Cal Study: Poor Kids Lack Brain Development, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 01:30 PM by RFBurns

reply to post by Raustin

Pure, rediculous assumption. Since when does money have anything to do with genes????

I have seen some very rich individuals do incredibly stupid things, and some very unfortunate poor figure out alot of things that the rich wont even bother to stop for a nanosecond to work their brains in trying to figure things out.

This notion that rich have ability to be smarter is hogwash, there is absolutely NO proof whatsoever that supports this.

And there is absolutley no proof whatsoever that being poor means lack of intelligence.

A baby born into a rich family and grows up and seems to have no real direction for what they will do in life. What does that sound like?

A baby born into a poor family grows up and seems to have a knack for mechanical things. What does that sound like?

Now each individual does have a natural knack for something, perhaps even a combination of things. That is because of genetic traits passed down to the child and has absolutely NOTHING to do with how much money is in the bank account.

A man and a woman, both who have 20 degrees and create a buisness and become rich, later have a baby. Now does that mean that their baby is going to be smart???? No.

A man and a woman, whom both drop out of high school, both work their butts off, and later marry, have a kid. Does that mean the kid cannot be smart? No.

There isnt any solid proof either way, but there definately IS proof of people from poor families grow up to become noted individuals who accomplish much, and there is solid proof of people from rich families who grow up and screw up their lives as well as others around them.

And it goes the other way too.

So this entire subject is not just a tabloid stand, eye candy grabber, its pure nonsense and has absolutely no crediblity to the real world whatsoever.

Cheers!!!!

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 01:42 PM by Malfeitor

Since the device used measures brain activity, it is difficult to interpret the data as they're being smart or dumb.
The data proves that different environments arouse different developmental patterns in human thought. Apparently (and I hadn't a reason to consider it before now) the brain of a low-income child is geared less towards response time and pattern interpretation; this is easy enough to understand, given that the child would undoubtably find itself in a situation where this mental process is necessary. This isn't to say that the child wouldn't further develope these skills later in life, but it becomes clear that his/her current living pattern doesn't require these skills.
A child with a wealthier upbringing, on the other hand, would be in more situations where these skills would be used; electronic toys, building blocks, etc. all contribute to early mental development.
I suppose the data could best be interpreted as presenting a previously unknown, or unexplored, developmental dillema. Children from both groups are capable of the same feats, but are provided different opportunities; the burden of this falls upon the government and schools. Early-development education, such as preschool, would help to give these children a better chance. A better choice would be to educate young parents about how a child's mind develops; if parents were more aware of the effects their actions (or inaction) have on a young child, perhaps this troubling disadvantage to low-income children would be diminished.

On a less serious note, this is the first time I've heard of someone being financially-handicapped.

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 01:44 PM by NGC2736

reply to post by Malfeitor

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

The PC term is "financially challenged". And I would know, because I have long been in this group?

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

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 01:46 PM by Zepherian

reply to post by RFBurns

You're right of course. Society is like a game of musical chairs, except there are only 10 chairs for every 1000 people (for exp). This is the real reason rich are rich, they occupy a very limited social slot, which they tend, with some exceptions, to pass down through the family lines, sometimes to the point of genetic evolution (good lifestyles promoting good biology) other times to the point of genetic ruin (inbreeding increasing the chance of recessive genetic defects, manifested physically or psychologically).

As was wisely put, there is also confirmation bias in this type of study, as the rich simply don't want to face the reality they are, in many cases, economic parasites, so they fund studys that find other reasons for their economic privilige.
This is not black and white, I am sure there are plenty of cases of ethical wealthy individuals that explore economic relationships that are symbiotic with the people they trade and work with, but the majority, perhaps, are leeches, that suck the lifeblood out of economic processes untill they kill them. It's an ugly reality to face, and we are social creatures as per the norm, so to admit you're a bane on society is hard, hence their reluctance to do so. They would rather see themselves as a species apart. Just another elitist psychological pathology I guess.

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 01:48 PM by MemoryShock

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
The most notable aspect of his study is that it based on developmental dynamics and does not delve into the genetic or the pre-disposed. Doing so would open an ethical and sociological pandoras box.

Over a few generations, if the lineage isn't varied enough in activity, then we are talking about genetic predisposition. The phenotypical response of an organism is a relevant variable when considering a predictive models for human behaviour but the reality of the matter is that as the generations adapt to their environment; i.e. labor work and attention to only the basic comforts of life; then these inclinations will be passed to the offspring.

I also hold that recessive genes can throw the curve about a bit but we are talking generally here...

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
With such a limited sample, any result is bound to be too broad and inconclusive.

But the study can only be done as a generality. I see very little attempt to factor in all variables as a means to explain the reasons for this disparagement. This is a measurement and observation...and one that I think would hold up to for intense and focused scrutiny.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by MemoryShock]

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 01:48 PM by ConservativeJack

these liberal studies come out every day. I guess I'm suppose to feel bad and want to donate more of my tax money to redistribute the wealth.

so wealthy kids have overly strong brain development! oh stop giving Teddy his allowance dear, his brains is growing so big its going to pop!

[edit on 3-12-2008 by ConservativeJack]

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 01:50 PM by Mystery_Lady

Originally posted by baseball101
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]

Just from what is said here, I wouldn't give hardly any weight if any at all to this study. One, only 26 kids were studied. Sorry, to really give credence a whole lot more kids needs to be studied.

Second, they are only really testing how fast the kids respond to images by pushing a button. Let's think for a minute here. Rich kids usually get the latest and greatest in x-box and other type computer games. They have basically already trained their fingers for a quick response. Parents of poor kids usually don't have enough to buy an x-box and other type of computer games.

Even if poor kids can go to a friends house or somewhere else to play these types of games, they would not have as many hours practice as a kid who actually owns one. Any game that requires a rapid response to kill the bad guy as soon as spotted, will qualify as practice.

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 01:58 PM by Mystery_Lady

reply to post by ConservativeJack

Another possibility is that they just want to find an excuse for later on to take away children from their poor parents, or to regulate who gets to breed and who doesn't? Oh your poor by our standards, so you can not receive your government license to have any children.

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 02:02 PM by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by MemoryShock
But the study can only be done as a generality. I see very little attempt to factor in all variables as a means to explain the reasons for this disparagement. This is a measurement and observation...and one that I think would hold up to for intense and focused scrutiny.

I'm not sure I agree with that. It is precisely because generalities are drown from such a limited sample that I cannot consider it valid. For all we know these specific children were all drawn from a similar demographic pool. Let's for the sake of argument say that they were American "inner city" children. If so the study's conclusions should be limited to that scope. To draw a conclusion about children in general would be an over-reach. Surely if the study makes the case that environmental stimuli impact a child's brain development, then it stands to reason to account for environmental variation.

I'm not saying the study's findings are necessarily incorrect, I'm saying they are too broad. A study with a much larger and varied sample pool, including children in poverty from varied countries, varied environments, etc., would go a long way in validating what I would consider very preliminary findings.

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 02:05 PM by MemoryShock

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Surely if the study makes the case that environmental stimuli impact a child's brain development, then it stands to reason to account for environmental variation.

Good Point and now I see where you are getting at. And of course, the 'scientific method' demands a much more thorough look at circumstances prior to making a blunt statement as communicated in the opening post...

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 02:11 PM by eradown

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady
reply to post by ConservativeJack

Another possibility is that they just want to find an excuse for later on to take away children from their poor parents, or to regulate who gets to breed and who doesn't? Oh your poor by our standards, so you can not receive your government license to have any children.

They would do this now if they could get away with it. The leeches know there is a line that if they pass over it they pay a high price. Children keep their parents in line more than the law does. Gold and silver can not stop lead or an angry man or woman with a tire iron.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by eradown]

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 03:37 PM by nh_ee

It isn't genes, or heredity , it's about brain development.
Brains are comprised of cells that are connected by neurons. When the brain is developing, the more of these neurons that are enabled connecting the brains cells the more the capabilities of the brain.
Much of what I'm observing in this study is fundamentally the differences in how these children as infants were influenced and raised. Its called the formative years.

Very similar to memory (RAM) in your computer. The more RAM you have the better .Also the faster the RAM or Drive the faster the overall processing because the CPU doesn't have to wait as long for data. Hence an overall faster computer system.

My mom taught elementary school in the inner city and it was a very eye opening experience. These kids ranged from super intelligent to not so, but all in all they might not have performed well on standardized tests but when it came to their world. They were very intelligent. THis being due to their world was all about survival on a much different scale or metric than that of our world/or society.

Unfortunately , a sad aside to this is that drugs and alcohol abuse as well as cigarette smoking are much more prevalent with lower income population and have been proven to hinder brain development in children.

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 03:56 PM by DrumsRfun

In this day and age the way food has evolved,I think it is the food.Give a kid kraft dinner 5 times a week and then feed them 50 cent pot pies.What kind of nutrition does that kid get compared to the rich one who has prime rib and fresh fruit.
Food is essential for our growth as a kid.
Thats my opinion.

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 04:00 PM by americandingbat

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by MemoryShock
But the study can only be done as a generality. I see very little attempt to factor in all variables as a means to explain the reasons for this disparagement. This is a measurement and observation...and one that I think would hold up to for intense and focused scrutiny.

I'm not saying the study's findings are necessarily incorrect, I'm saying they are too broad. A study with a much larger and varied sample pool, including children in poverty from varied countries, varied environments, etc., would go a long way in validating what I would consider very preliminary findings.

Definitely preliminary, but I also think it's worth remembering that the study doesn't draw all the conclusions that have been tossed around in this thread, or even all the associations that the article linking in the opening post makes.

re: genetics – I don't see how this study has anything to do with genetic tendencies. Because the slower reaction times are a purely environmental result according to their evidence; they are not encoded in the children's DNA as variations.

That's part of why I'm having a hard time understanding how people think this study validates the (presumably though not necessarily) upper-class researchers? It seems to support the idea that the decks are stacked against the poor.

SDog – I see what you're saying about this only applying to the kind of kid studied, and it's a good point. In fact I think that this finding would not be reproducible in a society with a less distinct class divide. It would be really interesting to see. I was also wondering about groups like recent immigrants, many of whom are at a very low socioeconomic level, but have much better diet and much more varied exposures than the stereotyped inner-city poverty-stricken kid does.

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 05:25 PM by Unlimitedpossibilities

reply to post by nh_ee

Wow. I learned a lot just from reading your post. Thanks.

Brains are comprised of cells that are connected by neurons. When the brain is developing, the more of these neurons that are enabled connecting the brains cells the more the capabilities of the brain.

So your saying the more neurons that are connected to brain cells overall, the faster one will be at learning or just more capable of learning difficult subjects, or is it both?

I have been tested for Learning Disorder and tested positive based on a series of tests provided by my University. That is why I am interested. Plus, I want to know how the neurons are related to the LD.

reply to post by Raustin

Sounds like some Social Darwinism...

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Unlimitedpossibilities]

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 07:05 PM 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.

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 07:18 PM by americandingbat

reply to post by nine-eyed-eel

It's an interesting point, but IQ is not the same as brain development.

I keep coming back to the fact that this was such a small study, and the first of its kind, and we really can't make any judgments of causation at all.

This study doesn't show that a faster response time to looking at triangles pop up on a TV screen is a valuable life skill, for instance. It's suggestive in that the same area of the brain that's activated in the wealthy kids more quickly than the poor kids is also involved in behavioral issues and decision-making processes.

But it's a really big step to go from there to smartness, let alone IQ.

[edit on 12/3/08 by americandingbat]

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 07:21 PM by DrumsRfun

reply to post by nine-eyed-eel

I agree with you and still point towards nutrition and diet.i was trying to say how food affects you.Not bcuz you are poor but bcuz the food poor people buy might not be as nutritious.
Biology is biology and if you are not getting the nutrition then you might not develop properly as opposed to someone who can afford good food.Diet is everything...theres alot of unneccisary fat people and under developed brains apparently.
Excuse the spelling my body just mysteriously consumed some beer.