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.
A progressive brain tax is coming.
They may have found a correlation, but that's not the same as determining the direction of causation.
Poverty doesn't cause it, most likely has to do with poor Nutrition.
Which is why, if I were in charge, Food Stamps would be for Fruits, Veggies, Meat, and Milk only. If you add anything else, it is abused. Cereal? FruitLoops is a cereal, and currently counts as "food".
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Why isn't everyone entitled to a brain of the same size, if it's feasible?
So there will finally be a financial benefit to using Slashdot after all?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I'm not sure that brain size by itself is a particular indicator of intelligence but when it's combined with poor nutrition and stressful living it probably is correlated. If you're concerned about the welfare state then it's something that should concern you. People with low intelligence are much more likely to require welfare to get along in life.
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."
could have been just as valid a title. The methodology in the article had no way to control for the fact that genes control brain development, so children inherit both their parents genes and socioeconomic status.
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.
http://slashdot.org/story/06/0...
I would expect nutrition to be a big factor. But I also expect other environmental factors like intellectual stimulation, healthcare, etc. also play into it.
I'm sorry but what was your point?
Its not like they did anything different than what was already happening. They just did it better. And in my neck of the woods, the vast majority of natives simply blended into society. They were not killed for the land.
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.
So the Top 1% needs to give the bottom 99% all their money. Problem solved.
The goal is to make everyone the same.
Penalize the gifted people; put the non-gifted people on pedestals.
Welcome to the objective of Liberalism.
Total government expenditures in the US were around 10% of GDP in 1930. Was the US a lawless hellhole at 10%?
Cause it's around 40% today.
I'm going to guess that it has a lot to do with nutrition too. But in the US, there is quite a few people who are considered in poverty who are there by choice. I don't mean they choose to be in poverty but choices they make places and keeps them there.
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.
But inequality's effects may go beyond simple access to opportunity
I'm not sure what they're defining as "opportunity" here, but it clearly doesn't include access to a healthier diet, better educational tools, more experiences in life, quality time & attention from their guardians, etc, etc.
In fact, I'd like to know exactly what they what they think opportunity is if it's *not* those things?!
Do we even want a society where everyone has the exact same amount of money?
The only way to make everybody equally rich/poor is to just take everything away from everybody and make us all wards of the state. We tried that a few times in history, it's not a pretty outcome. Besides, there is always those capitalist types that end up holding more than their fair share of the wealth for one reason or another...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
No, but it would be nice to have one where everybody has the exact same amount of opportunity.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Maybe, that depends on the total level of wealth. If wealth is so large that scarcity isn't much of an issue then some form of spending power equality might not be a big deal. Prior to that happy state we're probably better off with some form of limited incentive system that rewards those who do more.
Yeah; it's really about developmental psychology (feed your kids well while their brains are forming, and they'll work better), but the discussion will devolve into head size jokes before you know it.
Well, it is feasible. It is just easier to do it the other way, that is to set a minimum baseline and reduce the larger brains down to the baseline. That would be much easier than grafting on to smaller brains.
Poor people have less nutrition for their body. Poor people have less access to toys and media which exercise the brains. Thankfully smart phone prices are coming down in price, and educational apps are popping up all the time. So in third world countries, people may be able to get education straight from a smart phone. We as app developers should have education in mind. Whether we're doing illustrated story books which the spoken word synched with highlighted words, or we're doing K-12-University lectures and workbook activities... We should focus more on education and helping out over directly our own pocketbooks to a degree.
God spoke to me
The intentional homicide rate in the 1930s in the US was more than twice what it is today. So, yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
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...
But it does in every other place in the world with the population the US has, which is more than most places. The larger the population, the larger the disparity. Comparing economic disparity of people in, say, Sweden, to the entire US is pretty silly when you realize Sweden's population is less than that of L.A county.
After correcting for cultural differences (e.g. Asians focus on education more than other races), does your claim still hold true?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
The least well off 1% of Americans are still better off than 80% of the rest of the world. Immigrants gladly come to the US to be there with nothing but the cloths on their back. Water, libraries, roads, police, SNAP, the U.S. is a paradise. There is no such thing as poverty there.
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.
Well, I think that ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE agrees that our taxes are spent on the wrong things. The young think too much is spent on the elderly, the healthy think too much is spent on the sick, the pedestrians think too much is spent on roads, the childless think too much is spent on education, etc... And I bet there are people who think that homeland security, the police and the military are getting way too much.
But until someone comes with a better way to decide where the money gets spent we are stuck with the time honored one: wherever it will bring the politicians more power, which in the US means votes and campaign contributions.
And a lot of noise will be made as to where expenses will be cut... usually, whatever programs do not have powerful, organized groups benefiting from them. You can't cut grandpa's check without losing his vote, but you can cut school lunches or fail to fund infrastructure maintenance.
There are no easy solutions. And speaking for myself, I can a lot more benefit, for myself, by working harder, than trying to influence how much I pay in taxes, and where it gets spent.
I have a choice where I live and work. I chose the US in the 90s, and I do not regret that choice, not even when I have to deal with our healthcare (which is the only thing I think is done better elsewhere). Pre- or post- Obamacare, with my experience of other healthcare systems, the changes are not worth commenting on. It was terrible, it is terrible, but as long as I have a good income, it's survivable.
No good deed goes unpunished...
It seems obvious that people who come from rich families can afford private schooling, more friends in high places, and sometimes full time attention and tutoring from birth. Obviously these people will have better development and job opportunities.
People from a poor background are more neglected during development be it from divorce, drug/alcohol abuse, and poor schooling. This sets them up for a terrible uphill battle for the rest of their lives.
Well we also have nuclear weapons now, and Nasa and a social security system which means grandpa can pay his own way and not have to be supported by his adult children... should also note the police have stuff like helicopters and fast patrol cars which weren't really on the cards in 1930.
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."
In theory, anyone can scrimp and save and work hard and get ahead. I've done it .. without a college education and growing up in a from a family barely getting by, I've managed to improve my income starting as a minimum wage bike repair worker, working two years as an office clerk, and 35 years later clear over $130K/year. I did it because I'm smart, reasonably personable, and have a strong work ethic that makes it easy for me to do just about any job my company asks for, yet strong enough to go look elsewhere when the time is right.
So .. should stupid people have the same opportunity that I have had?? How about lazy people??? How about liars and thieves???
So what type of opportunity are they talking about?? My son and daughter took two different paths through life, she took the college/marriage/house/kid route and she and her husband, who just got his doctorate, are doing much better than I was at 30 years young.
On the other hand, my son took a more laid back, artsy, 'no working for the man' route. While fiscally, he is far worse off than I was at 32, he has traveled the entire United States, has friends in probably every state, does what he wants, doesn't pay taxes, and yet makes enough money to not live off the state. He is 100% debt free. He lives on what he makes, and occasionally dumpster dives for food and materials. Yet .. it's what he has chosen to do. Because he feels we throw away far too much stuff, buy way too much stuff, and spend too much of our lives doing work we don't like.
The things they both have in common is they are both very smart, have good work ethics, and both know the importance of living within their means. I'm sure my son would qualify as someone below the poverty line. Yet he has never gotten food stamps in his entire life and has never asked me for money. Except that one time he broke his glasses jumping off a freight train in Kansas City.
He also is far more in touch with the nutritional value of food and makes good choices when he can than I am. He's pretty darn healthy for someone that doesn't have a regular job. Yet also knows how to pour concrete, build a boat, restring a fiddle bow, and a dozen other things. He has become a modern jack-of-all-trades than can make a few bucks in just about any town, any time he wants to.
So is opportunity just getting what you want?? Or is it having a specific income level??
'Equal opportunity' is a phrase that means nothing, and is constantly overused by those willing to take things from other people and give to others under the guise of 'doing good'. Or as an excuse to control people's behaviors or, in this case, probably their children.
What a great excuse, taking children away from people simply because they are poor. What will the progressive's think of next ....
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
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...
Aren't there any ways to get us a step closer to the goal of equal opportunity for all that doesn't take away freedoms?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
What choices would they be? Because if you mean drinking or taking drugs then a high percentage of the middle-class should be on the breadline.
If you mean they're poor because they spend their money on crap then y'know, iPhones, Jimmy Choos and McMansions.
If you believe is because they're in debt then, well, go on how much is the US government is debt? And how much are middle-class people in decent jobs in debt?
Here's the problem - we like to assume anyone who is poor is that way because of some moral failing and they deserve to be stamped on. But then we believe that well-off people like us who do exactly the same things are worthy of help and forgiveness if they screw up. If you made a documentary about poor people on welfare who blow their cash on clubbing and weed they would be called every name in the book by viewers.
Make a documentary series about rock stars losing millions thrown away on clubs & drugs and.... you have VH1's Behind the Music.
At least you'll be on a pedestal, man.
There are, in fact, people working on that (proton decay and heat death notwithstanding). They don't get a lot of resources or respect, partly because they're a bit on the dreamer end of the dreamer-pragmatist spectrum, but mostly because human cultures are phenomenally skilled at denying and rationalizing the occurrence of death (mostly through religion, but also e.g. through appeals to nature and philosophical bullshit about how death "gives meaning to life" or the like).
Causation and correlation are often confused. Consider: parents who are genetically prone to produce offspring with poor brain growth may also have a higher propensity for poverty.
It's a choice either way. The question is, who makes the choice?
Your suggestion seems to be that some all powerful authority mandates what choice everyone else must make.
GP's suggestion is that enough people can be talked into making the altruistic choice to make a difference.
Don't you think there is a difference between someone who can afford booze and drugs who can hold a job and someone who drinks to the point they cannot? Isn't there a difference between someone who buys a bag of weed and someone who buys groceries?
Just because we do the same things doesn't mean we are equally doing them. When you know when to stop, when you don't do it beyond your means, you do not end up losing your means, you are not the same. But that really doesn't matter because other choices play a bigger role. Choices like being a single mom or having 10 trophies (kids) or screwing up jobs so you are stuck with shit jobs and low pay.
But hey, did you know that two income families making minimum wage is not considered in poverty? Divorce them and both will be.
If there was zero welfare, the police would be flooded with a crime wave because people would do ANYTHING to survive. Unless people think other people will just stay quiet and starve to death.
No. We want to get everyone to the bare minimum of being a complete person. After that, the amount of money doesn't matter.
If nutrition is the problem, let's pledge to make sure everyone has the minimum money to make sure their children have the minimum amount of nutrition.
If something else is the problem, let's understand that, and then make sure that's at minimum levels for everyone.
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
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).
How come people are entitled to profit, directly and in the form of money, from the work of other people, then? How come most of that very same people being exploited barely have any opportunities to become as rich as their exploiters?
Hey Mr, we are from NSA!
Denial is futile, we checked yer PET scan images from our latest hack!
And the size doesn't lie !!
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.
You should talk to Bill Shockley.....I think you two would get along.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Nobody is lining up to give poor people professional baseball teams, or choice executive positions at energy companies. Nor does a poor working stiff who just finished a hard day of running pipes or installing drywall open his motel door in the middle of the night to see women looking to have sex with him.
It's not being willfully obtuse as to how this country, and capitalism in general, actually works.
Harrison Bergeron
Serenity now, insanity later.
I am surprised that nobody pointed out that the causality might be backwards: smaller brain size is hereditary and causes poverty.
Grandpa is still supported by his adult children (and the adult children of his contemporaries). It is just that he doesn't need to ask them for support any more, he is entitled to it. Grandpa probably could have been entitled to his own generation's money, but the government already spent it on great grandpa's generation.
I wish I could mod this troll.
Cheap storage VM.
Yes, living in the 1930's would be hell for anyone accustomed to modern living.
Cheap storage VM.
Even those "protected" industries feel the pinch when times are tough. Look at what has been happening to teachers, and look at Wisconsin. So far, there have been special exceptions carved out for police, and maybe firefighters.
I wonder how long that will last.
Cheap storage VM.
right now we have people who do small stuff just to get in to jail / prison. Hell the doctor there costs less and cover more stuff then the ER
I don't think people are holding back immortality due to being resigned to death, we just don't think it is yet possible. I'd tend to agree. There's a lot of varied shit that can kill you, and if you live long enough, it's eventually going to be *someone* who does the killing by sheer probabilities coming to roost. So, there's no reason to not be prepared for the most overwhelmingly likely scenario.
But yeah, if someone figures out a way to immortality without having to become some sort of undead or something, sign me up.
There actually is an anthropological theory that posits that ego in the self-awareness meaning is a relatively new phenomenon, and that most of the spiritual leaders of old were more self-aware than their peers.
Given that in the Abrahamic religions, it's established that there other humans besides the progeny of Adam and Eve (there are references to cities) it might follow that compared to the rest of the population, Adam, Eve, and their progeny were significantly more self-aware than the rest of the population. That could help reinforce that Genesis is more of an allegory in the sense that it in-part describes the rise of Man from being simply a primate struggling through existence like all of the other primates to having that sense of ego and awareness. That could even indicate that the act of becoming Man and having ego is the 'fall from grace' in being expelled from the Garden of Eden. That would mean that Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and everyone else mentioned by name in Genesis is there to be in parable, not literally those individuals, but the rough story of those that came to greater self-awareness in that part of the world first.
Obviously this could be completely wrong too, I'm certainly not an expert on this theory nor do I have the resources to cite sources, but it's interesting to to muse on it. The contents of the Torah/Bible obviously had to come from somewhere.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
No, we all make the choice of the kind of world we want -- or maybe it'd be better to say the kind of world we can live with. It just so happens that some people can live with a world that they don't like very much, so long as that doesn't demand very much of them.
Anyone can by choice have an immense effect on the world around them. Maybe they can't change the *whole* world very noticeably, but they can transform their own neighborhood.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
That's rather Lamarckian though. You'd have to demonstrate a selection mechanism that applies to those who have power in society, which has lasted for enough generations to generate a measurable response.
It is your choice to make your eventual obliteration the focus of your life. That's something you can either try to change (good luck with that), or it's something you can choose to accept. But choosing to accept that doesn't mean you have to sit around being miserable and resentful while you wait for the Grim Reaper. The world is only as cold and hard as the things in it you choose to focus on. There's also more wondrous and amazing and even funny things in the world than you an get around to thinking about in a lifetime.
It's like summer vacation when you're in school. You only get ten weeks or so of it, not nearly enough to get to all the things you want to do. And there are some people who will react to that by spending the whole time from day 1 unhappy about going back to school. What a waste of existence! But that's definitely a choice open to you.
Imagine your last few seconds of consciousness before you die. How would you like to spend them? Being angry? Sad? I think that's a waste of precious time. I'd like to have someone I love very much tell me a very funny joke.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
... in 1960-th there was a toy - a metal constructor. It was a big box full of different plates, axes, wheels, nuts, bolts a.s.o. It was relatively cheap (since it was produced basically by the same plants where the nuclear bombs were made). It was needed to have some brains to model something with this toy. There were lots of cheap magazines publishing projects for this toy. Sometimes it was problematic to subscribe for these magazines (it's Russia!!!!1111) but they still were cheap.
About 2010, I needed such a constructor to model some of my ideas before I implement them in full scale metal. I went to the toy shop. And I found that no such constructor is sold now. There was only a Lego. During some more searches I found the old-school metal constructor but it was extremely costly.
So, what do I think about this: 1) It was a deliberate policy of Commie Ruskies to grow bright engineers that would produce the Kuzkina Mat' (H-Bomb) of next generation; 2) It is a deliberate policy of modern Russian (and USA too since Lego is your production) to grow a controllable population.
So basically you agree with me, the world is a cold and hard place. You choose to not focus on that, which is fine, but the problems won't disappear.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No I don't. I agree there are cold, hard things in the world, but *you* choose to focus on that.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You may grow the equals. As a result you will not grow bright engineers capable of building a new American Nuclear bomb capable of destroying Commie Ruskies.Being a Commie Ruskie I would be quite glad. And I would be doubleplusglad since it would be the quintessence of Communism in separately taken USA.
Oh, so you do agree there are cold hard things in the world.
So you were wrong before when you said, "The world is cold and hard as we allow it to be. It is a *choice*"
In fact, it's not a choice.....you know it.
We can help people out when they need help, but let's not pretend we've changed nature or reality.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
China comes handy if we are to talk about the effect malnutrition on the population
Throughout the 5 thousand years of organized human society of China which ancient bureaucrats had carefully noted down what happened, China had been hit with many periods of mass disasters that often led to epic starvation in China, and every time it happened, China would need to go through at least 3 generations of REGENERATION before the IQ level of the people get back to the 'normal' range, and the time frame is more or less 50-70 years
It seems that the first 2 generations were so seriously affected by the lack of nutrition that the IQ level dropped drastically, and only the third (and subsequent) generations who get to enjoy 'normal intake' of nutrition from the food they ate, that their level of intelligence went back to normal
Another gauge from the Chinese civilization can be had from the result of their 'jin xi' - an exam held by government, often once every 2 years, in which candidates from all over the countries went to take hoping that they could land an official job) ... there was often a lack of suitable candidates from areas which had had disasters/mass starvation, for period up to 50 or more years
"Poverty" and "income inequality" are very different. While the US has a fairly large income inequality, poverty isn't common. (Note that "poverty" to most people means "unable to meet basic needs"). The irony is in our culture that poor people tend to be overweight.
Do you have ESP?
Enjoy your Doritos and macaroni cheese, loser.
...instead of "informative"
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
That may be so, but certainly not because they'd miss Big Gov.
Darwinian selection has been observed in one generation in high-order animals like birds where there are limited resources. Selection has also been observed in plants where humans have done nothing more than adjust the available nutrients and other external conditions to dramatically change crop yields without doing anything to the plant itself or its reproductive cycle.
I don't doubt that feeding a human a better diet and removing things from the diet that are outright harmful will contribute to an infant growing up into a more physically powerful, smarter person compared to one fed a malnourishing diet or being fed foodstuffs that are toxic or otherwise tainted, and that this could also apply to brain development.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
We are talking about equality of opportunities here. Thing is, the Nobel prize has little to do with it, and more with what happens *after* you tool this or that opportunities. Hell, the Nobel prize is NOT given to people for being good at something... but for their contribution to "peace" (whatever that means to the Nobel foundation..)
The problem is that not everyone has the same opportunities to, say, become a scientist (good or bad, doesn't matter), given their aspirations of doing so, and this happens mostly because of classicism, racism, (lack of) resources, (lack of) education and so on...
No one is saying that we are all equal, that's just an stupid assumption proposed by those who hate the concept of egalitarianism.
Regarding "poor decision making skills"... have you ever thought that that happens PRECISELY because poor people, in general, didn't have access to good education? You know, things usually have causes and consequences, and we are able to explain them and form theories about them. *THAT* is why we have to aspire to equality of opportuniy, even if we never find perfection on our search.
But once again, I don't see how you responded to my question: why are SOME people entitled to their profits, while other people simply has to suffer being poor? Is there an absolute need for this society to be this way?
Yes, there was this little thing called "The Great Depression" going on in 1930. Wasn't exactly a fun time, or so my great-grandparents told me.
I don't see what that has to do with anything. I always see a lot of people with very high end degrees eating a lot of junk food. For example, I know of few programmers whose dinner doesn't routinely consist of doritos and mountain dew.
Strange, I read that the cause of this was high amounts of lead in the environment. Why is it that all of a sudden the low tax rate is the cause of it?
In places like that there is an abundance of inexpensive garbage filled with very stimulating ingredients and an uphill battle towards the less available, more expensive, all-natural options. This is why there's a bizarre regulatory mess in South LA about curbing the number of fast food joints all packed into a concentrated area.
See in this video where the chef teaches some kids how to make home made breaded chicken breast, but they still find the McNugget more appealing. It reminds me of Dave Chappelle's old sketch about the rich kids having grape juice where he only knew "grape drink."
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.
Grandpa probably could have been entitled to his own generation's money[...]
Actually no. Money is only worth what you can buy for. The work, the good or the service Grandpa wants to pay for has to be done right now for today's prices. And while people working today also get today's payment, Grandpa has no negotation lever on today's pricing. He earned his money in former times at former prices, and now he is retired. If the older generation which doesn't work anymore has too much money, we the working generation will (free market to the win!) just increase prices until the purchasing power of the older generation fits again the amount of work we want to spend on them. If there is too much money on the market, we always can have an inflation until purchasing power and goods creation are in balance again. Working people can deal with it thanks to increasing wages in an inflation. Retired people can't. Their retirement funds compete against the retirement funds of all the other retired people, but the share of goods and services they compete on is defined by the people still working.
Interests, payouts for 401k, house prices and all those money sources non-working people may have access to are only possible because people today are creating the surplus value which can be paid out as interests, as profits on shares or be spend on ever increasing house prices. Every retirement scheme where one stops working and still has access to goods and services is in a way a Ponzi scheme because someone else is creating the actual value the retired one is using up.
Total government expenditures in the US were around 10% of GDP in 1930. Was the US a lawless hellhole at 10%?
Cause it's around 40% today.
Bonnie and Clyde, heyday of the Mafia... Sure sounds like it was much safer in the 30's.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Go ahead: keep finding excuses.
A clue: if you do that, there will never be the desire to improve. Besides, the EU as a whole has a much lower Gini coefficient and it has a larger population overall.
The thing is, every country is unique, so you'll always be able to make excuses along the lines of "well, of course they're different because.."
Which is nice as you never have to try to improve.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"Brian size" sounds impressive, as many people immediately will think bigger=better, but is there any conclusive and reliable evidence that brain size actually matters and what its effects are? Last thing I remember is that most of the human brain is unused.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Even TFA says it very clearly: they find a correlation. However, the title and introduction desperately want to imply causation. However, the causation can run all sorts of ways - and the study itself does not (and, indeed, cannot) say which of these is correct. Just to name three possibilities:
- Poverty hinders brain development (what the SJWs want to hear)
- People with a genetic predisposition for poor brain development tend to be poor (definitely not what the SJWs want to hear)
- Poverty correlates to certain activities (or lack thereof, for example, little reading). The lack of those activities hinders brain development. This can mimic genetics to an extent, since behavior is passed along from parents to children. (Complicated, not news worthy, and therefore likely to be closer to the truth).
So, erase the provocative title, ignore the introduction (that tries to inspire the SJW in all of us), and the study itself is interesting. However, actually determining the causation is the critical part, and that's not done yet...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
why
is
this
so
fucking
hard
to
grasp?
Causation and correlation. What they have here is CORRELATION... not causation. They have nothing that suggests being richer makes your brain bigger. The very idea that they have misinterpreted their data this badly makes me not want to live on this planet in and of itself.
What complete fucking idiots. Seriously. Retards. I suppose they're probably poor, which is why they're stupid.
What their "study" found was some correlation between brain size and wealth. First, brain size doesn't actually correlate with intelligence. There are some people with giant brains that are complete idiots. Literally retarded. And there are some people with abnormally little brains for humans that are quite intelligent. In gross terms having a chipmunk brain is going to require a similarly limited intelligence but small variances in brain size do not infer greater intelligence. Male brains for example are almost all larger than female brains yet we wouldn't say women are less intelligent.
In any case, even if we are talking about intelligence, the issue is correlation and not causation. And in that case, it is possible that the wealthier bloodlines are wealthier because they're more intelligent not more intelligent because they're wealthier.
As to these people presuming to suggest social policy on this basis... allow me to laugh derisively in their stupid faces.
*rolls eyes*
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
There is strong evidence that the lead ban had a direct causal impact on lowering the crime rate post-1990.
But it couldn't have been a factor in 1930 since the lead pollution levels at that time was still ridiculously low. The single biggest contributor: tetra-ethyl-lead (as was used in gasoline) wasn't even invented yet.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
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 *
There are no studies that show spanking has any long term positive outcomes. There are plenty of studies that show negative correlation with long term negative outcomes. Just as is the case with this study, it is fair to call into question correlation and causation but if there were some food additive, fertilizer or herbicide that had even 1/10 of the correlative impact on children, the public would be freaking out and protesting around some multinational business but when it is parents damaging their own children we get relative silence.
Studies have shown that poor parents are more likely to spank their children. Studies have shown a correlation in spanking with smaller brain sizes, lower IQs, lack of self control. Studies have shown a high correlation between lack of self control and poverty. Again we don't have great data on cause v.s. effect but there are good indications that the early violence is causative in this chain.
--- Liberty in our Lifetime
Aaah the old "but... but... we so biiiig!" argument, that we all know from discussions on why US internet access would be more at home in developing nations. You showed yourself to be incorrect with your last sentence: compare Sweden with LA county, then, and see for yourself.
Which has nothing to do with anything, if you don't happen to be a scared little racist who feels they have no control over the world, so they blame people with obvious differences for their ills. Heck, it worked for the Nazis!
Then allow it to end death: for that is the coldest and hardest thing we all face.
We have made a lot of progress on that front, actually. Most people live well into their 70s now, compared to being lucky to reach 30 a few hundred years ago. Many diseases are easily curable or have been eradicated entirely.
We are still improving. We might cure death one day, and in the mean time we are getting better at making death dignified and peaceful.
For most of us death isn't nearly as bad as it used to be, and probably not the hardest thing we will face in our lifetimes. We don't allow it to be, we do everything we can to make it bearable.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Public policy must absolutely NOT be based on logical fallacies!
was it like that when growing up?
also, what about the parents brain size?
what kind of poverty are we talking here anyhow? if you have money to feed your kids with overpriced flavored ice just wtf kind of poverty is that compared to europe directly after and during ww2?+??
or is it that if the parents constantly tell their kids that they are poor, then their brains don't grow?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
44% of single mother families are in poverty, who knows how many of those mothers are even around when working more than one job. If no one teaches them the basics, who will? Only 12% of families with both parents at home are in poverty, and in most cases, at least one parent is around (if they were both working 2 jobs, they wouldn't be in poverty). Sounds like the real problem is single mother families...one could argue this is a moral problem, stepping away from traditional families to the lifestyles we live now.
Didn't you watch Trading Places? That movie totally debunks your hypothesis.
Of course, but discussing any of the many feasible alternatives means one can't instantly shoot down the entire idea by proposing something insane, and pretending that's the only option.
It reads more like an attempt to stop kids' minds being screwed over by parents who also had their minds screwed over as kids, thereby breaking the cycle. That sounds a pretty good idea, but I guess the devil is in the details. No pun intended, of course.
Every time I see a study like this, I reverse the premise and see if it makes sense. In this case, I would ask this. Instead of poverty cause low brain development, does low brain development cause poverty. I would argue that much of IQ is inherited, either through nature or nurture. To put it bluntly, stupid parents tend to have stupid kids. Its also clear that a lower IQ very much limits your earning potential - thus puts your family in poverty.
So, I think this study is balogne. All it says is poor people tend to be on the lower end of the IQ scale, and so are their kids.
That is you personal opinion. I know I would not want to live forever. That does not mean I want to die soon, nor that I am suicidal.
And yes, the world is as cold and hard as we want it to be. e.g. what is important is in the first place not living forever. It is living a healthy and productive live.
Unfortunatly that is not what hmankind wants. We want money, not health. We could easily give food and medicial attention to everybody in the world. We decided that money and power is of higher importance.
We do want death. We kill. We let others starve. We let them be unable to get medical attention, although we have the knowledge to help. We decide that even if this is available, we put our kids in harms way by not giving them vacinations.
Some people do wish well upon others, but they are a minority. I am guilty of this as well. Why do I have so many clothes when others have nothing? Why do I need a new computer every X years? Why do I not live in a smaller house? Why do I need a car, when alternatives are possible?
Look at those things before you say you want eternal life and see if you REALLY want to change things. I bet you don't.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Strange, I read that the cause of this was high amounts of lead in the environment. Why is it that all of a sudden the low tax rate is the cause of it?
Not for the 1930s. It was only till the 60's that lead (in the form of BOTH lead paint and lead gasoline additive) started playing a statistical significant role.
Poverty generally gives a good a idea of what kind of environment the child is growing up in, along with the diet and education available. Environmental effects are massive on a humans development, all the way down to which genes are activated, and which one are not. Effects at this level leave the potential consequences immeasurable. Social Classism is a huge fucking issue, and its unfortunate how blind anyone unaffected by it is.
I know I would not want to live forever.
You're weird.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
probably not the hardest thing we will face in our lifetimes.
Uh.....it is hard.....so far everyone who has tried has died doing so.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
But with the exception of the very first generation of recipients that is NOT what it was meant to be. It was supposed to be a forced investment towards retirement with a little extra to aid the first generation of recipients. But then congress repeatedly raided that huge stockpile of money leaving it now little more than a vault full of IOU's and turning it into how you described it. But it was not supposed to be the way it is.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
I like this. It also fits the Cain and Abel hunter-gatherer vs agriculturalist interpretation.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
In feudalism, and in certain forms of tribalism, the chief/King and his family eat first, and then everybody else eats what is left over from their table. (in Calapuya Chinook, the title of the chief was the Hias Mucktymuck- quite literally "the dude sitting at the head of the table", from which we get the saying "Lord High MucktyMuck"). I'd call that a very powerful selection mechanism.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Nobody in the 1930s would miss a government-provided social safety net? They wouldn't miss food stamps, housing and heat assistance, medical care for the poor, or unemployment insurance?
Just what do you think the economy was doing in the 1930s?
2nd potential mechanism. Due to competition for rare leadership positions, serfs showing leadership potential are killed outright, leaving behind only those with brains enough to do the job that the lord wants them to do. Once a dynasty and traditional economy are established, eight nor nine generations of this and you'll end up with a genetic separation between "noble blood/highborn" and "serf/lowborn" populations.
For an extreme comedic version of this, see https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCscVT3d-EEQsq-5rPozTyJw/, these English actors portrayed the four class English system perfectly, complete with simulated IQ levels.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
no text
I don't see how anything you said has anything to do with what I said.
Two things I find interesting about today's right-wing thinking. One, is that they seem to not understand where the wealthy get their money. It comes from the rest of us. Two, is how poor and working-class people will defend this right-wing nonsense.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
You mean the video in which he lies about the content of McNuggets in the US? The pink paste he mentions is not considered human consumable by the FDA.
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.
Here's a humorous clip related to what you are saying (not a Rickroll - it's a comedy sketch): https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Total government expenditures in the US were around 10% of GDP in 1930. Was the US a lawless hellhole at 10%?
Cause it's around 40% today.
No it isn't. More like 16% according to the World Bank
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Casteism
How Poverty Taxes the Brain;
Scientists have discovered that being poor actually impairs our cognitive abilities;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Casteism
was it like that when growing up?
For me? Yeah, and same for many others I know.
what kind of poverty are we talking here anyhow?
That's a tricky question because poverty is defined strictly based on income and ignores wealth entirely. I've met the definition of poverty most of my life, but because of all of the material goods I've owned it would be easy to think I was what most people define as middle class. You could live in a mansion, but if you have low or no income then you're officially part of the poverty statistic.
I know all about this. My great-aunt died when she was 115. Not only that, but she gave her body to science. Because of her, we know a bit more about aging.
She was healthy till the end and died of stomache cancer. She also often said "Now is enough. Now I want to die."
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Joke article. Talk about correlation not being causation. They have it completely backwards.
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png