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: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Cal Study: Poor Kids Lack Brain Development


www.nbcbayarea.com

University of California, Berkeley, researchers have shown for the first time that the brains of low-income children function differently from the brains of high-income kids. In short, they don't perform as well.

In a study recently published in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, scientists said that normal 9- and 10-year-olds, differing only in socioeconomic status, have detectable differences in the response of their prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that is critical for problem solving and creativity.

Brain function was measured by means of an electroencephalograph, through a cap fitted with electrodes to measure electrical activity in the brain. Similar devices are used to assess epilepsy, sleep disorders and brain tumors.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 2-12-2008 by baseball101]

[edit on 2-12-2008 by baseball101]

====
Mod Edit: Title fixed to reflect original article
Mod Edit: Breaking News Forum Submission Guidelines – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 12/2/2008 by Badge01]




posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Interesting study? Wow ... not really much to say about this ... kind of surprising i guess ... that rich people's brains develop faster/better then poor kids? idk what to think i guess it may somewhat be true ... but it's kind of surprising ... i always thought low income people have to make more decisions ... maybe i'm just ignorant lol idk what are your thoughts?

www.nbcbayarea.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

====
Mod Edit: Title fixed to reflect original article
Mod Edit: Breaking News Forum Submission Guidelines – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 12/2/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I dont know about that. Tesla didnt come from a rich family. Neither did Einstein.

Sounds to me like a tabloid type study.

How many of those who partook in that study came from a poor family I wonder?



Cheers!!!!



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 





Kishiyama, Knight, Boyce and their colleagues selected 26 children ages 9 and 10 from a group of children in the WINKS study.

Half were from families with low incomes and half from families with high incomes.

For each child, the researchers measured brain activity while he or she was engaged in a simple task: watching a sequence of triangles projected on a screen.

The subjects were instructed to click a button when a slightly skewed triangle flashed on the screen.

The researchers were interested in the brain's very early response - within as little as 200 milliseconds, or a fifth of a second - after a novel picture was flashed on the screen, such as a photo of a puppy or of Mickey and Minnie Mouse.

"An EEG allows us to measure very fast brain responses with millisecond accuracy," Kishiyama said.

The researchers discovered a dramatic difference in the response of the prefrontal cortex not only when an unexpected image flashed on the screen, but also when children were merely watching the upright triangles waiting for a skewed triangle to appear.


Source

there's your answer kinda a low number to base such a claim on IMO

[edit on 2-12-2008 by baseball101]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by philosopherrose
 


i agree with you still kind of surprising that California-Berkeley would produce this and have it portrayed in the sense that poor kids are dumb, and rich kids are smart.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Very nice find.


First and foremost, it's a study.

Consider what stimulus a child gets on a regular basis and at what level during your average day.

Environment is always a factor. Higher income = safe environment
Safe environment = less fear


Very interesting. I need time to ponder this.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by baseball101
 
Poor American kids eat a different diet than the rich American kids eat. Poor kids eat more GMO foods. They also eat melamine laden baby foods.The europeans have proven that rats fed a diet of GMO foods have smaller brains. The rich kids eat expensive organic foods. The ptb want poor kids to be unhealthy and dumb. Because the poor kids were not fed properly, it is impossible to tell how smart they should have been.



[edit on 2-12-2008 by eradown]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
While I can accept this as a real result, for environmental and not genetic reasons, it's still only a statistical probability. Rich kids just have all the opportunities. However, there are still plenty of dumb spoiled rich brats out there, and, out of sheer weight of numbers, millions of smart poor kids.

Also, if we are honest about this, we have to come up with other studies, like the probability of sociopathic behaviour in rich families and the like, which I am sure will shock many people. It's a double edged sword.

I come from very poor families, yet I've never really met anyone I consider smarter than myself, at least from the pov of being able to understand a concept and articulate it, although I've met people which I consider emotionally better adjusted.

Besides, there's a different between being intelligent and being wise, imo, one which is going along these lines: Intelligence is the capacity to discover experimentally what is possible, wisdom is the capacity to know when not to experiment.

Our world is elitist driven, and as is plain to see our whole civilization is going down the crapper. That is the end result of their wisdomless intelligence. I am sure there are poorer people who could run this place better, me included, for we would at least attempt to get people to stop doing some of the things that are being done, for the solution is not always action, sometimes it's inaction.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
These studies are bs and based upon lies and propaganda.
In order for them to show this, they would have to look at every child.
All these studies are just complete junk.
They are paid by certain groups to make the findings how they want them.
"they don't perform as well."

I will show you an example that shows this study is flawed, and is not about intellect, but about social status.
George Bush.
He has done exceptionally well, in the terms of doing well.
Yet clearly even his own supporters realize, hes as dumb as dog poop.
He didn't do well because he is intelligent, he did well because Daddy paid for him to do well.

I will give an example of someone who was exceptionally smart, yet came from an impoverished background.
Thomas Edison.
He was the seventh son of working class people, was partly deaf.
At age 8, sold candy and newspapers on trains running from Port Huron to Detroit, as well as vegetables, to supplement his income.
Became an apprentice telegraph operator due to saving the station masters son from being hit by a train.





[edit on 2-12-2008 by AgentOrangeJuice]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I actually think the headline is kind of misleading (not your fault, OP, you're following rules by using the exact headline).

If you read the article, they make it clear that they don't think these are genetic differences, nor do they think that poverty itself causes a lack of development in the brain. It's that as a rule, poor children are less likely to be exposed to a wide variety of intellectual stimulation than wealthy children – more books, more museums, more travel. And as someone already remarked, poor kids are more likely to eat less healthy diets than rich children.

So it's not a question of being smarter vs. less smart in an absolute sense, but rather confirmation that environment plays a crucial role in the developing brain.

The poor children, according to this study, started out with the same potential as the rich kids (actually, I think they're assuming this), but by age 9 or 10 there were measurable differences in how their brains worked.

Of course, this study was only on 26 kids, so I think it's really more suggestive than conclusive. And even if it were on 2600 kids, so-called "smartness" will always exist on a continuum, with any two groups overlapping.

One thing this study does suggest is that it would be an awful good thing to put some effort into making our public school systems more than babysitters if we want to continue to be a country where the poor have a decent shot at competing with the rich.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Yes yes yes....

We all know this can be justified in whatever way you need it to be in order to for you to digest the "study's" results.

Yes there are a thousand other factors (at least) that effect these results...whatever. The OP is based on fact...now....well since the study. hah

Poor kids lack Brain Development.
or, I mean
but now we know.


Show me your study that says different. S&F


WHY is the debate.

sp edit

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Rollinster]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 
Education is important ,but the best teachers will not be successful if our food supply is not improved. The deliberate dumbing down of children is pretty horrible and unnessary considering the rumours that the rich and powerful are already having their children genetically enhanced through gene manipulation. That is if they aren't cloning themselves outright. It takes a special kind of arrogance to deliberately turn the children of the poor into troglodites while giving yourself glory.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by baseball101
 


This is just "The Bell Curve"...poor people are stupid, stupid people are poor...I'm always having to make this assertion on ATS, doesn't anybody else want to state something so obvious?
(And "My taxidriver is smarter than my lawyer" is one datapoint and not a statistical refutation)



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rollinster
We all know this can be justified in whatever way you need it to be in order to for you to digest the "study's" results.


Not sure if you were replying to me (since it was right after I posted) or just in general, but I think we're in complete agreement


Although the study was very small, the results are important to how we understand intelligence, development, and socioeconomic determinism.

This study for the first time showed that it's not just in "book smarts" that poor children are being left behind – that there are actual physiological diifferences in how brains develop. That is huge, and so important.

And yes, now the question is "why?" And also "how can we change this?"


Originally posted by eradownEducation is important ,but the best teachers will not be successful if our food supply is not improved.


I think this is true too. It can't be good for developing brains to be fed on corn syrup and fats. I'm not going to go on to the specter of the elite cloning themselves already, but certainly I think that the fact that relatively well-off Americans eat much more healthily than poorer Americans plays a part. Also that well-off children are more likely to get more exercise.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Very interseting.

Without coming off as judgmental, I have always observed that many kids from poor families seem to be incapable of getting out of the ghetto/trailer park/inner city mentality.

I remember that from high school, some of the kids who had rough lives had so many people trying to help them, but they didn't want to take that step to make the difference that would have improved their lives.

It was really sad, the attitude for a lot of them seemed to be, "Why should I work to get into trade school or college when I can do just fine peddling MJ?"



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Yes. That is why social mobility in America basically a myth (some exceptions of course).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by eradown
reply to post by baseball101
 
Poor American kids eat a different diet than the rich American kids eat. Poor kids eat more GMO foods. They also eat melamine laden baby foods.The europeans have proven that rats fed a diet of GMO foods have smaller brains. The rich kids eat expensive organic foods. The ptb want poor kids to be unhealthy and dumb. Because the poor kids were not fed properly, it is impossible to tell how smart they should have been.



[edit on 2-12-2008 by eradown]


Exactly! Cheaper foods = Less Nutrition. If a brain has malnutrition, then how is it suppose to grow to its full potential? This also inhibits social mobility on a disgusting level. :shk:


reply to post by philosopherrose
 


Again I agree since money can make or break a "good" or "bad" school. It makes sense.


[edit on 2-12-2008 by Unlimitedpossibilities]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
There was a thread about the differences between men and womens brains and intellect, and in the research on that one, there was an article about the correltation between living standards and conditions and IQs. Apparently throughout the last century IQs raised as much as 10 points every decade or so due to living conditions improving. Poor people do not have the same stimulus and conditions, and their children are more deprived of the creativity, music and games, often more deprived of their struggling parents company, with diets that are not conducive to health and mental development. I believe this study, but it has a reason that should not even be in existence, poverty. We should living under a system like Norway, enjoying the highest living standard in the world, with very bright children and an excellent education system.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Forgive me if I am repeating something already said by another poster but I was moved by the way this was spun by the original poster and wanted to reply straight away.

I recently herd this study discussed and a key difference from what the OP has said and what is in fact the findings of the study is that it is not rich children who posses higher brain function it is children who come from families that lack socio-economic insecurities that have higher function.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION.

Why? For many reasons. First and foremost this is a wake up call to the increasing poverty here in the USA as well as all the poverty around the world and the cope of its impacts on the human condition.

The study does not say that one must be from a 'rich' family to have good brain function only that one is better off to not come from poverty.

This is a call for ending the worlds economic oligarchy's hording of the world's wealth and ensuring a fair share for all. This is not a call for complete equality in terms of economics but a call to make the difference fair and equitable.

-"I have to go right now, some body is video taping me in my spaceship." -Beck

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Let's see...

The imbalance starts BEFORE CONCEPTION - the parents of poor kids often lack essential nutrients as a result of poor diet, and they're also more likely to be exposed to environmental factors that damage the chromosomes. How's it feel to be screwed over and hobbled before you were even so much as a twinkle in your daddy's eye?

It continues during pregnancy - the mothers of poor children don't eat as well, and they generally don't have the luxury of buying whatever they need to correct nutritional deficiencies. How many poor mothers sit at home for hours a day and play mozart for their unborn child? It's not that they're bad people, it's just that they're closer to the edge of survival, and have more pressing concerns. Simple heirarchy of needs stuff...

Then you have the infant/toddler years. Poor kids are more likely to be raised in daycare, where they won't get the one on one stimulation. They're more likely to be denied adequate nutrition, access to books and other educational materials. They're overall less likely to be exposed to art and music and all the other things wealthy parents take for granted.

Moving on to primary school, the kids are glass-ceilinged (to coin a term), by lowest common denominator public schools and a mentality of 'born trash - die trash' that exists, not just in the halls of academia and the statehouses of our great nation, but also in the homes of these kids.

High school? It gets worse. College? It doesn't happen. Masters degree? Forget it.

Why does this surprise anyone?

It doesn't take a brain scan to predict or observe the results of this experiment.

Hell, there are probably at least a dozen more factors here that we haven't even discussed - like the average number of children per household (more in poor families, which would lead to less attention to each individual), the chances of single parent families (more in poor folks), the chances of learning disability diagnosis (less in poor folks), the chance of being read to (less in poor families) - and I'm certain there are others.

Basically, nothing has changed in the last ~3000 years, and we should all just stop trying to equate technological progress with social progress. Welcome to Feudalism v.2.0.0.9.


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



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join