious ad with sound on the same page so it plays with an echo) I think a sample size of two children is a bit small to declare any sort of scientific result.
>"of the remarkable impact a mother's love has on a child's brain development."
Oh, so only a MOTHER'S love could cause that, not a father's or anyone else...
This would only be valid if it was a comparison of identical twins raised in the different environments.
On the other hand, the child with the smaller brain on the right will be more likely to become addicted to drugs, be involved in violent crimes, be unemployed and dependent on government benefits in the future.
Also, really? Phrenology much? This dumps credibility down the toilet pretty quick.
Mr. Burns: Of course you'd say that. You have the brainpan of a stagecoach tilter.
--- Need web hosting?
No one should doubt the necessity and benefits of love to a child, or the harmful effects of neglect. That said, is it just me, or was much of that story eerily reminiscent of phrenology?
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
The size of the brain isn't the determining factor in intelligence; Its surface area is. It's well-known that stress can cause structural differences in the brain, as does a wide variety of environmental conditions. But when you consider that a child can lose half of their brain and still go on to have a full range of mental faculties, and appear completely normal to any outside observer, it's clear size doesn't really matter... it's the number of interconnections between cells that seems to be what is important... and specifically, how and where those interconnections are made.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
get back to me when you have scans of say 2K kids or say 2M kids
then index by Race/Gender/Location and whatever other factors you can think of.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Stupid parents have stupid children. I assume some is nutrition versus nurturing, but in the end it doesn't matter. And Mothers: Please don't use the TV as a babysitter.
Humans are social animals - we develop to our fullest potential when we are safe, secure, and can develop socially. When we are ignored, or left alone - the need to develop complex intelligence and social constructs fades, we revert to a more animal state. Children, especially babies, are closer to animals (in brain development and in-born skills, not in terms of our compassion for them) in this aspect than adults - as they have not yet formed the relationships with other beings as well as the means to express themselves fully. Only after they are cared for, taught and kept in part of a social circle are they able to develop more humanly.
Neglect = poorer nutrition?
I was under the impression that this was already an extremely well known impact of neglect (or conversely, attention). That said, comparing only two brains is completely meaningless. The margin of error is off the charts. And how were the children selected? Probably exactly because of the contrast between them.
Feminism and rich people? What?
I guess your career was more important...b*tch! // just kidding, my mom was great.
whatsoever, presumably the skull sizes would have to be the same? (Unless skull size follows brain size? In which case, how does intelligence track with head size, itself? I wouldn't immediately expect it to.)
Were that so, one would think so much gap would likely result in injury or some other (physical) complications.
Sorry, but yes, physical brain characteristics, including size, surface area, interconnections, and surplus or deficit of glia do frequently impact behavior. The brain, while packing quite a bit of redundancy, isn't some magic cloudy place where the spirit homonculus lives. So yes, this *looks* like phrenology, until you read a book on neurophysiology.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Good lord, just what we need on this planet, Mad Cat Nerds.
Your cat has you wrapped around her paw, and uses you like she plays with vulnerable little songbirds.
- cat owner
When you fail to clearly define what Extreme Neglect is you're giving crazy Helicopter Parents the excuse to be as crazy as they are. What is Extreme Neglect for 3 and under? Is leaving the child screaming for an hour in the bassinet extreme neglect, or is that just sleep training? I'd personally call hitting a child Abuse but is these also considered extreme neglect? Or is Extreme Neglect for those parents who never hold or cuddle their child, but rather just shove a bottle in the kids mouth and make sure their needs are only minimally met? Is leaving a child with their Grand Parent for the Day so you can have a night out Extreme Neglect, or is that Normal? I don't like these kinds of child studies because they overly generalize what they are looking at because they don't want to say something like we scanned the brains of children who were under the care of convicted child abusers who left their children at home unattended.
So basically this qualifies as a glorified anecdote. We're taking the researcher's word for age and conditions of these two brain scans. The article chooses to talk solely about mother's love, and not any confounding factors. Where are the correlation statistics for mother, father, age, genetics, economics, poverty, education, community, nutrition, illness, accidents, grandparents, number of siblings, geographic location, social services, etc., etc.?
Offhand I would bet that simple nutrition is more highly correlated with brain size than mother's emotional attention -- and the former is something we can change with social programs. For this kind of stuff I want to see scientific studies, not People magazine exposes.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Between a single instance being treated as definite proof, the unanswered question of whether the abuse might have included brain injuries, and the whorish, loud ads everywhere on the site... i'll take that with a bucket or two of salt, thank you.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Early, often and continuous maternal contact, speaking and other interactions are shown to help development measurable in a variety of ways from ages as short as the first 6 months. This is no longer a surprise.
Is anybody else reminded of Harlow's rather disconcerting work on maternal attachment in monkeys and his later, even more disconcerting, work on the effects of isolation on monkeys(if your laboratory apparatus includes a device referred to as the 'pit of despair' you might have an ethics problem...)?
The article does not relate the scans to professor Shore, a 2-subject experiment is not statistically significant in this case and it relies on evidence flimsily linked to other findings. This looks like tabloid fodder.
Perhaps there's a reason why this isn't in a peer reviewed journal. First off, you have a sample size in each group of exactly one. I'm not a statistician, but I'm pretty sure that in itself makes the whole thing utterly meaningless.
But let's pretend you get the same results with a statistically significant sample size...here it comes....correlation != causation (you were thinking that already). Perhaps the cause is nutrition, so you'd have to factor in nutrition, either by using neglected children who somehow had good nutrition, or non-neglected children who had poor nutrition (although I doubt those overbearing vegan hippies would be willing to let their children get blasted with evil voodoo radiation for the imaging studies). What if it's because the parents' brains are smaller? Perhaps it's purely genetic, the parents are stupid because of smaller brains and fuzzy spots and passed that trait onto their children, and they also neglect their child because they're stupid. The article also states that the child was neglected and *abused*, so how do we know the difference isn't the result of physical trauma?
This "love" nonsense holds about as much water as the faith put into a Jewish zombie carpenter. Next you'll be telling us the love of god will hold back the flames if you're stuck in a fire.
The bad parenting is result of some brain difference too. And that difference is passed on genetically. Hence, on what basis do they attribute the difference to the neglect rather than to genetic causes?
Your "study's" sample size is two. But gratuitous use of words like "shocking" and "chilling" will probably make most people ignore that.
Liberty in your lifetime
I for one think that all grade-school aged children should be given mandatory brain scans two or three times a year with bad results requiring the child to immediately be put into the nurturing safety of a Foster Care Facility and their Parents locked up for good.
Sometimes technology brings such wonderful possibilities for the safety of the Children!
N = 2. Great. Let's write it up and send it in.
FRAUD ALERT! Possibly "Medical Daily" is paying for these stories. My experience is that Medical Daily is not reputable.
Slashdot managers or editors apparently sometimes take money to post stories.
I'd be far more apt to believe that any sort of stunted development in a child was due to malnutrition, especially in one that was admittedly suffering from 'extreme neglect'. This 'study', as it stands, should be binned.
It comes as little surprise. I think as we begin to get a more full grasp on how we develop as children into adults, we can make more progress to improve our species and our societies. It probably won't stop black men from leaving their families, or white trash from beating their wives right away, but perhaps in a generation or two, some real progress of understanding can be had.
But also in terms of how we deal with criminal behavior? We always want to say "bad person! punish them!" or "creepy person! put them away!" These are instictive reactions and not wholly suitable I think. Are many of these formerly neglected and abused children entirely responsible for their lives once they are grown? And their mental capacity and capability? Is that their fault? I know it gets into some pretty society-burdening areas when we start removing the fault and guilt from criminal behavior but I feel a bit bad for these children even after they have grown.
Ah... on second thought... forget everything I just said. Let's just keep on the way we are and throw people away. It's easier.
Hmm that's the exact opposite take I had. I automatically saw it as a result of poor social programs that mean if a single mother has a job she can't afford to take care of her children. Especially when you consider minimum wage isn't enough to live off of even with the earned income credits in most places. Plus people who vote Demarcate seem to spend more time considering what they are voting for rather than just saying Rush told me so.
generally intrigued and discouraged by the amount of negative and cynical response in the comments above. seems to be general resentment to the idea of nurturing and loving our babies. seems people would rather hear that it's ok to stick an bottle in your infant and leave them to cry it out in the crib.
Size of brain at one end, ability to defend yourself at another.. why does that matter? because I personally watched decades of ghetto children from various families getting beaten, threatened, yelled at, ignored and otherwise treated harshly by mother and others.. all the while all around insisting that they love their children more than anything.. not necessarily evil harassment, although it did seem that way to me, but in the breeding of the people I saw, getting tough and aggressive was more important than being smart, apparently.. and tough they are! By early teens, the kids are beating others, stealing and occasionally drive by killing their rivals. You cant pass on your genes if you dont make it past 14 years old I dont think.. Harsh but absolutely true
That all probably seems reasonable to you (and some others), doesn't mean it matches reality. You really think that the 98% black vote for democrats is the result of careful reflection? Also, if you look at the demographics of Rush Limbaugh's audience, you will see that as a whole they are solidly in groups who are the most knowledgeable about who and what they vote for.
There isn't a show on TV or radio that wouldn't kill for the quality of the audience he has.
I simply cannot find any single person who votes democrat that is capable of explaining what they want and why. I consistently find that as a group their knowledge of their own beliefs is paper-thin and if you challenge them to back up any of their opinions, they cannot. That's when they start switching subjects, parsing what you say to them (looking for something to argue about that leads away from the actual point), and slinging mud.
Not going to blow my mod points for a moron like you, so I'm posting AC. I do want to note that your post engages in the same sweeping generalizations, paper-thin knowledge and tired rhetoric that you decry in those you consider to be your opponents.
Oh, and by the way, I vote the way I do because while I can't stop the greedy scumbags from the RepubliCrat party (yes, the wholly owned political subsidiary of corporate America), I can at least try to mitigate the damage by not supporting the folks who will bring us back to feudal times in ten years and vote for the ones who are okay with it taking 25 years or so.
Consider this If you're an ordinary American -- the Democratic side of the RepubliCrat coin is like standing under a leaky sewer pipe getting raw sewage dripped on you. The Republican side of the coin is like standing under the same pipe while someone takes a sledgehammer to it and breaks it wide open so you can get the full flow of the raw sewage on your head.
Both are disgusting, both are humiliating, but one give you the chance to maybe find a plumber to fix the pipe before it bursts on its own.
Oh, and I'd be happy to debate the important issues of the day with you anytime, mate. And you will find yourself on the short end.
Just for good measure, I'll point out that I love this country very much. It's my home and we've done well by each other. But I actually give a rats ass about my fellow Americans. Clearly, you're a "fuck you jack, I've got mine" kind of person. Your ilk are the reasons things are so screwed.
How freaky is it come from home from an appointment with the neurologist and see this at the top of the Slashdot?
So, some anecdotal evidence supporting this. My wife and I are foster parents. You have no idea how bad some kids have it until you see it first hand. We have a foster child with us that has been professionally diagnosed as being 'developmentally delayed'. This means not being able to do the things that a baby of his age should be able to do. Crawl, eat soft food, roll over, mimic a caregiver, make vowel sounds, sit without falling over. A month ago when this child arrived, he could do none of them. As of today, he can do all but crawl and roll over, but he's almost doing that now too.
The neurologist today examined him and feels strongly that all of his developmental delays are due to extreme neglect. Not feeding your child properly, not playing with him, not 'conversing' with him, leaving him in a car seat all day. These are all basic examples of neglect that add up to extreme neglect.
For those that commented "Isn't this well known already?", yes, it is. The therapist see the developmental delays. They get the child checked by a geneticist and neurologist, ruling out brain issues and things like down syndrome. This process of elimination points directly at extreme neglect.
Again, anecdotal evidence, but evidence just the same.
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
Um, you know the vast majority of very highly/prestigiously educated people (eg. Harvard grads) are Democrats, right? Many of them can argue their points very well. Just because you don't know any really smart people doesn't mean they don't exist.
I am not sure what your reference is for Rush Limbaugh, but I am sure you are aware of the widely publicized study that showed Daily Show viewers were more appraised of current issues than Fox News viewers.
Sorry, I think I just got trolled.
Would there be much of a change in brain size development when looking at "regular" loving families with two children (or more children) of both genders? Parents obviously love their children whether they be boys or girls, however the way in which they treat both genders is vastly different. Parents tend to nurture, listen to, protect and discuss more with young girls. I understand that this can both hamper (the little one has less time to explore on their own, find their own limits etc...) and encourage (the little one is always around under foot, picking up conversations of their parents and other elders and having new experiences modelled for them etc...) development. Just interested to find out what others think.
Unlike phrenology, this is a direct measurement of brain development. Do you dispute that the specific brain structures looked at have a bearing on behavior?
Yes, I dispute it.
The number of storks in a town in Victorian England had "a bearing" on the number of churches in the town, but neither caused or constrained the other. Neuroplasticity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity allows the brain to use darn near any area to control something and while the term and most significant advances have been more recent, observations of it were discussed by William James in 1890's Principles of Psychology.
But hey, thanks for the science.
On the other hand, a recent paper suggests that books trim the cortex.
neuroscientist Martha Farah of the University of Pennsylvania and her colleagues recruited 64 children from a low income background and followed them from birth through to late adolescence....More than 10 years after the second home visit, the researchers used MRI to obtain detailed images of the participants' brains. They found that the level of mental stimulation a child receives in the home at age 4 predicted the thickness of two regions of the cortex in late adolescence, such that more stimulation was associated with a thinner cortex.
Are neurologists part of the group called "scientists"? Do they understand cause and effect, or statistical sampling?
Unless you have double-blind experiments and a large enough sample size, this "result" is rubbish. Who's to say the child wasn't neglected because of the small brain size making them difficult for the parents?
And a sample size of two? Seriously? From my sample size of two children, I can infer that every child on the planet is either a blonde male or a curly redhead girl. That wouldn't make me right, just foolish.
More than anything, the difference is likely due to nutrition, canabinoids and opiates in the breast milk, tobacco smoke in the air and a few other minor things like attention and love...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
There is a theory now stating that childhood as we know it is a result of evolutionary forces compared with Homo Erectus infants grow very rapidly with a comparatively shortened childhood ~ approx 30% less. The longer the childhood stage, the more 'learning' occurs until the brain is fixed by the Homo Sapien age of 20 or around 12-15yrs of the ancestors.
Somehow I think that emotional neglect that may retard brain activity, learning and systematic growth is the polar opposite of the evolutionary trend that may change the direction of evolution.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
The Linux developer left and the windoze developer right.
Any questions?
Correlation is not causation. Perhaps less intelligent children tend to come from households of neglect.
I know I'm preaching to the converted here, but there are a number of technical factors in CT imaging which play a part in the bias of this study.
We could go on tearing it to pieces but this article is so bad I feel dumber for momentarily taking it seriously...
You have done a great job of collecting a lot of propaganda all in one place! Great job; you have been programmed well. And I only debate in person, that way the other guy can't just disappear when he gets owned. Based on what you chose to say here, I can say that you are solidly in the group that I spoke of. It's easy to tell - you speak in nothing but political catchprases.
Good luck with that frontal lobe problem you got.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
Assuming that both images are to scale and taken from the same "slice" of brain (i.e. the images haven't been cooked for dramatic effect), there is a massive difference in the size of the head between both images. If this is the case then couldn't the shrinkage be due to poor nutrition? The whole article is pretty week and quotes no evidence or studies other than the single image.
>> Um, you know the vast majority of very highly / prestigiously educated people (eg. Harvard grads) are Democrats, right?
Yes, I am aware that most of those afflicted autistic spectrum disorders heavily skew democrat - this proves only that people who are born without the ability to judge social situations, along with lots of other perceptual problems, can't tell when they are being lied to. And being smart, and very good a one particular thing, does not mean you can understand everything. Look up the peter principle.
>> but I am sure you are aware of the widely publicized study that showed Daily Show viewers
>> were more appraised of current issues than Fox News viewers.
I easily could have guessed this - but see how you switch subjects? It is a reflex of the weak minded. I was speaking specifically about the QUALITY of people who watch - I'm not going to leave the point - either address it from a basis of actual knowledge, or move along.
You really can't refute someone else's point by talking about something else altogether. Maybe re-read what I wrote, actually think about it, and then reply to what I specifically said.
If you find yourself unable to keep your mind on point; maybe you should think about why that is.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
Seriously. If we're a society that values equality, why do $authors continue to write this way?????
Sample size of two? Really? Too small to draw any meaningful conclusion.
I can totally see this. We got one little one at 11 months, who was taken from home at 9 months, and we were her 4th foster home in that 2 month period.
She came to us an angry sad 11 month old that was taken care of primarily by a 10 year old brother, just very unhappy little one... after a year with us she turned into a smart bubbly laughing girl because we gave her constant attention along with our child, who is a year older than her.
She craved attention more than anything. once she started walking, she would do naughty things intentionally just to get a timeout, so she could have a hug at the end. Took a long time to get her to understand that she just has to ask for a hug and she can have all she wants...
Parental attention is an absolute must. it can make a world of difference.
either because they are expending their effort and energy trying to survive or because they exhibit the same attitude and actions that keep them poor in the first place
the solution is to mandate reversible surgical sterilization as a requirement to get a government subsidy for existence (food, housing, living expenses)
it is reasonable for society to help people who aren't able to support themselves for whatever reason
it is unreasonable for a person who is unable to support themselves to produce offspring that society will also be required to support
TFA is accompanied by a terrible image of two head scans. They are obviously not sized the same. One skull is about 50 percent larger than the other. I'm not a radiologist, but the scans appear to be different resolutions too. It's like they wanted to show people "different brains sizes" so they deliberately chose images heads with different sizes so we'd get the point. Lies, damn lies (the pictures I mean).
This is not science. Bad editor. Bad.
Every trollism an AC posts is prefixed, in my mind, with "A. Coward whined, in a weak and cowardly voice:"
Oh that's nothing. Look at these two animals: (elephant, flounder). The one on the right, experts claim, is smaller purely due to receiving less motherly love.
and the loved child has a brain size of 11.
I've been breast feeding for 40 years and I hang around on slashdot. Who needs a stupid MRI.
With the demise of government-provided retirement programs, mothers should take note, especially if she plans to use her children as "retirement plans". Nothing is more tragic than when the only daughter suffers cognitive impairment (when the USA was a free country, the word "RETARDED" was used). Mother would then have to suck cocks for her retirement.
they did a huge study b4 that children with out maternal contact during ages 1-4 have not only a smaller serotonin gland but less connection to said gland causing depression , so this does not surprise me at all
Am I the only one horrified when watching (primarily) American movies where the newborns are (*always*) separated from their parents and lined up in a (fucking crazy) froom with only other newborns? Congrats! You've just burned the very first trauma into your child...