It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cal Study: Poor Kids Lack Brain Development

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
Three pages of posts and nobody brings up twin studies...
Identical twins adopted into different families, reared in different socio-economic strata, have demonstrated relentlessly that it is the genetic heritable component that is more highly correlated with adult IQ than the socio-economic environmental how-you-be-raised component...
This is one of them cruel truths, unpopular because it has racist implications, but it does appear to be factual if you like facts.


The twins were placed in families that shared a common culture. It is not surprising that twins who grew up in a wealthy ,conformist America turned out the same. Different results would have been acheived if one twin grew up in Switzerland and the other twin grew up in Afganistan. America at the time of the twin studies did not have GMO foods primarily eaten by the poor which negatively affects the brain development of rats. The twin studies are outdated. Things are different in the new third world America.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
[edit on 3-12-2008 by The Scarecrow]



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by eradown
Things are different in the new third world America.


Golly, if you weren't from Texas...and this statement weren't true...

I'd maybe probably be offended.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by philosopherrose
There is a difference between "smart" and intelligence. To be book smart, it is beneficial to have good schools and great teachers. These often are (but not necessarily) found in affluent areas, because teachers go there for higher pay. Wealthier schools have more resources, technology, and also sometimes more involvement both from parents and other mentors. Thus, some may say this results in "smart" kids.

Intelligence on the other hand is innate. I have known people from all walks of life, including "dirt" poor who are very intelligent. You don't have to be able to do calculus to be intelligent. It is how you view life and deal with obstacles.

Imho wealth has nothing to do with intelligence. Smarts, maybe.. but other than a diploma, without actual intelligence, smarts don't get you much in life. I believe that study is flawed and skewed to the belief of the researchers and what they wish the outcome to be.


This post reminds me of a quote I came up with one time.


"If you possess only street smarts, you're undesirable. If you possess only book smarts, you're unreliable. If you possess both, you're undeniable."



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rollinster

Originally posted by eradown
Things are different in the new third world America.


Golly, if you weren't from Texas...and this statement weren't true...

I'd maybe probably be offended.


This is one time, I would prefer to be wrong.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by eradown
 


You and me both...you and me both.

You are so right that it's retroactive to say...10 years ago....now. (Very generous number)



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Interesting topic. I think the study is concerned with developmental strategies not necessarily physical attributes. The study's authors say that this is not a irreversible condition. If the brain is stimulated it will improve.

But a couple of points I wanted to raise regarding caring and evolution.
To me what is being described for the most part is simply caring about your child or for children and providing them with a safe, secure, and stimulating environment. This is not above the means of most people however poor. But sadly many of these children are not cared for or wanted by the community around them.

Secondly, I would just like to remind everyone that we all crawled out of the same pond somewhere long ago. Were there richer developmental enviroments in the cave man days? Nature vs Nurture, chicken or the egg... the battle continues.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Many people have said that the sample group is too small to draw any meaningful conclusions, and that's true but, really, isn't this study confirming what we all see every day of our lives? More to the point, isn't this study just giving lip service to a conclusion one could have reached by looking at the findings of a bunch of other studies on the factors influencing brain development?

There are bucket-loads of developmental studies that suggest/prove that nutrition and music and art and parental involvement all contribute measurably to brain development. At the same time there are even more sociological studies that show these factors are lacking, or completely absent in poor families.

The methodology of this study, to me, doesn't even necessitate a second glance, simply because the conclusion at which it arrives can be surmised by simple deductive logic, given that variables like the effect of nutrition and education on brain development are well understood.

If you look at the myriad other disparate studies relating to infant brain development and socioeconomic disparities, both nutritional and educational, you will come to the exact same conclusion as this study - poor kids are likely to have brains that are less well-developed than their wealthy counterparts. The sample group of this one study could be 26 million, the conclusion will be the same.

Of course I'm speaking about America here, if you studied the difference in a more agricultural setting, or a more primitive one, the differences would likely still be observable, but much less pronounced. That's my feeling anyway...

I read an interesting study the other day about paternity - turns out that poor fathers are between 10-30% more likely to unkowingly raise another man's child. The reason being (in my opinion) that women attached to poor men are more likely to surreptitiously seek the genetic material of another man whom they perceive as being better off.

Ever since the dawn of human civilization there has been a correlation between wealth/social status and health, intelligence and opportunity, right?

I appreciate the desire to give poor folks a fair shake, but going overboard with that produces the worst kind of (Politically Correct) willful ignorance. In order to avoid the appearance of bias we are forced to ignore facts?

All this "We are all equal and beautiful and wonderful" crap flies in the face of observable fact. It's well intentioned but it's making the problem harder to solve, because we can't own up to the differences fostered by our culture and our current environment. Should I even mention that most of the PC campus liberals spouting this stuff off are, themselves, generally better off economically? Unconscious bias indeed...

"Maybe if we ignore the problem long enough I'll make it to my death bed without ever having to acknowledge my role in it!"




As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by baseball101
 


I think it has to do more with the social interaction they receive at a very young age --- kids stuck in crowded daycare at an early age usually suffer from neglect -- in addition to many of the poor receive WICC and getting free infant poison (oops, sorry, meant infant formula), in addition to drinking fluoridated water. Get a little older, and they are ready for prescription drugs (poisons) to finish off the process.


There is a conspiracy afoot which is multifaceted, to dumb down the masses... It is evil, pure and simple, and is satan's plan to destroy God's temple (you & I).

www.watchmanreport.com



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
I don't know if you would consider my childhood a poor childhood , I am 20 years old and my parents have allways had to be carefull with money . We have never been able to just buy things we want when we want we have had to save , we don't live in a flash neighbourhood , yeah I guess people with money would consider us poor . I will admit when I lived with my mum we were deffinitly poor for a while infact I had to read a book by torchlight one night because the power company cut the power so my mum had to borrow money to pay it .

But I have never had the mindset "Oh I am low working class I wont amount to anything" , sure I dropped out of high school but not because im dumb only because I was bored with it . I have gone to libraries and museums and read books on science and highly advanced things since I was in kindergartin , I love to learn about things I am interested in and have learnt a great deal on my own .

I have noticed one thing though and thats most poor kids here in new zealand use the whole "I am poor I need special treatment" as an excuse where most of them just can't be bothered learning or applying themselves . When I was in my first year of school when I was 5 I wouldnt read the books they gave me because I didn't like them they were kiddy books so they chucked me in a learn to read class , I had no trouble reading I was going to the school library checking out heaps of big books on science and dinosaurs and robots and stuff like that .



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I think the only thing being poor will do education wise is unless you get a good scholarship it will restrict your private education .



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 05:00 AM
link   
To assume that those raised within financially-troubled households are inferior is to make one's-self inferior.
I remember living on canned soup and peanut-butter as a small child, I remember wearing clothes covered in patches with torn sleeves, and I remember, just within the last week, having to decide which bill to pay and which utility to allow to be terminated.
In the end, it comes to a matter of will-power. Those like Einstein worked hard to get where they ended up, and didn't allow the statistics to rule their lives. There are many who simply accept their walks in life; most people look around and see only where they can go within walking distance. For most people, its enough just to know that they'll be under a roof with a scrap of food on the table. A part of this is because they've been conditioned to think that what they have is as good as it gets. The other part falls into ignorance. If one doesn't percieve one's self to be under-achieving, one cannot strive to become greater. The simple word for this is complacency. A large percent of the population today accepts the choices immediately set before them simply because they aren't aware of any other choices. If you were the grandson of a third-generation factory-worker, and nobody in your family had ever left the town in which you lived, how would you percieve your choices in life? Its a matter of social conditioning which is inevitable in any functioning society. Economic stability results in social stagnation, which ultimately leads to apathy, which leads to discontent and, at the end of the road, revolution.
I may not know what its like to drive a new car, or to live in a new house, but I know who I am. What I don't know is what I am capable of, and only because I never accepted any limitation. I am the son of a construction worker, and my family is filled with what even I term as the dregs of society; there is not one member of my family who has achieved anything greater than retirement. Yet here I am in college, studying to become a psychologist and a writer; have my roots handicapped me?
There are limits placed on everyone. All men and women are born equal, in equally unfair situations; one person is born rich, the other born poor. We are all forced, in our own ways, into patterns of life which we must, for a time, endure. But its the choices we make and the limitations we accept or deny which determine our paths in life.



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by baseball101
 


Two words: Paris Hilton.







 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join