Slashdot Mirror
Poverty May Affect the Growth of Children's Brains
sciencehabit writes: Stark and rising inequality plagues many countries, including the United States, and politicians, economists, and — fortunately — scientists, are debating its causes and solutions. But inequality's effects may go beyond simple access to opportunity: a new study finds that family differences in income and education are directly correlated with brain size in developing children and adolescents. The findings could have important policy implications and provide new arguments for early antipoverty interventions, researchers say.
There you go, making sense again.
I was raised in a very poor family, one of the poorest in our city, but I have an IQ that's very high, and I always made good grades in school. I don't see the relationship between poverty and smaller brains, nor do I see the relationship between poverty and crime. Of course I was raised in a good family that wasn't trash.
Parental involvement makes more of a difference, and unmarried teens are simply not the best parents. Ask any teacher and they can tell you which students have parents who care.
most of our ruling class aren't poor!
Don't conflate intelligence (or, in the case of TFA, certain aspects of learning and higher order function) with social success. Politics is more emotional than technical. It is abundantly clear that intelligence (whatever the hell that actually happens to be), the ability to learn, the ability to think have only a modest bearing on what happens to an individual throughout their lives.
Besides, the actual magnitude of the effect in TFA seems rather small - there are likely a number of other factors involved to determine if you are fated to be Steve Woz or Idi Amin.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Why isn't everyone entitled to a brain of the same size, if it's feasible?
The language you use there is weird. The world is cold and hard, and any of us could be dead tomorrow; entitlements aren't a god-given right, there's no such thing (and that's true whether you're atheist or strongly believe in God).
Why don't you say, "hey guys, these poor people are out there with deficient brains, let's go help them!" Helping people is something we can actually accomplish as a society, and saying it like that would rally a lot more people to the cause.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Being somewhat above or below median brain size does not equate to better or worse mental faculties. One has to be far, far worse off in the smaller department before it actually starts to be relevant, and that's usually because whole structures are malformed or missing.
If anything in poverty affects brain development I expect that it's chemical or in the way that structures are formed. It's been demonstrated that some structures are larger in both musicians and mathematicians and that there's a direct correlation, the brain improves that structure as the person develops the skill.
I'm going to venture a guess that some people that are poor, particularly those that do not find themselves in a position to really be able to make important choices due to financial constraints or to exercise their brains in higher thinking, will have brains less suited to that kind of decision making until they're forced to start making those kinds of decisions regularly. I expect conversely that many wealthy people that have never been poor can't empathize with the poor because they simply have no idea how to do so, that their brains do not understand the concepts of making very seemingly small decisions that actually are very important when one has almost no resources.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The link is between nutrition and brain development, and considering the odds of poor nutrition is higher in poorer families than in wealthier families, the conclusion does not seem bad at all. Nothing says that all families that live in poverty will have children with developmental problems, but it does argue you're much more likely to see the phenomenon in such families.
I can't imagine why anyone would see this as controversial.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
We get more from taxes. A poor person may get a pittance for food and lodging, but we, and by that I mean middle class professionals, get roads on which to drive our nice cars, police protection for our belongings, safe streets around where we live... and basically a nice life. And yes, we get it from the society that is made possible by taxes.
If you are one of the brainless retards who think that their guns and mad macho skillz will keep them on top if there is a breakdown in law and order, I won't even bother arguing with you. I'll just say that I lived through Bulgaria's transition from a police state to a society run by organized not-quite-criminals, and saw how happy people were to see an end of the truly lawless times.
Without taxes, there is no law enforcement. Without law enforcement, there is no security. No one is tough enough to guarantee their own security without organizing with like minded and skilled people. Once they have organized, they decide that they don't be keeping themselves secure, they are protecting others as well, and... start collecting taxes.
No good deed goes unpunished...
This study may only be referenced by Liberals when promoting new ways to take from those who produce. If ever referenced by Conservatives, such as for explaining certain inequities and suggesting that some people might actually be smarter than others, it is racist.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
It's not a dig. The U.S is always boasting and purporting itself as a piece of heaven, but the country is in fact a third-world shit-hole in many places and aspects. Look up the documentary "Lalee's Kin" f.ex. to see some of the stark, rising inequality. The kind of inequality and shit-hole seen in this documentary doesn't exist in the little European country I live in, nor in many other places in the world. But it does in the U.S, and it's not a rare sight.
We could do that. We could take all children away from the parents as soon as they are born and make them wards of the state. That way they would all get the same amount of attention and stimulation at an early age, the same nutrition, the same access to the same government schools, etc...
The world is cold and hard as we allow it to be. It is a *choice*, albeit one made by default for people who think like you.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So the Top 1% needs to give the bottom 99% all their money. Problem solved.
Until next year, when the ones who suddenly find themselves in the new 1% have everything taken away from them and given to everyone else. As in, what do you do when the money you've just given away is gone and you need to do it again? Do you really imagine that those people who had no money will save whatever windfall they get by eating the rich for use over a long period of time? (And taking everything away from the 1% is as close to "eating the rich" as you can get without actually eating them.) The vacuum created by emptying out the 1% will create endless opportunities for the 5% to move up, creating the same 1% all over again.
I can think of no better incentive to be non-productive than to know that if you make the magic 1% level you'll have everything confiscated. No better way to destroy any idea of the "land of opportunity" than to reward the use of opportunity with total abject poverty. Well, no, I guess knowing that if you sit on your backside all day you'll get enough to live on is a pretty good incentive to not be productive, too.
The world is cold and hard as we allow it to be.
Then allow it to end death: for that is the coldest and hardest thing we all face.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Another advantage to the middle-class is paradoxically welfare. People in good jobs like to rant about how their taxes are paying for some deadbeat but... ... if there was zero welfare the employment market would be flooded by the unemployed willing to work for anything - a couple of dollars, some free food etc. This would allow employers to reduce wages and middle-class earners would suddenly find their wages dissolve to whatever the 'free market' allowed - i.e. in most cases about the same as welfare levels are now.
Of course you might be in a protected industry like law enforcement, military or teaching. Good look keeping that job when the tax base of the country erodes and no one will pay for you (the billionaires certainly won't).
So many intelligent types are too busy spewing the hate about the poor without noticing that the countries with the largest (relative to pop size) middle-classes are all those with 'tax and spend big government'. There is a connection, people...
As a teacher for over 15 years , public subsidized populations are usually the result of unplanned pregnancy and parents drink, smoke and don't take prenatal precautions that regular parents do . Low income Mexican and Asian immigrants parents take care of themselves public assistant parents do not . Iq is lower on average vs normal children . Major prenatal outreach is needed before children get pregnant
Well I suppose it depends on what you consider to be "coming up with a better solution". If you mean figuring out where money is better spend on improving society, then lots of people have already come up with better solutions. If you mean figuring out a way to convince a democratic country full of idiots voting for other idiots to do anything right, then the fact that we still have this particular problem is pretty good evidence that no one has figured out the solution yet.
Yes, living in the 1930's would be hell for anyone accustomed to modern living.
Cheap storage VM.
Are you statistically the same as the studied subjects?
Nope, you are an outlier. Thanks for your Republicanism, but try actually understanding things.
Could it also be related to poorer parents working more hours, thus having less time to be with the kids during their early years
There are probably dozens of measurable ways being poor affects the development of brains. But ultimately, it's happening because that's the way the people at the very top in terms of wealth and power want it. The last think they want is for poor people to suddenly become successful, and develop political power.
One of the side-effects of the New Deal and the labor movement in America is that a bunch of people who were on the shitty side of the street suddenly were able to take a big step up. GIs coming out of WW2 who would normally have gone to work in the coal mine or slaughter house suddenly had the means to go to college, buy a house, live a life of reasonable comfort. And do you know what they did with this sudden shift in circumstances? They developed political power. Their kids went from blue collar to white collar. And similar steps up during the pre and post-war period occurred for women and American blacks.
And this scared the bejeesus out of the elite. So, in the 70s, and peaking in the 80s, there came an effort to undo these advancements. The effort included an attack on New Deal programs like Social Security and the labor movement. The effort included the flooding of the inner city with crack cocaine (which we now know to have been run by our own government). The effort included the confluence of evangelical religion with supply-side capitalism by Billy Graham (who started his ministry with funds from the Chamber of Commerce).
The effort to put the genie back in the bottle continues to this day, and it's been quite successful. Economic disparity hasn't been this out of whack since the 19th century. Militarized policing, private prisons, an attack on public education are all fronts in this class war being waged by the elite. You want to see it in action, watch the political policies being pushed by governors of Kansas, Indiana, and many states throughout the South and in big cities in the North. Just watch.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Frankly, their rationale sucks.
In particular, their points:
"No clear standards exist for defining foods as good or bad, or healthy or not healthy." -- true that it's hard to categorize everything as "good" or "bad", but that doesn't mean that it's hard to categorize some foods as bad. To use the OP's example, Froot Loops have zero value in a healthy diet.
"No evidence exists that food stamp participation contributes to poor diet quality or obesity." -- this one is a strawman; I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that being on food stamps causes obesity. This is missing the point.
"Restrictions may be ineffective in changing the purchases of food stamp participants" -- another strawman; this one argues that food stamp rules should not change because people can spend their non-food-stamp money on something else. Who cares? I don't mind them spending their own money on whatever they want; it's just when they're taking money from my pocket that I should get some input.
Of course the USDA doesn't want any restrictions on food stamp benefits. Like every government organization, they have to justify their existence, and the more money that you can pump into their budget, the better.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
I think that's just a small part of it, I know plenty of rich people who give their children junk food, and poor people who make a big effort to only buy healthy stuff.
I think the researchers simply got cause and effect mixed up.
People with smaller brains tend to end up with a lower income and get less education. And their kids end up inheriting the smaller brain from their parents.
Obviously that doesn't mean than all poor people are stupid, just that statistically, people with larger brains tend to do better in life, and this results in a correlation when you look at a sufficiently large number of people.
Makes a lot more sense to me.
The problem is that you're wrong about what social security IS - it's not an investment, nor was it ever MEANT to be one. It's paying back a DEBT.
For you to be an economically active adult, a huge amount of money was spent by society (not just your parents). The people who were economically active when you were a child spent a large chunk of their taxes on you. They provided you with public schools, you got police protection and libraries and all the other services citizens get despite not paying any taxes yet etc. etc. etc. - the list is endless.
Now that the generation which paid for you to be able to be an earning adult are no longer capable of earning, you owe it to them to take care of them in their dotage. Part of your earnings go to pay back that expense by taking care of them in turn, another part gets spent on the NEXT generation - like it was spent on you.
THAT is what social security is - it's the system by which you as a currently economically active adult are supporting the generation that supported you BEFORE you were one, after they can no longer be ones. And the next generation is meant to support you in turn when your time comes.
There are problems with social security but it's not the theory of it, it's the management and they mostly stem from managers who made the same mistake that you did.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I don't think you understand what "equality of opportunity" means. For example, it means that all children would have the opportunity to get a high quality education. Obviously some children are less bright than others, but the high quality education is offered to everyone. More over, children shouldn't be disadvantaged because of their parents failings, because that isn't fair to them. That's one of the reasons why children must attend school by law in most countries - even if the parents would prefer them to stay at home or work they must be given the opportunity to learn.
As for jobs, equality of opportunity means that everyone can apply for a particular job, i.e. the employer can't arbitrarily discriminate against say Latino people. It also means that we should try to make high quality jobs available everywhere, or ensure that people can relocate if necessary without artificial barriers. Imagine there was some bright kid just out of college who couldn't afford to move to where high end jobs in his field were. Someone might decide to help give him the opportunity to apply for and get those jobs by offering assistance to move.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC