Slashdot Mirror
Poverty Stunts IQ In the US But Not In Other Developed Countries (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: New research published in the journal Psychological Science (abstract) found that children who grow up in poverty within the United States tend to have lower IQs than peers from other socioeconomic brackets. Previous studies have shown a complex relationship between a child's genetics, his environment, and his IQ. Your genes can't pinpoint your IQ, but they can indicate a rough range of values within which your IQ is quite likely to fall. For kids in poverty, they seem to consistently end up on the low end of that window. Interestingly, this effect was not seen for any of the other countries hosting kids within the study, which included Australia, Germany, England, Sweden, and the Netherlands. The study authors speculate that "inequalities in educational and medical access in the U.S." may be the root of the differences, though another researcher is planning to study the effect of school environments as well.
blah blah unions blah blah leftism blah blah
And this stupid attitude is the problem. The US is the most right wing Western country, and that is the reason why there is such inequality of opportunity - the unions, if anything, are too weak, not too strong.
The experience of many, many other countries shows conclusively and overwhelmingly that society is better off with a good social system that supports the poor and underprivileged. It constantly amazes that Americans are SO insistent on their "every man for himself" mentality, in the face of the evidence. The countries ranked the best to live in are socialist societies, where the rich are compelled to help the poor rather than say "fuck it dude I got mine, so screw you". They have government run medical systems, and high taxes to support a well functioning society.
America has one of the biggest wealth disparities in the world, a poor education system, a health care system that is massively expensive but comes up far short of the best ones in results, has more murder, and a crumbling infrastructure. When will you all wake up and realize that your culture needs to be changed? It's OK. You can join the modern world. The rest of us will be happy to see you do well! We don't wish bad things for you. But you have to give up the cowboy attitude, in order to get there.
Could this be because the school systems in these other countries are funded in a way where the budget is less dependent on local taxes. If the money is region/nationalized you don't end up with the more prosperous cities having nicer schools because they have higher income from local property taxes.
Also -- college is cheaper/free in many European countries. Less of a financial barrier-to-entry for higher education means more poverty-sicken students get to go to school.
Please, read the article. Each individual's IQ is mostly determined by genes, true. But there is little genetic difference between IQ of various populations. So each population will have individuals with high IQ and low IQ.
The problem is that the US system reinforces poverty - schools are funded from local sources and poor districts provide poor education. Add to this a high rate of de-facto segregation.
Or maybe Americans watch five hours of tv per day vs 2 hours for Sweden. The three hours difference is way more than I ever spent on homework.
Most teachers in the other countries are union members too. Thus this can't be the problem. It's the scapegoat.
who are just attributing this to the ethnic makeup of the US, you're missing the point. The study isn't saying that poor American blacks are not as smart as affluent American whites. It's saying that poor American blacks are less intelligent than affluent American blacks, and poor American whites are less intelligent than affluent American whites, and the same poor vs. affluent gap doesn't exist in other countries.
We see the same "sorting" effect in Canada, where being the child of well-to-do parents is absolutely wonderful, and leads to success in business and industry, roughly commensurate with the sum of (intelligence && opportunity). Starting out the child of poor parents gets you no respect, and people assume you're stupid.
The smartest three people in my high schools were a poor kid with parents from the Ukraine, me, with mostly white middle-class parents and the son of a successful businessman. In business success over the years, the businessman's kid came first, then me, then the poor kid. We all did better than the merely not-dumb folks, and really really well by comparison to the dumb kids, with one exception...
Some immensely likeable dumb kids went into sales and did better than any of us (;-))
davecb@spamcop.net
Well, if the data said we're stupid then that'd mean we're stupid -- even if we wouldn't like to accept that. But that's not the data is saying.
What the data says is that growing up poor in the US limits your intellectual development in a way it doesn't other countries. Since this is based on siblings-raised-apart data this excludes the explanation that poor people in America are poor because they're inherently stupider than people who are wealthier. Since this discrepancy between siblings raised apart doesn't happen in similarly advanced countries, it is not something that is inherent in poverty, either.
Provided that the data stand up to scrutiny, this indicates that America squanders at least some of its intellectual potential.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I live in London, England and my daughter is the only white English girl in her class at an outstanding school. There are lots and lots of people of African descent living in England, they are as bright as the rest of us, if not brighter. The parent post is just racist twaddle.
There isn't much genuine "poverty" in the US anymore. Hasn't been for a couple generations.
Go watch hood fight videos on WSHH or Darien Long patrolling an Atlanta mall on Youtube. We certainly have ghettos. But the people in them are not suffering grinding "poverty." They're all fat, equipped with cell phones and cars and spend their disposable income on status symbols and various vices. The kids they make are fed good meals in public schools and junk food at home till they're fat. Aside from the pencil whipping "education" they get in government funded schools they're raised by Nintendo and TV.
This is gross neglect, not "poverty." And more benefits and deficits aren't going to make good parents out of the denizens of our proto-idiocracy.
No, I don't have a solution either. At least none that doesn't involve pretty serious compromises of civil rights. And we all know the subjects of such attention would rather the stunted IQs than suffer any impositions.
No, that is bullshit. Unions exist for the purpose of their constituents, not the schools. Schools without unions (private schools, whose teachers also get paid less) have students who do better than average.
Ever notice how politician's kids go to private schools?
It couldn't possibly be because they've systematically done everything they could to destroy the public schools could it?
Nah.
"The enormous benefits given to the very wealthy, the privileges for the very wealthy here, are way beyond those of other comparable societies and are part of the ongoing class war. Take a look at CEO salaries. CEOs are no more productive or brilliant here than they are in Europe, but the pay, bonuses, and enormous power they get here are out of sight. They’re probably a drain on the economy, and they become even more powerful when they are able to gain control of policy decisions." -- Noam Chomsky
In the USA it is considered completely normal for the big end of town to finance and control policy decisions, either through legitimate channels, or with "hooker and blow" deals. The moment another grassroots group, like a Union, has coordination or funding to present a defensible point of view, it is considered a travesty.
All these other countries in the study also have healthcare, public transport, and so forth. The USA is the lone wolf. I live in a third world country and the similarities to the USA are striking. Here we have powerful elite can do what they want, there's a tiny middle class and most people get shit on. Of course a missing middle class means a missing consumer base, so the business interests of the elite are mostly export oriented, just like the USA with its IT services. And IT products/services is arguably the only thing currently keeping the USA afloat.
My wife, who is usually pretty open-minded, having grown up in a house without basic amenities like running water, was shocked when we visited San Francisco. There was one particular street made entirely of shit - people just shitting all over the road everywhere. Not at all what was expected, after having visited some other first world nations, previously. The expectation was the the USA would be like these, and yet given its wealth and image, even better. Nope. Streets made of human shit.
If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
Schools without unions are private, meaning they get lots more money than public schools, and this directly correlates to how well students do. Private school teachers are paid more than public school teachers, and they also get respect rather than being accused of being the one and only cause of school declines. Private schools have funds to maintain the buildings, keep around additional classes like art and music that contribute to learning, they can afford to have up to date school books, they don't have cafeterias with budgets cut to the bare bone so that ketchup has to be considered a vegetable to meet standards, etc. Private schools have never had to deal with white flight, they never have a mass migration of parents worried that their kids are associating with the wrong sort, and they don't have to deal with lobbying groups asking for vouchers so that their kids can be taught elsewhere.
There is a breakdown in schools and it is primarily caused by the citizens abandoning the schools and insisting that education is not a right but a privilege that has to be paid for by something other than tax dollars.
Unions do good and bad things. The question is do you throw it all out because of the bad things, then let the teachers work for near poverty wages? Which is not hyperbole, the school boards are always trying to cut back anywhere they can.
I grew up with teachers. My family was pretty conservative and anti-union. But when it came time for contract negotations my anti-union father was out there on the picket lines when they were being shafted by the board. And that's because the unions are the only thing we have in any form that protects rights of workers and that can balance the power of the employers. For every bad thing a union has done there are even more bad things the employers and governments do.
Good thing there aren't any teachers' unions in Europe. Oh, wait...
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
False. My wife is a teacher. She interviewed at several private schools. The pay is awful, and the facilities are often not as nice as public schools. Don't confuse expensive school with high teacher pay. Parental involvement is what matters most.
it is not something that is inherent in poverty, either.
No that is the exact opposite conclusion actually. It has EVERYTHING to do with REAL poverty.
The problem with comparing the US to other advanced countries is that with the social services and money that is spent on them in those countries, even when you are born into a poor family in Sweden lets say, you are immediately and profoundly more wealthy than your American counterpart. This wealth isn't judged in dollars, cents and purchasing power however in excellent public transportation, strong workers rights, disability programs, top notch education for all, excellent first world healthcare, retirement benefits and more.
Societal wealth makes all the difference here. A better comparison to America would be a country like Saudi Arabia. You have a handful of disgustingly wealthy people who control almost all of the actionable power and wealth in society, a single digit percentage of REAL middle class (and I mean the real definition of middle class not this bogus American definition that was created for political expediency). If you are REALLY middle class then you are afforded modern conveniences and a level of financial, retirement, educational and healthcare security to where you don't have to frequently worry too hard about being poor in the near or long term future.
Also just like Saudi Arabia, the rest of the society is so broke they're broken, so poor they can't even pay attention.
From your own link, Mr. Deepshit:
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
and how do you blame someone for making a better life for themselves or their kids? thats low
It's not the fault of the individual parents who make rational choices. It's the fault of our elected leaders for setting up an environment where such choices become rational.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
I'm not sure European unions operate the same way American ones do. For one thing much of Europe doesn't have a political system where influence is correlated to forking over cash to politicians. Not nearly to the same extent anyway. Meaning they get to spend contributions toward collective bargaining.
Having said that, I guess some of the above posts are just reflexive "unions baad" bleats.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
In Belgium there are three large unions. I can join any union I desire anf they represend roughly the political ideas of some large parties.
You need to pay a due (and some companies even pay back that dues). Hoevere ther is never an obligation to join a union. If there are more than 50 employees, a union representative is enforced by law, so basically all comapnies are unionized.
You can be part of a union or not and nobody cares. I have no idea who is in a union and who is not. Management does not care either as all people are treated equally (some exceptions of the union reps).
Sometimes they go on strike and I hate that. But in general they are the people that can stand up to companies and say no, where you would be out of luck.
And companies use this as well. At one company that was in a reorginisation, they included the unions and when I asked the CEO if he was not pissed off that it now too longer, his answer was:
It might have taken longer, but we anticipated that, so there is no real delay. Also now the unions are ok with it, we can go on as expected and the changes they brought up were well founded and implemented most of the time.
You see, there can be a gain if you look at your staff as psrtners and not as a cost.
Thanks to the unions I get payed extra if I do overtime and my boss tries to avoid it. Instead he rather hires more people. So instead of two people working 60 hours, 3 work 40 hours. I get 35 days holiday + sick days when I am sick. I get presents and bonusses and the company does well and is making money.
On the downside, the CEO has only two cars and no helicopters. So there's that, but he is not unhappy and still can take his holidays anywhere he likes, because he ALSO has 35 holdiays.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.