Posted on 12/06/2008 4:48:32 AM PST by reaganaut1
The brains of children from low-income families process information differently to those of their wealthier counterparts, US research suggests.
Normal nine and 10-year-olds from rich and poor backgrounds had differing electrical activity in a part of the brain linked to problem solving.
The Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience study was described as a "wake-up call" about the impact of deprivation.
A UK researcher said it could shed light on early brain development.
The 26 children in the study, conducted at the University of California, Berkeley, were measured using an electroencephalograph (EEG), which measured activity in the "prefrontal cortex" of the brain.
Half were from low income homes, and half from high income families.
During the test, an image the children had not been briefed to expect was flashed onto a screen, and their brain responses were measured.
Those from lower income families showed a lower prefrontal cortex response to it than those from wealthier households.
Dr Mark Kishiyama, one of the researchers, said: "The low socioeconomic kids were not detecting or processing the visual stimuli as well - they were not getting that extra boost from the prefrontal cortex."
Since the children were, in health terms, normal in every way, the researchers suspected that "stressful environments" created by low socioeconomic status might be to blame.
Previous studies have suggested that children in low-income families are spoken to far less - on average hearing 30 million fewer words by the age of four.
Professor Thomas Boyce, another of the researchers, said that talking more to children could boost prefrontal cortex development.
"We are certainly not blaming lower socioeconomic families for not talking to their kids - there are probably a zillion reasons why that happens."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
I wonder why you keep posting articles that discuss environment factors in the development of measured intelligence, and then talk about heredity. It seems to be something of an obsession.
I smell... DARWIN! Quick - get the social engineers in here.
The study only mentioned rich vs. poor. What about family situation? They did not mention the big taboo, 2 parents vs. 1 parent. I would bet that that is the biggie, not wealth.
“We are certainly not blaming lower socioeconomic families for not talking to their kids...”
Heaven forbid that these “experts” should bring up the fact that many of these children have never heard correct English spoken by a caregiver and that their linguistic development has been left to watching the cartoons on television from the time they can sit up to watch.
“The study only mentioned rich vs. poor. What about family situation? They did not mention the big taboo, 2 parents vs. 1 parent. I would bet that that is the biggie, not wealth.”
_________________________________________________________-
Good point. And I also wonder how much diet plays a factor in this as well.
“I wonder why you keep posting articles that discuss environment factors in the development of measured intelligence, and then talk about heredity. It seems to be something of an obsession.”
Because the elites *assume* that environmental factors explain differences in intelligence and want to spend vast amounts of tax money in a quixotic effort to equalize all groups. That’s what Obama’s universal preschool is about, for example.
I wonder why you are posting on this thread, since you apparently have a personality conflict with the freeper who posted this article.
Back on topic. It turns out that both environment and heredity affect intelligence. Best data that I have seen (The Bell Curve) places the impact of each at about 50-50.
I did a research paper in graduate school on child IQ and much of the research at that time suggested that child IQ is largely a function of maternal IQ. Who knows?
“Because the elites *assume* that environmental factors explain differences in intelligence and want to spend vast amounts of tax money in a quixotic effort to equalize all groups. That’s what Obama’s universal preschool is about, for example.”
Headstart is one of those “throwing money down the toilet” programs. Study after study indicates no long term benefit from this early intervention program.
I think early stimulation has the most to do with it. Plopping a baby in a bouncy seat or a swing and putting an Elmo video on is not stimulating a baby.
Having a crack mom bring you into this world probably does not correlate well to healthy brain or cognitive development either.
Maybe because they only have one parent at home?
“Half were from low income homes, and half from high income families.”
If this was the ONLY CRITERION for measurement, the study would be considered invalid.
Is this post a joke or ?
The joke would be on the people who were contributing salaries (ie: money) for the experimenters doing the “study” - and it could have been done at taxpayers’ expense.
Now the group is making more money publishing their results.
Nobody will tell me any child brought into a single household is going to have the same advantages as a child with 2 parents. I am not just talking about money advantages either. The most important is having a support network, that is 2 parents in the home. That is the foundation for it all.
“We are certainly not blaming lower socioeconomic families for not talking to their kids - there are probably a zillion reasons why that happens.”
That’s an odd statement. So whose fault is it?
Whenever an article uses a phrase as vague as “there are probably a zillion reasons why...”, you can bet there’s a coverup occurring. No doubt the writer of the article would like to blame wealthy families for the failure of poor families but just can’t think of a causal connection.
Look at history: most of the great geniuses grew up in poverty. They also avoided their society’s public education system to one extent or another. Thomas Edison, for example, was criticized by his school teachers for being “stupid” and “stubborn”, so mom pulled him out of the system and home-schooled him.
IMHO, this is not a large enough sample to validate any conclusions.
I disagree. It seems to me that "elites" consider themselves naturally superior to all others, rather than crediting the advantages of their upbringing. And we're not just dealing with "assumptions," but with the results of study, which show up consistently again and again, in different places and in various years.
... and want to spend vast amounts of tax money in a quixotic effort to equalize all groups. That’s what Obama’s universal preschool is about, for example.
Liberals don't care about results. They want to spend vast amounts of tax money to employ vast numbers of people Just Like Them, to enrich themselves and exert power over others. Universal preschool is about hiring thousands upon thousands of government-licensed "teachers" (minders), who will be *union employees,* with absolute job security, contributing generously year after year to Democrat campaigns and causes.
It seems to me that it's your attitude that's elitist: the attitude that myriads are born incapable of learning to read or learning the skills to be independent. There are obvious steps to be taken to improve mental development and educational outcome among the lowest economic stratum. Parents, if they have the good will, can be trained to turn off the tv and talk to their children. They can be taught to read, if necessary, so they can read to their children. They can be taught about good nutrition and healthy child development. This can only be done effectively by private enterprise, because the will for the parent to make the effort can only come from selfless love, which is not supported by government handouts. Conservatism wants to help people with private effort, using the means that are reasonably expected to work if tried. Leftists (and I'm using a polite word) write off whole swathes of the population as inherently (let's be honest) subhuman.
It would be interesting, as a poster above mentioned, if the study in the article had referenced family structure. Poverty is not strictly correlated with chaotic, not-really-family environments. For example, Hindus - from India, Indonesia, and elsewhere - residing in Britain are notable for having intact families, discipline, and more of a work ethic than some other groups (according to Theodore Dalrymple). A study identifying children who had married parents, fathers in the home, fathers with a job, and similar factors would be very informative.
(wintertime, I pinged you because we've discussed this bell-curve business before.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.