What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- GeeksSpeakFont, on 12/02/2008, -2/+30there will definitely be some sociological repercussions!
- cawpin, on 12/02/2008, -4/+10Drop them off in the middle of LA or Chicago (the ***** parts) with no money. Whoever gets out first wins a scholarship.
- MrSticky, on 12/02/2008, -1/+16Whoever gets out, wins a scholarship
- foxthesly, on 12/03/2008, -2/+9Why do you assume that book smarts means a definitive lack in street smarts?
- TikiGawd, on 12/03/2008, -0/+8Whoever wins a scholarship gets out.
- sarcasm, on 12/03/2008, -3/+0Whoever got out, won a scholarship.
(see cuz mommy and (optional) daddy aren't paying for school...) - InfinitySnatch, on 12/03/2008, -0/+6Battle Royale
- broh, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2I think foxhesly grew up in a poor family. Read the article please.
- fyngyrz, on 12/03/2008, -2/+9Correlation is not causation. Could be something as simple as lower income kids spend more time in front of the TV. Could be poorer nutrition. Could be bad schooling. Could be religion. Could be a lot of things together. It certainly isn't income; all of those things can be handled well on a low income. No TV, nutritious meals, proper use of a library, shielding kids from religion... it is sociological, not economic.
- smotpoker, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1@fyngyrz
Poorer nutrition and worse education are directly influenced by economic situation. I agree there is a sociological cause as well (rich people assuming poor people are substandard so they refuse to give them the same opportunities or show the same respect, poor people resenting it and trying to prove otherwise by attacking the rich and blinging themselves out before even making it out of the trailer park which influences other poor people, etc)
Both the rich and the poor (in other words society as a whole) is responsible to some degree for how unstable and unjust it is. The sooner we acknowledge the real problems, stop blaming and start resolving, the sooner it will improve. We cannot just say "they do it to themselves" and then continue laughing at them as the walk by or staring them down/following them all day as they browse through stores and expect anything to change. - broh, on 12/03/2008, -2/+1fyngyrz,
You've obviously recently read freakonomics (or read the cliffsnotes) and are eager to put it to some good use, but no where in the article does it state low income is the direct cause low intelligence. It only states there is a link and offers some potential causes that are related to low income.
Will people please read the article before jumping into comments. - sinembarg0, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2k broh: (said like a surfer with contempt)
did you even read fyngyrz comment? the first damn sentence is "Correlation is not causation." Do you know what that means? Judging by your comment, you don't, so I will explain it to you in simpler terms. Correlation, in this case, means that poorer kids have lower intelligence. Causation, in this case, would mean that being poor makes kids have lower intelligence. Correlation means there is a link, and not necessarily a direct cause. Later on in his comment, he even lists some "potential causes that are related to low income."
As for why you would assume he read freakonomics, I think that would mean you either read it, and think only you can understand it, or that you learned somewhere else and think anybody who learned from freakonomics is somehow lesser than you.
Will you please learn how to think before speaking? - broh, on 12/03/2008, -1/+0sinembarg,
Well, your judgment is wrong. I understand his point that income does not directly affect intelligence. My reply was that there is no claim by the article that states this so there really was no need for his comment.
Your assumptions in the second paragraph are also wrong. I think he understands it and i don't think anyone who read it is lesser than me. What I said was "eager to put it some good use", that is all. I don't know how you draw such ridiculous conclusions if you, as you say, "freaking read [my] comment".
Learn to read.
- teemingvoid, on 12/03/2008, -0/+10I dunno. if our past treatment of low income families indicates anything, it seems like the kids from low income families and their later offspring are going to be stuck in a vicious cycle due to the insufficient attention and brain stimulation that they get from their parents at an early age. Those parents also have obligations to put food on the table and clothes on their families' backs, so what alternative course of action do they have? They need real help before we'll see a difference in that widening economic/intelligence gap.
- joshwehatetech, on 12/03/2008, -6/+1This is not always true and probably those who are responsible enough to be working like that know education for their child is very important. More "handouts" is not the answer.
- teemingvoid, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1I should clarify. I totally agree with you. I think that those families need the means to have options to spend more times with their kids, especially as their minds are developing (much more than just a check in the mail.)
I went to a school with at least half of the kids bussed in from the poorest areas of the bay area (i.e. East Palo Alto, one of the top murder capitals in our nation). I made a number of friends amongst them, however not a single one of those students made it into any of my 8 AP classes. And last I spoke to them (I graduated hs 5 years ago) only 2 had even made it to community college out of the 15+ I've spoken to since. Not a single one made it to a 4 year program. - chemistryslave, on 12/03/2008, -1/+0I have a story about a woman who did break the vicious cycle, with one of her children.
A close friend of mine is the child of a Hispanic immigrant with a 5th grade education and a brilliant (but socially inept) electrical engineer. He lived with both his parents until age 6, when they split up. From then on he lived with his mother, the immigrant. However, she moved to a good neighborhood in Long Island to try to give him a good education.
His mother had to work long hours just to provide for the family, so he was left alone a lot as a child. However, the genes from his father and the education he received was enough to help him turn out well. He's currently working on his Ph.D. in computer science and plans to teach at the university level.
I doubt that his mother could have broken the cycle simply by mating with a highly intelligent person. The high school that he went to is one of the best in the nation and there is a lot of pressure to do well. He didn't really care about doing well but even those who do mediocre in that kind of school are pretty well-equipped compared to the average American. I'm sure that the analytical mind that he inherited from his father helped him absorb as much as he did, though. - philhatesyou, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1His father was an EE and he's getting a degree in Computer Science? Doesn't sound like he broke any cycles, he seems to be leading his family's genes downhill!
- Zmont, on 12/03/2008, -0/+0Poor people average work considerably less hours per week than both the middle class and rich. Your idea of "help" by way of an expanded welfare state won't help this particular problem.
- PopcornDave, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2No, knowing the bay area there will be financial repercussions.
- alpharaptor, on 12/03/2008, -4/+1Shut Up.
- Antz0rz, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1I see what you did there.
- cawpin, on 12/02/2008, -4/+10Drop them off in the middle of LA or Chicago (the ***** parts) with no money. Whoever gets out first wins a scholarship.
- theberlindoctor, on 12/02/2008, -2/+84This just one of the many many studies that have been conducted that happen to be extremely controversial and elicit extremely negative responses from the public. While the procedures and processes of the study must be scrutinized (as all studies should be) its important to note that the result is only more knowledge. How we choose to react to and use that knowledge is the point that should be the focus of our outrage (or praise), not the study itself.
Its important not to be afraid of science, only how we choose to use it.- dibbkd, on 12/03/2008, -2/+24It's probably that the rich kids are rich because they have smart parents with good jobs. The smart parents are smart enough to raise smart kids.
- IndigoMoss, on 12/03/2008, -0/+13Exactly. It's the classic "nature vs nurture" developmental psychology argument.
- plarp, on 12/03/2008, -7/+2nurturing is part of nature.. *shrug*
- PopcornDave, on 12/03/2008, -1/+10I'd venture to guess it's that the "rich kids" are stimulated more by their surroundings, be that at home or travelling, while the "poor kids" don't have the same stimuli. But then again I'm not conducting the research so YMMV.
- quaxon, on 12/03/2008, -0/+7Exactly, i was poor growing up and had many poor friends. My parents made sure school was the most important thing in my life and i had to do well or id be grounded from everything. I noticed a lot of my friends parents didnt really give a *****, they let their kids do pretty much anything and there was never really any consequences for doing badly in school or getting detentions etc. At the time i was jealous of them and hated my parents but now i thank them for it.
Another great way to prove this point is to do the study on kids in India or China, many of which live in much worse conditions that the poverty we see in America, yet many more go on to higher education.
- FighterX, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure how valid this study really is. They should have used something else besides an electroencephalogram because that is a very weak tool for measuring brain activity. It does not truly measure intelligence, only electrical impulses. The experiment with the triangles had only to do with reaction time, not true learning development. The study would have been much more credible if they used a PET scan with extensive tests.
This only focuses on one part of the brain, and that is the frontal lobe. The parietal lobe is the part of the brain responsible for reasoning and logic. This study did not accurately measure brain activity on the different parts of the brain.
If you check around in psychology books, it really boils down to motivation and proper nourishment. It is something that is lacking in both schools and households. If schools can reach out in these 2 categories, then we may have a solution on our hands.- DatVillain83, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty sure the 5th paragraph explained why they only focused on one part of the brain.
The study intended to measure only the frontal lobe, because previous studies have found a link between frontal lobe brain activity and behavioral differences in children. But what this study did was examine brain functions directly instead of other intelligence measures like hand written exams, etc.- this simply just adds more empirical knowledge to the social science community. It isn't wrong!
Also, I'm pretty sure the parietal lobe is involved with interpreting sensation or sensory information. Not reason and logic.
- DatVillain83, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty sure the 5th paragraph explained why they only focused on one part of the brain.
- curtisag, on 12/03/2008, -2/+5They always leap to the politically correct conclusion that this problem is one of impaired environmental conditions, when it's far more logical that the widespread difference in brain function is a result of genetics. People are not born equal, some are smart, some aren't. Even within families there is considerable variation in the aptitude of siblings in many cases. The only way this can be fixed is through genetic manipulation before birth. But if people continue to stick their heads in the sand and sing the "we're all equal" song, there will forever been a great divide between rich and poor. Watch the movie Gattica for the politically correct version of what I'm talking about.
- illinoise89, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3What if it's both? Of course environment plays some part. I do agree with you about genetics, though.
- curtisag, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1It can be both, but they completely ignore genetics because that's a political hot potato they don't want hold on to. Even the poor children in this country are rich in comparison to those in most other countries. If people really want to help children, I suggest massive investment in learning what makes someone like Einstein different from us, isolating the genes responsible, and then developing means to modify our children before they're born.
- philhatesyou, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Conversely, it could be said that you've come to the conclusion you have because you want to go for the one that's politically incorrect. The fact of the matter is both you and the researcher really have no idea. This study has shown a correlation between 2 sets of data, while our model of the human brain is far too naive for anyone to discover which of the two is causal.
- DatVillain83, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1"The researchers suspect that stressful environments and cognitive impoverishment are to blame"
I wouldn't exactly accuse the researchers of promoting a controversy. The study was conducted in a controlled environment. It yielded differences in performance which were consistent within two separate groups of children, poor and well to do. The difference between the 2 groups did suggest extraneous variables that couldn't be controlled for, like home environment, might have contributed to those differences in brain activity.
Just call them "risk factors"... - VitriolAndAngst, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Having read a number of other studies like this -- I can pretty much give a good explanation:
Rich kids are smarter because their parents and the children had less stress, a better diet and people who can help them learn.
The takeaway from this, is that we can't depend upon "bootstrapping" to help the next generation. Kids deserve the best we can offer, and neglecting them won't help kids break the cycle of poverty.
I was damn lucky to get the help and resources I needed as a kid, and so are my kids. But all the missed opportunities for a little help with school, with diet, and freaking out over bills -- that adds up. - haikuFU, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2It's an interesting study. At one point, I went to a high school in a pretty affluent area. But, the high school also had kids from a couple of the nearby poor cities. This was a BIG school, and it was about 50-60% rich kids, and the rest were middle-class to poor.
The poor kids always got consistently worse grades. Why? I don't know. But the study does reflect what I saw in a school with a good mix of financial backgrounds.
- dibbkd, on 12/03/2008, -2/+24It's probably that the rich kids are rich because they have smart parents with good jobs. The smart parents are smart enough to raise smart kids.
- JeffR132, on 12/02/2008, -6/+146This does not explain causation, it's simply a correlation. There's so many possible causes of this. Maybe it's cause you're poor, maybe it has other factors.
You could be poor because your parents are 'dumb' and couldn't get a decent education. Or you could be dumb cause you were too poor to get a good education. Or maybe poor kids don't grow up in a supportive environment. Or maybe you're dumb cause you're too poor to eat healthy.
Too bad we can't do large-scale social experiments to find an actual cause- tabledesk, on 12/03/2008, -1/+13Large-scale social experiments will be the platform I run on in 2012.
- ophello, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1You've got my vote.
- MacroDaemon, on 12/03/2008, -0/+9This test measured brain activity, not test prowess.
As such, is shows that the brains of those who are poor have a tendency to work differently. It seems to be caused by socioeconomic reasons, but it's different than performing badly on an intelligence questionnaire. - puter, on 12/03/2008, -2/+6My guess, it's all about expectations.
If the parents did not succeed, they probably don't expect their children to. No one around looks at a poor kid and says "He's going to get a Phd and save the world".
You tend to do everything you can to meet the expectations people have of you, if those are low then your achievements will be less.
There are, of course, always exceptions. Posting replies about geniuses that were poor will not prove anything.- Czechxican, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1They looked at brain activity. Pretty hard to ***** that up based on expectations.
- Diggnabbit, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2Not at all, Czechxican. The brain continues to grow and change well into childhood. There's no reason that expectations and other sociological and environmental factors couldn't affect brain activity.
- jd75, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3actually, the people who help children succeed *do* look at poor children and see potential.
- puter, on 12/03/2008, -0/+0jd75:: did you not notice my comment about how there are exceptions?
people going out and helping the poor are exceptions in our society, not the rule. You can't look at individual exceptions in this case and use them as proof to the contrary, that's not what statistical studies are about.
You have to look at what the most common theme is. You throw out data that is too far one direction or the other and take an average of the rest of the data. it's the only way to get a useful conclusion.
Coming back and saying "actually, some people are different" is useless and proves nothing. Who cares if some people see potential in the children when most don't? That means MOST of the kids don't have that support. - puter, on 12/03/2008, -0/+0Czechxican:: you're going to have a pretty hard time proving that sociological conditions are not affecting kids when you're claiming that brain activity of poor kids is less.
how can you claim poverty affects brain activity without acknowledging that social pressures can affect it?
Also, brain activity can quite easily be affected by will. You can CHOSE how hard you focus or how much you think about something. If a kid chooses not to apply themselves, then they will have lower brain activity; even if the choice is subconscious.
- diemunkiesdie, on 12/03/2008, -0/+6In the article they stated that (this is not verbatim) it did seem to be a "nurture" and not a "nature" problem and that the problem was reversible!
- TVarmy, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2Environment probably does play a big role. Consider that a poor person is likely exposed to more lead, mercury, and other toxins, and also has less access to healthy food. And, of course, even the style of learning and expectations from the family play a big role, as the brain is plastic, and if it's not being rewarded for being challenged or learning, or fails to see the value of knowledge, it may not develop to its fullest potential at a very impressionable point.
- cliffzdude, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2I seem to remember many studies being on twins throughout the ages to, well, study the difference in environment on factors of intelligence. Twins raised in different households that is. If my poor to middle class upbringing hasn't negatively impacted my memory, it seems intelligence is highly correlated between twins raised in different environments. If this is true, granted - BIG ASS IF - this is true, then genetics would largely explain the study findings. It doesn't take a rich brain surgeon, or rocket scientist to realize a more intelligent person has more tools to earn more in life. Granted, one has to have the WILL to use his/her intellect, but one doesn't find many PHDs or MDs, or JDs with lower IQs. One does find ditch diggers with high IQs, which proves nothing is absolute.
I'd propose wealthier families tend to be of higher intelligence, and *if* intelligence is largely genetic - such a group is more likely to have smarter young-uns. Just going off what my accumulated - albeit possibly erroneous knowledge gleaned from reading voraciously over the years. My parents were dirt poor when I was a little tyke, so maybe I'm just an intellectually challenged dumb ass. - hiPpymIck, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2 i heard
you dont say poor
you say working - fugazied, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3Poor kids might spend more time in front of the TV (as they might be in a single parent family or both parents working), have a poor diet. Both of which will see decreased brain activity in most kids.
- firebhaal, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Common sense tells us it's because poor kids are not afforded the same privileges, both education wise or even healthy eating... it doesn't seem that complex to me.
- subat0mic, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1maybe being dumb makes you poor? duh. makes sense.
- tabledesk, on 12/03/2008, -1/+13Large-scale social experiments will be the platform I run on in 2012.
- hblask, on 12/02/2008, -2/+50What JeffR132 said. The way to settle this is to include adopted kids -- children of poor parents who were adopted into rich families. As reported, all four of the above options are still on the table. And you could add the possibility of poor pre-natal eating habits among poor parents.
- TVarmy, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Agreed on pre-natal conditions. I wonder if there's any organization that could afford to evaluate the relationship between pre-natal conditions of socioeconomic classes and future achievement. The way I see to do it, it would be rather expensive in most cases, since it would likely mean the organization would foot the bill for nice housing/food/healthcare/etc for an expectant mother in otherwise poor environmental conditions.
I guess you could take an embryo from a low-income/poor environmental condition woman, and place the embryo into a high income household with a surrogate mother who strictly takes good care of the fetus as it develops. That introduces some ethical concerns, however, limiting it more to situations where it would be observed, and I think it's unlikely that a high income woman would receive a low-income woman's embryo, short of a mistake at a fertility clinic. Even then, that would provide poor statistical relevance, as I can't see that occurring very often, if at all. - OscarMilde, on 12/03/2008, -0/+0This experiment has already been done: babies born in Germany with American military fathers who did not assist with raising the child. The result? Exactly what you'd think: entirely dependent upon the social condition in which the baby was born, regardless of the socioeconomic condition of the father.
- ZenMojo, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1There was a book I read back in undergrad about a child from an abusive home whose IQ went from 80 to 110 over the course of six years just being raised in a household with supportive parents and good food.
- TVarmy, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Agreed on pre-natal conditions. I wonder if there's any organization that could afford to evaluate the relationship between pre-natal conditions of socioeconomic classes and future achievement. The way I see to do it, it would be rather expensive in most cases, since it would likely mean the organization would foot the bill for nice housing/food/healthcare/etc for an expectant mother in otherwise poor environmental conditions.
- duggtodeath, on 12/02/2008, -13/+29But of course. Our government doesn't spend a dime to help the low-income students. No Child Left Behind my ass!
- joshwehatetech, on 12/03/2008, -3/+20In most schools NCLB is probably helping low-income children since they would be predominantly those who are not meeting and have all the attention thrown at them. NCLB hurts those who are exceeding, not the other way around.
- Screwy1138, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1You are not completely right. I know several kids (family, and friends' kids), who are 'challenged' and are being SEVERELY hurt by NCLB. The law punishes schools for failing students. So these kids, who read at 3rd grade levels, are now in high school. And ever year they get passed, when they shouldn't, because of NCLB.
- wildmonkeys77, on 12/03/2008, -4/+10"The problem is not enough government involvement"
Typical- EricSchC1, on 12/03/2008, -2/+3"The problem is too much government involvement"
Any blanket statement doesn't solve, explain or fix the problem. If/when our government is well enough equipped to help, I'm not going to shun their assistance, just so I can feel good about whatever political/financial ideology I happen to believe in. That causes the innocent 3rd party, being the kids, to suffer, not you or your wallet or your elected representative's time. - joshwehatetech, on 12/03/2008, -3/+3You cannot just throw money at a solution and expect to solve it either. A lot of the problem is not even the system or the educators, it is the home environment. Perhaps you will want the government to get involved there too.
- EricSchC1, on 12/03/2008, -2/+3"The problem is too much government involvement"
- wo0dy, on 12/03/2008, -2/+8no child left behind only lowered the standards...
- Hoffpa, on 12/03/2008, -4/+5because teachers wouldn't do their jobs. unions
- wo0dy, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1because they get paid *****, it sucks but money is a motivator for most.
- Gizza, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Because it does exactly as the name suggests. If you were running a race, but you tied everyone together so no one got left behind the group as a whole would then only be able to go as fast as the slowest runner.
NCLB just means the teachers have to slow down to accommodate for the students who can't keep up.
- joshwehatetech, on 12/03/2008, -1/+3The idea behind it is nice, the money and execution for the most part are not. Perhaps we should throw away Title 1 while we are at it too?
- Samurai77, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Stop voting no to school referendums then.
- smotpoker, on 12/03/2008, -1/+3My mother quit teaching after a few years of NCLB. Throughout her career she was a single parent, already paying out-of-pocket for supplies and working after hours at least 4 days per week. After NCLB she not only had to do a lot more testing on top of that, but became *required* for her to take a lot of extra courses/seminars, get more certs (mind you, she'd been teaching 20 years and had a masters at this point) and attend more after-hours meetings.
The final straw was when her principle spent most of the money they got on new office furniture and laptops for the office staff instead of the students (she taught at a poor black rural school at the time) and the superintendent got busted using board of education funds to buy a car and some other stuff for his kid. IIRC, they were short with payroll a few times because of this sort of BS too.
Too many people throughout society skim off of the top and think they deserve stuff just because other people have it these days. IMO everyone should be entitled food, shelter, education and healthcare but anything else needs to be earned through working harder. Too many people do just enough to get by and think they deserve as much or more than everyone else. Nearly everyone does it to some degree I suspect but keeping up with the Joneses has become so prevailent that it is causing *everyone* to suffer instead of just the envious ones. We are like a crackhead society
- joshwehatetech, on 12/03/2008, -3/+20In most schools NCLB is probably helping low-income children since they would be predominantly those who are not meeting and have all the attention thrown at them. NCLB hurts those who are exceeding, not the other way around.
- steven0451, on 12/02/2008, -10/+38How is this news? Rich kids get better education because they can pay for it, am I missing something?
- Samsong, on 12/03/2008, -17/+12Smart people generally make more money than stupid people. Rich people, who are thus smart, reproduce and make genetically more intelligent children than those of dumb people.
- Cerebron, on 12/03/2008, -1/+7Not genetic. Let's not start a Gattaca situation.
- smotpoker, on 12/03/2008, -3/+5The question, and controversy, is whether those "smart" parents did better (and provided for their kids better) because they are actually more intelligent or whether it is because they are more attractive/social/networked, better educated, have a specific talent, less ethical (provided for themselves or their family dishonestly), or some combination thereof.
What you suggest is the more conventional explanation (which is probably part of the reason why poorer kids often don't bother working harder on education and don't realize their potential) but that doesn't make it the complete one.
One of the bigger problems with our society, IMO, is the belief that people who are "successful" are successful because they work harder/better and deserve it while anyone who is poor automatically must be bad/stupid. Many "earn" their success at the expense of others (investing their parents' money and/or screwing/betraying others). Ergo they are not really successful but people treat them like they are because on the surface they seem to be (which has the by-product of helping them become more "successful").
I am sure genes do play a role in some more extreme abilities but on average social influences and education pay a much bigger role on whether someone is intelligent an overwhelming majority of the time. - hinchb, on 12/03/2008, -4/+2You gonna prove any of this or just throw it out there? That's a pretty ridiculous claim.
- Wowthatsgay, on 12/03/2008, -1/+4Actually, there's a good chance it is genetic.
Think about it like natural selection.
Smart people are more likely than stupid people to be wealthy.
Since people are most likely to reproduce with others among their social group, rich (smart people) will reproduce with other rich people, and poor people with other poor people.
Because of this, kids born from wealthier families will likely have inherited a higher level of intelligence from their parents than their poor counterparts.
Obviously, this is merely a trend and does not represent all rich or poor people. As we all know there are both incredibly stupid millionares, and vastly intelligent homeless people.
On the other hand, it could just be that poor families can't afford better education for themselves. - RobotBuddha, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2@Wowthatsgay
The big problem is that breeding for fairly subtle traits takes a long time, even without the wealthy, smart, lady of the house getting some genetic donations on the side from the pool boy. And human societies, as a rule, tend to not stay stable very long in the larger genetic timeline. - EmperorAwesome, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3Paris Hilton.
- Enterres, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2This is actually a call to everyone's conscience to provide adequate opportunities for every child, everywhere. The best recommendation i've ever read about was for a kind of UN especially for children. That is, an international organization to ensure that children's rights everywhere are being seen to.
Got that idea out of adbusters. This month's magazine talks about the mud pies (literally) many people are eating in Haiti, and the way it turns ones' tongue green.- Tynan, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Yay, more government.
A child can't be raised by an international organization. You can make sure they're kept basically fed and watered and given medical care, but all this is already on the mandate of the UN and they largely do a good job of it unless local political instability is blocking them. But making a human involves more than material stuff. It requires parenting. Role modeling, teaching, the provision of a childhood. These are things that can only be given by parents.
The solution is to help the parents become wealthy so they have fewer kids and care for them better. You can't just pluck one part of the system - the kids - and fix that while leaving everything else to fester around it.
- Tynan, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Yay, more government.
- alpharaptor, on 12/03/2008, -2/+1Apparently people just can't assume anything these days, we require statistical proof with scientific studies. /sarcasm
- consterXnation, on 12/03/2008, -1/+4You're grossly over-simplifying it. Rich kids will still often go to the same public schools as poor kids. The researchers seem to be concluding that it is a variety of factors, quality of schools being only one of them. Stress levels, lack of access to resources like books and museums being a couple others. I'd be interested to see what parental involvement has to do with it. Wealthier families can afford the luxury of having one parent remain at home, for example, or to cut back hours so they can spend more time with their children.
I don't really buy the genetic argument that Samsong ("who are thus smart") is making, either. We aren't like the stereotypical inbred British Aristocracy; there is a great deal of intermarriage between the classes in America. Also, a large number of wealthy individuals today are the descendants of much poorer ancestors. - ophello, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1Did you read the article, or just read the title and then make up your mind?
- steven0451, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2This, to me, seems like common sense; so forgive me if my mind was already made up beforehand. But yes, I read the article. I don't just come to Digg for the lolcats and facepalms.
- Samsong, on 12/03/2008, -17/+12Smart people generally make more money than stupid people. Rich people, who are thus smart, reproduce and make genetically more intelligent children than those of dumb people.
- binchaud, on 12/02/2008, -10/+48Children in schools from poor neighborhoods dumber than children in good private schools?
In other news, the sky is blue & there are fish in the ocean.- IndigoMoss, on 12/03/2008, -1/+7And the mammals in that ocean are a metaphor for the poor kids who are smart?
- HereticKings, on 12/03/2008, -2/+6Yes, and the unicorns in it are a metaphor for the dumb people who are rich.
- avihappy, on 12/03/2008, -1/+7You mean Paris Hilton?
- anaxa, on 12/03/2008, -2/+4I came to the comments to type a similar, "...in other news..." comment.
Yours will suffice.
I wish I could get paid to study obvious trends. - CaviMike, on 12/03/2008, -3/+1dere aint no fishes in tha ocean those are seas and fishes are mamals
- dantw, on 12/03/2008, -1/+56it argues that nurture is more important than nature in frontal lobe development -- that's the overarching conclusion I get from this. far more significant than the notion of rich vs poor.
poor kids typically = less educated parents, smaller vocabularies, less attention paid to them at a young age, more time parked in front of a tv, less travel, fewer broadening experiences.... it all adds up.
it has nothing to do with some kind of social darwinism at work. it's not 'kids are poor because they are dumb.' more like 'kids are dumb because their parents can't afford to give them all the benefits and experiences rich kids have.'
good story, thanks for digging it.
dt- dannyboy3020, on 12/03/2008, -0/+8Yeah, exactly. I hope the general population won't blindly interpret this as simply saying that poor kids are dumb and rich kids are smart, as the headline suggests.
- sinurgy, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2In an ironic twist, only poor people will interpret the article in that way.
- jjamminjon, on 12/03/2008, -0/+4That is only a relative statement though, but it does make sense, works the same as stereotypes along racial boundaries, basically meaning that although the stated assertion is not always true for the subject that the label is bestowed upon but for the most part it is accurate by a very high margin.
- diemunkiesdie, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Thank you for not jumping to inaccurate conclusions like the people above. At least I know you RTFA!
- Rikkochet, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1There didn't seem to be any more than an opinion that prefrontal functions can be "stimulated" at a younger age.
That could have a minimal effect and be overshadowed by genetics, and instead of "poor kids being dumb", it's rather an effect of Darwinism that smarter people are more successful and over time the "dumber" ones filter to the bottom of society.
I'm not suggesting that's true at all, but it's within the realm of possibility.
- dannyboy3020, on 12/03/2008, -0/+8Yeah, exactly. I hope the general population won't blindly interpret this as simply saying that poor kids are dumb and rich kids are smart, as the headline suggests.
- Shiftgood, on 12/03/2008, -3/+6You know Malcom Gladwells new book addresses this. It has to do with how the parents teach their kids to relate to the world.
- NathanielJ, on 12/03/2008, -2/+6Malcolm Gladwell is absolutely fantastic at saying something mind-numbingly obvious and spreading it out over 400 pages.
- db1309db, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Gladwell's new book is "Outliers", he does state the obvious, clearly over a couple hundred pages.....but no one else does. Long story short, rich people have a positive sense of entitlement. They know how to socially navigate through life. True dat.
- NathanielJ, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1@db - So what if no one else says it? No one else says it because it's obvious and doesn't need a 400 page (unscientific) book to be written about it.
The same thing with The Tipping Point -- some people are good at spreading information around and others aren't. Word of mouth is powerful. We get it. We got it after the first chapter. - hinchb, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Some people need to read it over and over again to make it stick.
- Shiftgood, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2outliers isnt amazing.. infact.. ive stopped about halfway through..
But Tipping point has more than just 'word of mouth' to it. You might be missing something or unable to see how it applies to your daily life ( ie. divergent intelligence ;) .
- smotpoker, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1That is definitely a factor though how much of one depends on how much time they are likely to spend with their parents as compared to other influences (media, friends, other family members) and whether genes play a role in it (whether their parent's tendency to be depressed is passed on)
- NathanielJ, on 12/03/2008, -2/+6Malcolm Gladwell is absolutely fantastic at saying something mind-numbingly obvious and spreading it out over 400 pages.
- BobCock, on 12/03/2008, -5/+9poor kids have street-smarts.
- NathanielJ, on 12/03/2008, -2/+12Rich kids know that there shouldn't be a hyphen in your sentence.
- Cerebron, on 12/03/2008, -0/+6Really rich kids don't give a damn about hyphens.
- Rally603, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1The richest kids don't give a damn about any of you because they're busy buying everything.
(I'm too poor to even know what rich kids do)
- ethos101, on 12/03/2008, -4/+2...and black Friday.
- HereticKings, on 12/03/2008, -5/+2And you wouldn't need those street smarts so much if your parents weren't dumb enough to raise you in a poor neighborhood.
- Hu99, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2Street smarts will get you a one way ticket to the State Pen, but never a job that pays.
- anarchyinthekr, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2poor kids in Venice have canal smarts (comment based on Mitch Hedberg joke)
- NathanielJ, on 12/03/2008, -2/+12Rich kids know that there shouldn't be a hyphen in your sentence.
- GramarNazi, on 12/03/2008, -3/+20Intellect, at least in part, can be genetic, and, in most cases, intellect breeds better jobs and thus a kid who is smart's previous generation (the parents) most likely have more money. It's a self-fulfilling cycle. No need for people to scream prejudice.
- Enterres, on 12/03/2008, -0/+7Isn't it sad when a poor smart kid doesn't achieve her potential, however?
- Rally603, on 12/03/2008, -0/+4her?
But of course it's sad. Dumb rich kids almost always end up better off than smart poor kids.
- Rally603, on 12/03/2008, -0/+4her?
- ryrocker, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1lol
intellegence isnt genetic
just that intelligent families tend to have a nurturing enviornment for their kids...- Tynan, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Intelligence isn't genetic? So chimps are stupider than me because... their parents nurtured them less?
Nature and nurture my friend. Everything matters. - ryrocker, on 12/06/2008, -0/+1chimps and humans are two different things...
- Tynan, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Intelligence isn't genetic? So chimps are stupider than me because... their parents nurtured them less?
- Enterres, on 12/03/2008, -0/+7Isn't it sad when a poor smart kid doesn't achieve her potential, however?
- alexnb185, on 12/03/2008, -4/+19I would be classified as rich. I try harder than ***** anyone I know because my parents expect it. I know it is the same for a lot of kids. There are kids with lower income who break the mold, but in general, this article is correct. My belief is that it is 100% due to parents and who you are brought up around. If your family is full of successful people, chances are you will be too, because they are the ones who influence you all your life. School has little to do with that. You can take classes with the smartest and best teachers, it is all about if you want to learn. The poor kid's parents generally don't pressure them enough to learn as rich kids parents do, because the rich kids can observe that if they want a life like their parents have given them, they need to do well in school.
- thezackisback89, on 12/03/2008, -0/+6My girlfriend comes from a low income family is ranked number 2 in her class. Her parents - though not the wealthiest people in town - have a really strong work ethic, and my girlfriend definitely has that. She's not just book smart, but people smart, too - and I credit that all to her parents upbringing. I think there's a lot of merit to what you say, because when I look at the brainiest, smartest, wisest people I know, they all come from backgrounds with successful and/or driven parents.
- Tetrator, on 12/03/2008, -5/+7You are on Digg. You have a girlfriend. Contradiction.
- jasdf, on 12/03/2008, -1/+5Tetrator, your joke is out of place.
- nbouma, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1ditto
- Cerebron, on 12/03/2008, -1/+8Desire to learn is absolutely key. The poorest slob in the world can learn if he wants to.
Our American uneducated poor have lots of education available, they just don't value it. - lolwaffle, on 12/03/2008, -0/+7Being a poor kid, getting our food from church food banks and what not, I didn't learn how to write a check until I was 22, by a fellow soldier in the military at that. Didn't own a car, so I learned with big army trucks years after everyone else my age. Needless to say, college loans were off the table with my grandma's social security income, and I wouldn't have even known where to start, nor would she. Without transportation, I wouldn't have even been able to go to the community college. I wish High School taught real life skills, like how to do your taxes, and how to drive. Sure, they have drivers ed, but it's after school, and you therefore need a ride home, which was not available to me. Other after school activities were also off the table, like sports, since the rec bus is hit or miss. A lot of stuff should be the parent's responsibility, but we aren't all that lucky. I was pretty much set up to continue the poor trend. It took me almost until my mid 20's until I started feeling like a grown up with a clue, none of which was provided by family or public education.
- Rally603, on 12/03/2008, -0/+5Since we're sharing anecdotes, my only experiences with 'rich kids' involved them giving me money to let them cheat off of me. Because I was dirt poor, everyone won! They fully expected everything to just be given to them, and it always was. But I can't help but be jaded after having seen those same stupid rich kids showered with opportunities and privileges I would have done anything for while I, on the other hand, hoped every day just to come home and not find my room broken in to.
I don't get it. My parents are trash, my whole family is trash, but I'm somehow not. I haven't found a study yet to help me explain that. Switched at birth is all I can come up with. - orca94, on 12/03/2008, -0/+4You can't possibly blame parents for everything in every situation. I've known plenty of kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who were incredibly intelligent, motivated and driven(especially given their financial situation and their desire to surpass it) who had fantastic parents that completely supported them. However, a lot of them didn't succeed as much as some of their more financially affluent peers (who weren't even necessarily as intelligent) simply because their parents (no matter how hard they tried) couldn't provide the same resources to help them develop and eventually make it up the socioeconomic ladder. Being able to afford those Princeton Review SAT prep classes, private tutors, and attending schools that offer enriching extracurriculars and advanced placement classes are just some examples of the things that help to develop a child's intellect and succeed in the future.
On the other hand I've also known plenty of spoiled, idiotic rich kids who couldn't give a ***** about anything because they knew they were going to be trust fund babies, or simply didn't think far enough ahead into their future because all their current needs were being more than satiated.
Generalizing doesn't work. Claiming results from incredibly complex interactions involving an immeasurable amount of variables are 100% due to anything, will almost always lead to an erroneous conclusion.
- thezackisback89, on 12/03/2008, -0/+6My girlfriend comes from a low income family is ranked number 2 in her class. Her parents - though not the wealthiest people in town - have a really strong work ethic, and my girlfriend definitely has that. She's not just book smart, but people smart, too - and I credit that all to her parents upbringing. I think there's a lot of merit to what you say, because when I look at the brainiest, smartest, wisest people I know, they all come from backgrounds with successful and/or driven parents.
- punchinelli, on 12/03/2008, -1/+41My wife teaches in a school that is "Title 1" which in her county means "flak jacket status." Every single kid but one in her class gets free lunch and comes from a poor family.
From what I've seen and the stories I've been told by her all of this is 100% the ***** parents' fault. They don't sign the kids' homework, don't show up for teacher conferences, they get arrested for dealing crystal meth, and send their kids to school without jackets during the winter. Fostering a culture of intelligence and eagerness to learn? ***** that, they are doing good if they remember to cook supper and make sure their kids even go to school. I don't know the connection between poor families and the parents being pieces of *****, but it sure looks as if there is one.- joshwehatetech, on 12/03/2008, -1/+3Couldn't agree more. Sometimes the children have some kind of issue, but a lot of time it is the environment that causes the issue. Breaking the cycle is really hard to do when they go home and get any progress removed one way or another.
- DropDeadFred, on 12/03/2008, -2/+3Hrmm, too bad we tossed out all those overly 'traditional' values that have helped for hundreds of years to strengthen familes and make them a priority. Does this really surprise anyone when half the kids born in the US are born to single mothers who are either stressed out and over-worked or on the dole.
- orca94, on 12/03/2008, -5/+1Way to over generalize, not all parents from poor families in this country lack an interest in their children's well-being and success. I personally didn't come from an affluent household, however despite that my parents put their kids education and well-being above all else.
It's offensive to imply that just because a family is poor they don't give a ***** or deal crystal meth. Wake up. - jd75, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1figuring out how to fix the parents would certainly help a lot of children. i think better access to mental health treatment for adults will get a lot of children out of the poverty cycle.
- toomanymirrors, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2It's difficult to be involved in much of anything when you are among the expanding class of working poor who spend over 60 hours a week at or between your several jobs. Until we provide the means for the over worked parents of this country to both provide for their families as well as be involved in non-work related activities, educating their children will remain a monumental challenge. In the Atlanta area, for example, the majority of our police force also holds a second job. How is it that we can not pay those who protect us enough to protect their own children from educational failure?
- mwl40, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1Maybe they shouldn't have kids if they are not able to give them the attention they deserve. I waited to have kids when I knew I was stable in my career. Why cant others? Why is it my problem (increased tax dollars) to make up for others bad choices?
- orca94, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1At mwl40:
Because only the rich and privileged should be able to reproduce, right? Why don't we just go completely Nazi and say only people with blond hair and blue eyes and lots of money can reproduce?
/sarcasm
- waldo21, on 12/03/2008, -1/+6Post hoc ergo proper hoc ????
I think there are many other factors such as nutrition values, etc...- Muspar, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Dugg for using the proper term, and 'cause Latin is cool.
- bitORlogic, on 12/03/2008, -2/+1Actually, the "proper" term is "propter", not "proper". Post hoc ergo propter hoc. And I actually don't think that that fallacy applies here anyway.
- waldo21, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1indeed, it was a typing error..
It was not a statement that the fallacy applies, but a question of whether it may... which is hard to conclude from the study. They don't list specifics on actual statistical process, and how they may have limited these factors if at all.
In the end, I do think it will apply to this study. There are just too many variables, and it would be hard to exclude or limit the impact of them all. It would be intersting to see if they looked at correlations with other factors...and if so, if they attempted to limit other correlating factors.
- toomanymirrors, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2No, the trouble with this study is the insufficient sample size. An "n" of less than 30 will never be a conclusive study. The study does not purport that poverty is the cause, but rather the effects of growing up in poverty, like nutrition and educational activities, are correlated to lower brain functionality in the frontal lobe.
- Muspar, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Dugg for using the proper term, and 'cause Latin is cool.
- InfinitySnatch, on 12/03/2008, -0/+13It has a lot to do with the environment and stress that low income children are subjected to during their early formative years.
- gipp, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3I don't want to disrespect neurology and neuropsychology as fields, but I've always had a big issue with at least the popular reporting of these sorts of stories. It's already been shown -- repeatedly, over decades -- that socieoeconomic status plays a large, perhaps the largest, role in one's educational success. Put another way, poor children, on average, gain less from their education than do rich children.
Since our brains are also, by definition, the physical host, if you will, of one's intelligence, it should be OBVIOUS that SOME kind of physical difference must exist between the two groups -- otherwise there would be nothing to cause the difference in intelligence results. There is NOTHING to indicate that the physical differences shown are a preexisting condition that causes their lack of success, rather than just the physical MANIFESTATION of that lack of success. I'm sure neurobiologists are aware of this, but that doesn't necessarily mean the article readers are. - lulzitsadigg, on 12/03/2008, -1/+3Jonathan Swift solved this problem already: http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
- MrWally, on 12/03/2008, -1/+4Dugg for A Modest Proposal.
But buried for not really pertaining to this article.
OH NO! WHAT DO I DO?- lulzitsadigg, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2Yeah it does: "For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland
From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and
For Making Them Beneficial to The Public"
Just replace Ireland with America. Can't have poor kids running around polluting our air with their stupid.
- lulzitsadigg, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2Yeah it does: "For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland
- Muspar, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Dugg for referencing A Modest Proposal, which should be taken literally :P
- MrWally, on 12/03/2008, -1/+4Dugg for A Modest Proposal.
- estate, on 12/03/2008, -3/+32Could someone please explain Paris Hilton to me then?
- PopcornDave, on 12/03/2008, -2/+4Easy. Rich bitch living off inherited money. Not an uncommon story.
The real test will be when her mommy and daddy aren't around to bail her ass out anymore and she has to make that money work on its own.- reposado, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2Sadly she makes TONS of money herself from sponsers and doing events etc...
More than we'll ever make.
And I make almost 200k a year.
- reposado, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2Sadly she makes TONS of money herself from sponsers and doing events etc...
- Wowthatsgay, on 12/03/2008, -3/+2Chick's got an IQ of 132. Look it up.
I know. I was surprised, too - diemunkiesdie, on 12/03/2008, -0/+6She's a secret genius. Shes probably made more in this year then I will make in my lifetime. She knows how to work the media and earn money. She understands things we don't!
- gijoe86, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Exactly. How many other heirs or heiresses can you name besides her? Probably less than 10.
And how has she done that? By propagating an antagonizing image of a rich bitch. It's brilliant.
- gijoe86, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Exactly. How many other heirs or heiresses can you name besides her? Probably less than 10.
- Scira, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2Charisma?
- Tynan, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3Paris is actually really smart. She doesn't live off an inheritance. She makes tens of millions every year through her TV shows, music, movies, and other media projects.
Sure, she had a head start, but so did many many other rich girls and they probably just married some sugar daddy. Paris is at the top of the heap in many ways, my friend. - coustoe, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1State it again Paris Hilton, Jessica Simpson are actually quite smart, and they earn all their own money.
- PopcornDave, on 12/03/2008, -2/+4Easy. Rich bitch living off inherited money. Not an uncommon story.
- lead2thehead, on 12/03/2008, -5/+11Berkeley, huh? So in other words, this study was done by the rich kids?
- taizoshiozaki, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2I don't think so.
- NathanielJ, on 12/03/2008, -1/+9...as opposed to all those studies done by poor, inner-city Universities?
- brikj, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3UC Berkeley is a public university and doesn't cost any more than any other UC school to attend. Had the study been done by Stanford or USC (both private and very expensive) you might have a point.
- Snitzel, on 12/03/2008, -4/+8Two words, Barack Obama. Didn't grow up rich, now president of U.S.A.
- jpmoney03, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Yea that's great a great example of the tendency being broken but it does not mean that on average poor kids are not less intelligent than rich kids.
- R0am3r, on 12/03/2008, -10/+10Barry attended Columbia and Harvard Universities. Poor? I think not.
Also note - he is not the President of the United States.- jd75, on 12/03/2008, -2/+6he was a poor child -- they were on food stamps.
if you think he must be rich because he went to harvard, i guess you haven't heard of scholarships. unsurprising. - orca94, on 12/03/2008, -1/+6Just because he attended those institutions doesn't mean he's rich. It'd be generous to call my family lower middle class and I've attended institutions of a similar caliber. There is a little something called financial aid that's offered by universities like Harvard and Columbia to help students with financial difficulty.
- jd75, on 12/03/2008, -2/+6he was a poor child -- they were on food stamps.
- EricSchC1, on 12/03/2008, -2/+2You just gave some conclusion jumpers enough ammo to wrongly discredit the man. Or you are one yourself.
- Snitzel, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2You just jumped.
- ShyGuy91284, on 12/03/2008, -0/+10And in other news, most poor kids could probably beat the ***** outta most rich kids. When you have a steady high-paying job, you can baby your kids and help make them smarter. When you are working multiple jobs to make ends meet, you probably don't see your kids as often, and they learn to provide for themselves in the short term instead of prepare for a long-term future.
- rocketpop, on 12/03/2008, -0/+0Depends on what you mean. Sure, many inner city kids could beat the crap out of many of the private school kids... But, for example, and the more rural schools I've worked at, the more "in-shape" kids and jocks are usually from the priveledged families. It seems that the lower income kids have the worst of both worlds here-- There is a tendancy to be out of shape and do poor academically.
- BK15, on 12/03/2008, -2/+1Duh.
- BuckteethDoofus, on 12/03/2008, -6/+1I AM NEITHER RICH NOR POOR, DOES THAT EQUATE TO AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE MY DEAR FRIENDS?
- foxthesly, on 12/03/2008, -0/+4Judging by your inability to locate the caps lock key, you might just be leaning towards the lower end.
- coachmcguirk, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3Your use of caps lock equates to below average intelligence.... and your moniker doesn't help much, either.
- BuckteethDoofus, on 12/03/2008, -2/+1MY CAPS LOCK IS STUCKED THERE IS PIECE OF COOKIE OR SOMETHING UNDERNEATH THERE SORRYY
- HereticKings, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Yes. But even people of low intelligence know how to hit that key next to the "A" key.
- wazzledoozle2, on 12/03/2008, -0/+8The lack of brain development in poor children doesn't mean they have less capable brains, it means they have less developed brains due to their socio-economic status.
More funding for public education wont fix this though, as that's only a part of the problem. These kids spend 7 hours at school, then they go home where they can get all the TV, mcdonalds, and videogames they can cram into the rest of their day. It's easy to be apathetic when that's all you know.- EricSchC1, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2Exactly. I think if you took two children, born into different socioeconomic classes, but provided them with identical educations and social environments, you'd likely see nearly identical results.
- buckbova1, on 12/03/2008, -0/+4Smart successful people have smart successful offspring. The world needs ditch diggers too.
- PopcornDave, on 12/03/2008, -2/+3And most of those rich kids should start out as ditch diggers, or something similar, and work their way up the ladder so they have an appreciation for the "working class." I suspect most of them will never know what a hard day of manual labor is actually all about.
- RobotBuddha, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2Robots built by smart people could dig those ditches if it wouldn't create a horde of unemployed people.
- SealHammer, on 12/03/2008, -6/+1Well that's just not right. I'm one of the poorest kids I know and I'm also probably the smartest kid I know. I could probably also beat up most pampered rich kids in my age range.
- ashrafneo, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1Wow, you are the perfect kid. smart, strong and poor.
- SealHammer, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Woops, I forgot the obligatory, "Go, go, bury brigade."
- cyborg, on 12/03/2008, -2/+1What about the middle class?
Are we considered as part of the distinction of being poor?
if so, i'd bury this for overwhelming bs.- RobotBuddha, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1No. There's little to no difference found in brain function between even the lower middle and upper classes.
- thethunderbird, on 12/03/2008, -6/+2OBVIOUSLY! They're called genes...
- rmeddy, on 12/03/2008, -0/+6Poor environment,Poor mind .
This is Nurture ,This is not news. - PacoLugi, on 12/03/2008, -2/+2Smart people make more money? Smart parents have smart kids? No *****.
- d66kid, on 12/03/2008, -1/+17I am from a rich family and very dumb.
- HereticKings, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2Wow, that makes it your fault.
- d66kid, on 12/03/2008, -0/+0And in poor families it's also kids' fault.
- HereticKings, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2Wow, that makes it your fault.
- greekgod8591, on 12/03/2008, -0/+21Did anybody else catch the fact that this entire study had a sample size of only 26 people? Such a small study group makes the results essentially meaningless. For all I know there could in fact be a correlation but with a sample size of 26 people you are drawing some awfully wide and general conclusions. Besides the fact I don't suppose many of you to be neuroscientists.
- Wren5, on 12/03/2008, -2/+3It doesn't work like that. Read some papers in neuroscience. They are super scared of showing results that don't exist. There is no way in hell someone from Berkeley got published unless this effect exists. It's much more likely that they are under-reporting something that there is good evidence for, but not quite enough.
A strong effect can be seen at statistical significance with a very very small sample -- much less than 26, to be sure. Especially with the huge amount of data an EEG produces.
If you want to criticize the scope of the study at all, you would have to suggest there is something different about kids from around the Berkeley area. Something that would cause this effect, but isn't present other places. - Wowthatsgay, on 12/03/2008, -1/+126 people is hardly "meaningless." One can nearly prove a demographical argument with only 16 people, provided these people are from different social groups.
- kinerry, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1it's not even statistically accurate with less than a sample size of 30...
- brownsound00, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1@ kinerry, yeah. it know what you mean, but with respect to these types of studies, there is a lot more information from and EEG or fMRI compared to a simple questionaire or survey. So, in essence, the 26 people isn't really the same as n=26... if you know what i mean.
- Wren5, on 12/03/2008, -2/+3It doesn't work like that. Read some papers in neuroscience. They are super scared of showing results that don't exist. There is no way in hell someone from Berkeley got published unless this effect exists. It's much more likely that they are under-reporting something that there is good evidence for, but not quite enough.
- TheMachine1, on 12/03/2008, -0/+4I've got my on theory on it based on my sister and I being above average in intelligence but with her being very successful and me being very poor. Impulsivity levels can explain a lot of the difference. Impulsivity dramatically reduces your functional intelligence. Impulsivity is nearly precisely the same concept as hyperbolic discounting. A lot of dumb behavior in otherwise intelligent people can be explained by understanding this. Basically a person choices short term lower immediate rewards to longer term investments that will pay greater rewards in the future. Drug addiction, procrastination, high debt/credit card abuse, low savings, not applying oneself in education, etc all could have a strong neurological mechanism.
- Tynan, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3Indeed, raw intellectual capacity is just one piece of the puzzle. Important, but not alone.
Courage, self-control, organization, persistence all count and can overcome a low (or high) intelligence.
- Tynan, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3Indeed, raw intellectual capacity is just one piece of the puzzle. Important, but not alone.
- Ortheos, on 12/03/2008, -1/+5Rich parents can afford better qualifty education for their rich kids, and can afford to give them a more fruitful, varied and overall stimulating upbringing.
Poor kids get to play with used car tyres and attend some of the worst schools in the country.
Duh.
It has also been shown that violence and depression lead to a less healthy and less active mind. I suspect those would be more prevalent in the poor family that's struggling to make ends meet.
While wealthy William attends tennis practice in Sunnivale Springs, poverty Pete attends a gang gathering with fellow ghetto kids from his ghetto nieghbourhood.- coustoe, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1D.C. Schools spend the most per student in the Country but have consistently the worst test scores, while Utah spend significantly less per student but have some of the highest scores in the country.
What does that tell you?- Ortheos, on 12/04/2008, -0/+1That this study is false?
- coustoe, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1D.C. Schools spend the most per student in the Country but have consistently the worst test scores, while Utah spend significantly less per student but have some of the highest scores in the country.
- paulmer2003, on 12/03/2008, -1/+6Not surprisingly...Rich kids will be exposed to lots of information, play instruments and have tutors and all of that....Poor kids probably don't have nearly the exposure to culture, arts and education that rich kids do.
- Dumbledorito, on 12/03/2008, -1/+25My wife taught in inner-city public schools, in the early childhood "head start" program. The reasons for poor brain development among the kids she taught were legion, though few were genetic. A lot of these kids had, of course, horrid parents. This often resulted in:
1. Malnutrition (junk food served at every "meal," Doritos and Coke were often staples) which is one of the worst things to happen during early brain development.
2. Exposure to excessive amounts of smoke from either cigarettes and marijuana. Two teachers that did a home visit (which the parents swiss-cheesed short-term memory had deleted from the ol' day planner) came back with contact highs.
3. No stimulation from books. Just TV and/or video games, and of those forms of media, it's the stuff the parents wanted to watch, which was often vastly inappropriate (I'm not slamming violent video games or movies, but pointing out it was practically all the social education they received at home).
4. Little education from parents. Kids were sent to school not knowing basic colors, numbers, or (in one extreme case) their own given name.
There was one trend she saw that was biologicial: there are learning disabilities that are inherited and don't "breed out," but instead become dominant traits. LD/BD (learning disabled/behavior disabled) status doesn't crimp your ability to reproduce, so very often whole families would have the same inability to retain information or comprehend things like reading without LOTS of help.- ChrisOrr, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Marijuana doesn't "swiss cheese" your brain, this is a result of taking too much bad extacy. Marijuana, which obviously should not be used by children, has proven to have no negative, lasting, pschological effects. The only psychological effects are when you are actually high, but those go away.
I agree with all of your article except that part. While I don't even believe that parents with kids living in the house should get high, I can't condone the false spread of information about marijuana. Good post.
- ChrisOrr, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Marijuana doesn't "swiss cheese" your brain, this is a result of taking too much bad extacy. Marijuana, which obviously should not be used by children, has proven to have no negative, lasting, pschological effects. The only psychological effects are when you are actually high, but those go away.
- Drogoganor, on 12/03/2008, -7/+5Just more crap to justify social darwninism.
- brownsound00, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1no, because it's saying it's due to your parents, not your genes.
- GamingForever, on 12/03/2008, -0/+5Well, gee.. that gives poor kids more self confidence...
- jgreene777, on 12/03/2008, -2/+6they aren't dumb because they are poor. they are poor because their parents are dumb, and because of genetics, so are the kids.
- nemomarlin, on 12/03/2008, -0/+0then of course there are stories of poor parents who gave birth to really intelligent kids.
- jhofman, on 12/03/2008, -6/+10Anybody read Freakanomics? If so, you know about the study that was done in Chicago. Bottom line: genetics play a larger role in determining I.Q. than people would like to believe. I'm a teacher, and I honestly believe some kids are just born smarter than others.
- mchisari, on 12/03/2008, -0/+8
Ever read "Proust Was A Neuroscientist?" Bottom line, our brains are wired to increase in capability, like muscles, given the proper stimuli.
I worry that, as a teacher, you've automatically decided that certain students aren't worth your time. - rudzki, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3There are no "bottom lines" in cognitive psychology (or any young discipline for that matter), but even if there were, they are certainly not to be found in pop-psychology bestsellers. It isn't even clear that, for example, IQ appropriately measures intelligence. Or that one's IQ is immutable. Or that intelligence can, even in principle, be accurately measured by a single number.
But setting all of that aside, there is nothing inconsistent in suggesting that environment and genetics can affect IQ, and that their relative influence can vary according to particular circumstances.
I recommend that you read ( http://www.apa.org/journals/features/rev1082346.pd ... ), which proposes a model that explains the effects noted in the study you refer to (as well as similar studies reported in Herrnstein & Murray's The Bell Curve), and also demonstrates the enormous role that environment may play on IQ.
There is no basis for a teacher to believe that "kids are just born smarter than others". It trivializes cognition, and frankly, implies that you find teaching to be futile. - coustoe, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1 ironic?, a teacher who doesn't believe his profession makes a difference.
- mchisari, on 12/03/2008, -0/+8
- keving727, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1research on iq testing shows that children that when children from low socioeconomic are compared to other children, in general their iq rise steadily at the same pace, but as poor kids get older (around school year age) the iq begins to decline. This development discrepancy maybe exaggerated when compared to solely people from higher socioeconomic status.
- THESUPERDEVIL, on 12/03/2008, -6/+3it Deoxyribonucleic acid that can make a person smart or dumb
Nothing is impossible. Not if you can imagine it. That's what being is a scientist is all about.- Czaja, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2I'm a scientist and I'm imaging that your first phrase would make sense.
...
Damn, nothing, guess I'm no good at being a scientist. - Samurai77, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Nice Futurama quote I almost missed it.
- Czaja, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2I'm a scientist and I'm imaging that your first phrase would make sense.
- Khast, on 12/03/2008, -6/+1Get tha gun ma! Theysa talkin bad about us country folk agin.
- Serial0Hacker, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Theysa taking about the getto trash.
- Olfster, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1That's what I was thinking. Hand those poor kids some guns and see how well they perform. I think they might put a wrinkle in the rich kids day. I think you would need something like an economic depression or a really really bad recession before they would get a clue though.
- WeAreSparta, on 12/03/2008, -6/+3This is ridiculous, leave it to a Berkley study. If anything the kids that are born with a silver spoon in their mouth will have less incentive to ascertain knowledge. This refutes the preternatural ability of people born with a high IQ to rise above. Einstein grew up broke as a choke, no this study is just reflective of our insatiable need to quantify well being by wealth or materialism. I'm not buying it. If you're smart you're smart, you will rise above, countless instances in history prove thus so.
- joshwehatetech, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2IQ definately helps with learning, but the environment is mostly what makes or breaks a student. Parents with better financial means are more likely to value education and provide extra at home. Enough ass kicking of the positive nature and it is not hard to see why these kids turn out best. On the other hand if the safest place you can be is at a school, then you are going to have some problems learning when you are scared to go home.
- nemomarlin, on 12/03/2008, -0/+0I thought poor parents would push their children to succeed academically because they don't want their children to be poor like them.
Low income parents are probably too busy earning a living to look after their kids. I think low income kids have more street smarts. They learn how to take care of themselves from an early age.
- nemomarlin, on 12/03/2008, -0/+0I thought poor parents would push their children to succeed academically because they don't want their children to be poor like them.
- joshwehatetech, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2IQ definately helps with learning, but the environment is mostly what makes or breaks a student. Parents with better financial means are more likely to value education and provide extra at home. Enough ass kicking of the positive nature and it is not hard to see why these kids turn out best. On the other hand if the safest place you can be is at a school, then you are going to have some problems learning when you are scared to go home.
- ryanjohnr, on 12/03/2008, -2/+3I won't agree with this story because there are many poor kids out there who excelled in their studies than those rich one who is spoiled with their parents. It depends upon the child if he is willing to study and learn, its not the poverty itself. Poverty is not the hindrance of success.
- FiestyPumpkin, on 12/03/2008, -2/+6Not all people with low paying jobs are dumb. They just lacked the funds to get the college education they needed to get a higher paying job. I had a low paying job for years simply because no one would hire me without a degree and I could not afford to go to college. I tried to apply for grants, but was told that I made too much money to qualify (like $10 over the cut-off point). I had to prove to employers that I was able to do the job even though I had no formal education. I am now a legal assistant/paralegal/legal sectretary (whatever you want to call it) and I must say that I do not even know why you would need a college to perform the job. I just learned as I went along and it was easy.
- jd75, on 12/03/2008, -0/+4great point. poor parents != unintelligent parents. my mom got straight a's, fell in love with a handsome alcoholic, and got herself knocked up at 17. game over! she made a big mistake as a teenager and she's been hovering just above minimum wage ever since, but iq tests say she's still smarter than most people.
- Taiyoryu, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Most job applications often list a degree OR equivalent work experience. Often you either provide proof you can do the job (e.g. portfolio, work samples) or provide proof you are capable of doing the job (e.g. a degree). A solid portfolio stands up better than just a degree. An apprenticeship (being mentored and trained on the job) is a valid way to enter the work force, just as valid as a degree.
- roomaustin, on 12/03/2008, -2/+1Scholarship here I come!
- solidd33, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2Totally thought this was an Onion article before I checked the url.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 105 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is