brains of children from low-income families process information differently to those of their wealthier counterparts

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Perhaps it's the poor wording of the article. I Googled for the study and found something similar, but more definitive as to just what kind of deprivation would be studied. The article seemed to take what was probably a very specific study and made their own conclusions. For example, there is nutritional deprivation, there's social deprivation, nurture deprivation, educational deprivation....and on and on. And although poverty can increase the likelihood of different deprivations, there's no rational way to find a correlation between social deprivation or nurture deprivation based on wealth. In fact, social and nurture deprivation are probably more prominent among wealthy children than ones who grow up poverty.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5858/1937

Edited December 6, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

articles on guns aren't the only ones reporters get wrong

[rebeccajo 14]

At the funny farm, we call it attachment disorder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_disorder

[Amby 490]

At the funny farm, we call it attachment disorder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_disorder

are you a nurse or a tech or something else? funny farms scare me

[HAL 9000 96]

OK... without reading the actual article itself I can't make much of a judgement other than the obvious:

1. We're talking about how neurons fire when presented to novel visual stimuli. Previous studies I've seen in cognitive psych show that enriching environments (constant attention, intellectual challenge, social interaction with parents and peers in constructive settings) are beneficial to the observer's conversion of short term stimuli to more committed neural pathways that represent memory retention associated with learning the stimuli as well as having the ability to 'process' novel stimuli in the future in a similar process.

2. Hence, its not a specific damnation of economic background, but a damnation of the type of enrichment provided to children of any background during the critical developmental periods (up to age 15). Basically- lack of enrichment = lowered brain potentials.

Which is why IMO, you can see enrichment in any economic group as a direct function and consequence of parental/community involvement.

3. Problem is, statistically the lower economic groups cannot afford to provide enriching environments on a parity level to higher economic groups. Period. This study merely points that out.

And this study is pretty much an exercise in the obvious.

Steven brings out different degrees of enrichment factors that see themselves readily affected under economic stress.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

OK... without reading the actual article itself I can't make much of a judgement other than the obvious:

1. We're talking about how neurons fire when presented to novel visual stimuli. Previous studies I've seen in cognitive psych show that enriching environments (constant attention, intellectual challenge, social interaction with parents and peers in constructive settings) are beneficial to the observer's conversion of short term stimuli to more committed neural pathways that represent memory retention associated with learning the stimuli as well as having the ability to 'process' novel stimuli in the future in a similar process.

2. Hence, its not a specific damnation of economic background, but a damnation of the type of enrichment provided to children of any background during the critical developmental periods (up to age 15). Basically- lack of enrichment = lowered brain potentials.

Which is why IMO, you can see enrichment in any economic group as a direct function and consequence of parental/community involvement.

3. Problem is, statistically the lower economic groups cannot afford to provide enriching environments on a parity level to higher economic groups. Period. This study merely points that out.

And this study is pretty much an exercise in the obvious.

Steven brings out different degrees of enrichment factors that see themselves readily affected under economic stress.

I was looking forward to your take on this.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think we just need to step back and thing about what absolutes the researchers are trying to comment on in their research. Obviously, there is no real way to quantify intelligence merely on what economic background. Rather... what is quantifiable is the impact of an kind of enriching environment on a child's development. This is obviously where economics helps if done the right way.

[Amby 490]

I have an example...I'm going to watch my friend's son tonight...my friend is a stay at home mom, her husband is a neurosurgeon...the kid is 4 and can't count, can't says ABCs, doesn't know colors or shapes, but can explain to you in detail what a flippin vortex is...#######?

[HAL 9000 96]

I have an example...I'm going to watch my friend's son tonight...my friend is a stay at home mom, her husband is a neurosurgeon...the kid is 4 and can't count, can't says ABCs, doesn't know colors or shapes, but can explain to you in detail what a flippin vortex is...#######?

HAL 9000 thinks that might be an example of stimulation overload. Some people say kids like these end up closer to autism but I don't think its that far. Could be something a little more simple- kid is getting too much 'smart' time from dad overcompensating for his absence from home instead of focusing on the basic building blocks which tend to be the first victims of lack of attention. Don't want to put the spotlight on your stay at home mom, though.

I see this with some nerd types too. They're freaking geniuses when it comes to hypothesize and explain about theoretical concepts yet they can also be complete social phobes incapable of holding a 'normal' and basic conversation with other human beings.

[mawilson 2,133]

So the poor kids *are* dumber, after all?

I've been saying that all along. I rest my case.

[Amby 490]

So the poor kids *are* dumber, after all?

I've been saying that all along. I rest my case.

don't be so obvious about agreeing! soon people will think that you hate dumb poor kids and think they deserve to die.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So the poor kids *are* dumber, after all?

I've been saying that all along. I rest my case.

Dubbya was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Obama's mother went on food stamps. I rest my case.

[DairyFarmer 1]

My sister is adopted and she comes from poverty. The difference between her and the other children in the orphanage are HUGE. However one little boy the same age as her was adopted two years later, my parents had kept in touch.

He was thought to have some type of learning disability. However 6 months on the major change seems to have been love and attention. The kindergarten he attends rated him highly intelligent.

[msu17 0]

OK... without reading the actual article itself I can't make much of a judgement other than the obvious:

1. We're talking about how neurons fire when presented to novel visual stimuli. Previous studies I've seen in cognitive psych show that enriching environments (constant attention, intellectual challenge, social interaction with parents and peers in constructive settings) are beneficial to the observer's conversion of short term stimuli to more committed neural pathways that represent memory retention associated with learning the stimuli as well as having the ability to 'process' novel stimuli in the future in a similar process.

2. Hence, its not a specific damnation of economic background, but a damnation of the type of enrichment provided to children of any background during the critical developmental periods (up to age 15). Basically- lack of enrichment = lowered brain potentials.

Which is why IMO, you can see enrichment in any economic group as a direct function and consequence of parental/community involvement.

3. Problem is, statistically the lower economic groups cannot afford to provide enriching environments on a parity level to higher economic groups. Period. This study merely points that out.

And this study is pretty much an exercise in the obvious.

Steven brings out different degrees of enrichment factors that see themselves readily affected under economic stress.

Totally agree with you. You can see it with children learning over a summer off of school. Those whose parents provide an enriching environment not only stay at the same level they left at, they improve a bit. Those whose parents do not provide such an atmosphere lose what they had at the end of there year. So even though the kids may have left school at the same stage, they come back at 2 different stages.

Regarding poverty vs. non-poverty, of course there are exceptions. But how many people on welfare can afford for one parent to stay home with the kids, can buy all the parenting books, can buy baby einstein etc. Obviously there are those who provide enriching environments who are on the lower end of the SES scale and rich parents who are ####### and leave their kid on their own all day.

[mawilson 2,133]

don't be so obvious about agreeing! soon people will think that you hate dumb poor kids and think they deserve to die.

No, I just hate dumb kids - I don't care if they are poor or not.