New study shows being poor detoriates DNA white people most affected

a reply to: ItalianDressing

This study has nothing to do with how people react to government systems it has to do with the amount of stress a person can take without telomeres degenerating. Black people telomeres seems to stay the same even with stress that's what the study suggests as resilient.

More white people propaganda bull#.

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
More white people propaganda bull#.

How exactly is this "white people propaganda bull#???"

I thought it was interesting actually. I'd like to see more evidence before I'm convinced that this discovery is accurate though.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
More white people propaganda bull#.

How exactly is this "white people propaganda bull#???"

I thought it was interesting actually. I'd like to see more evidence before I'm convinced that this discovery is accurate though.

White people are weak and will die off faster if they are poor because someone thinks they have proof. I'll pass on the bullsiht.

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
White people are weak and will die off faster if they are poor because someone thinks they have proof. I'll pass on the bullsiht.

I see. I suppose that is one way to look at it. That seems like a very simplified way of looking at the data though and implies that these people are just flat out lying about the research they did.

I got a totally different line of thought all together. What it made me think of is that depending upon race and poverty level different people typically find themselves having different "membership groups" or "associations" with others. Because of these different "associate groups" and their level of support and our involvement within them it either causes more or less stress within our lives and thus either shortens or lengthens the telomeres.

I remember first hearing about tolomeres a while back in a different study. It was about a method of artificially modifying them for the purpose of stopping the aging process all together. So I know research in to telomeres themselves aren't made up.

a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

You are reading the data all wrong your looking for what you want to see. the white telomeres were more rapid to change positively and negatively. The telomeres were the longest the lower middle class bracket. essentially the telomeres did a relative 180 and was longer than everyone else with only a minimum amount of success presented.

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
More white people propaganda bull#.

Have you read the paper? Do you even know what 'propaganda' means? Have you got telomere envy??

Is it possible that your own beliefs have jumped to an utterly unfounded opinion?

The paper you haven't read is not attributing a value to the difference between the groups. It is not saying white folk are crap because some of them have shorter telomeres. It isn't saying black folk are all fricken amazing because some of them have longer telomeres.

originally posted by: christophoros
a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

You are reading the data all wrong your looking for what you want to see. the white telomeres were more rapid to change positively and negatively. The telomeres were the longest the lower middle class bracket. essentially the telomeres did a relative 180 and was longer than everyone else with only a minimum amount of success presented.

Right. But that's because the telomeres aren't a measurement of success of failure. What I'm saying is that they're a reflection of how and to what degree one finds cohesiveness within groups. Let me try and explain.

Here's our data:
Race Wealth Telomeres Length
White Poor Shortest
White Low Longest

Black Poor Short
Black Low No significant change (Short)

Mexican Poor Very Long
Mexican Low Smaller than when Poor

Now, what I'm looking at isn't the change reflecting how successful they are in life. It has to do with the typical social order how they fit in with those around them because of that success. When you are poor society in general resists you as a member however depending upon culture your family is usually more important and provides your support. But remember this is a test done here in America as well.

That is significant because it explains the Mexican results and they even hint at that as well. First time immigrants here from mexico have extremely tight families like they do back home. They support each other even more that than when they move up a notch. Once they are here in America and have money or become part of American Individualism they lose part of that tight family support. That is why they do very well Poor but go down once they get some success. Because that is what Individualism creates. Less real family and friends with you in meaningful ways.

Now, for Blacks there is not so much of a significant change when moving from Poor to Lower Class. Once again here in America they don't have the tight cultural unit to start with and even moving up one notch still doesn't provide much significant change. It's not like Poor to Lower Class even is much of a change if you think about it. You're still very much addressed as an Individual and on your own. Either you make it or not, not too many people really care.

Now, for whites it's just a little different but not by much. The reason why there is such a significant change is because as a Poor white person here in America where Individual Success is put squarely on each persons shoulders to bear, if you are poor you are looked at as a failure. Even by ones own family much of the time. Also, by society because it carries the implication that as White you also have White Privilege. So if you're poor, you must have really screwed up.

However, simply being Lower Class elevates you significantly in the perception of others. Lower Middle Class is where the working class is and there is much respect for them. They are truly the salt of the earth and what keeps the ball rolling. Just that simply move from poor and being white you are accepted as a decent, hard working person. Sure, maybe you aren't the envy of many but you are welcomed into the pack, so to speak. More so even than blacks, or mexicans of the same wealth because America is still culturally a very white, christian mindset.

Does that make sense. Keep in mind this is simply how I understood it. It doesn't mean I'm correct obviously but hopefully you can see why I got that message from it rather than what you got from it. To me it's not a lie nor is it about a measurement of race capability but a physiological effect that our culture does to us based upon cultural norms of race and wealth and how our Individualism effects our ability and access in being a significant part of a larger whole. The more part of the pack the better you do and the longer your tolomeres do. The more Individualized you become or even worse if you're shunned from the whole of society the worse you and your tolomeres do.

a reply to: mOjOm

Yes that is what I saw too I just used the social mobility as a measuring tool. The circumstances for each race are different when it came to getting ahead so each race reacted different because of social mores etc. It also seems to me at least white people are more pleasure seekers. Their telomeres grew exponentially with only a slight raise in pleasure and stability. They make up a large part of the adrenaline junkie and extreme sports movement is a good example to support this.

a reply to: mOjOm

Great summary! That was exactly how I interpreted the information as well.