Poverty May Affect the Growth of Children's Brains 324
sciencehabit writes: Stark and rising inequality plagues many countries, including the United States, and politicians, economists, and — fortunately — scientists, are debating its causes and solutions. But inequality's effects may go beyond simple access to opportunity: a new study finds that family differences in income and education are directly correlated with brain size in developing children and adolescents. The findings could have important policy implications and provide new arguments for early antipoverty interventions, researchers say.
Cause, or effect? (Score:2, Interesting)
They may have found a correlation, but that's not the same as determining the direction of causation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cause, or effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
The link is between nutrition and brain development, and considering the odds of poor nutrition is higher in poorer families than in wealthier families, the conclusion does not seem bad at all. Nothing says that all families that live in poverty will have children with developmental problems, but it does argue you're much more likely to see the phenomenon in such families.
I can't imagine why anyone would see this as controversial.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably because there just aren't all that many people in the 1st world who are truly going hungry.
Re:Cause, or effect? (Score:4, Informative)
The link is between nutrition and brain development, and considering the odds of poor nutrition is higher in poorer families than in wealthier families, the conclusion does not seem bad at all. Nothing says that all families that live in poverty will have children with developmental problems, but it does argue you're much more likely to see the phenomenon in such families.
I can't imagine why anyone would see this as controversial.
EXACTLY...
For instance, there is a whole generation in North Korea where starvation was common during the second Kim's reign and they show marked problems with mental development if they where malnourished during specific phases of their development. They will NEVER recover, nor will they reach their potential but the real tragedy is that this will affect their children too. So you loose not one but two generations. (According to the documentary I remember watching once.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cause, or effect? (Score:5, Informative)
The link is between nutrition and brain development
Could it also be related to poorer parents working more hours, thus having less time to be with the kids during their early years playing with them, reading for them and otherwise stimulating their brain development? Or has that been corrected for?
Re: (Score:3)
Malnutrition has measurable, physical effects on brain development. If you measure the average amount of growth a child's brain does from birth to adulthood you will find it is less if the body is starved of nutrition. The effects are permanent and irreversible, and cannot be fully counteracted with education. The brain is simply less able to grow and to learn during those critical early years.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the phrase "Fuck you, I've got mine" that I'd say is a common attitude of many among even the better-off middle classes seems to indicate there are plenty of fucks to be given, and they all land squarely among the have-nots.
For instance, I was at some point not too long ago, subject to a Facebook rant among a guy my age (mid-30s) with a stable Government job that netted him six-figures easily, because he had a high clearance, railing against Obamacare. With no evident whiff of parody, he basicall
Re: (Score:2)
You must be a white male! *ducks*
I agree, and come from a similar place. Not quite ghetto poor, but not being able to eat poor and we lived next to the ghetto. My dad was my example of what not to be when I grew up, since he was drunk and unemployed more often than sober and working. Mom did her best with what she had, a GED and two kids.
Not to say I have not made mistakes, but my son is now in college which I'm able to pay cash for. I have a good job which I worked very hard for. I'm not rich, but I
Correlation is not Causation (Score:3)
Poverty doesn't cause it, most likely has to do with poor Nutrition.
Which is why, if I were in charge, Food Stamps would be for Fruits, Veggies, Meat, and Milk only. If you add anything else, it is abused. Cereal? FruitLoops is a cereal, and currently counts as "food".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Coprolite's seem to show that meat and vegetables though not together all the time was common "when our ancestors lived 10k years ago."
Re:Correlation is not Causation (Score:4, Informative)
Here's an interview on PBS [pbs.org]: "I went to visit indigenous people and hunter-gatherers...they don’t get that much meat because hunting is hard work."
Look at the chart half-way down [scientificamerican.com], of some of the hunter/gatherer tribes that still exist. There is huge variety in one they eat....some are mostly meat, some are mostly plants.
The Paleo diet today [wku.edu] isn't good for your health.
Unsurprisingly, here is a study in Nature [nih.gov] that points out copying Paleolithic diets would not be very useful anyway (not in the least because we've evolved since then, through the Neolithic era).
The paleo diet is yet another fully trademarked fad diet.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why you think so.
Probably because the actual contents of coprolites show what the actual diet was? Then again, you quickly find out that "latest studies" are generally garbage. Much like the: Anti-milk, anti-meat, pro-meat, anti-butter, and so on crap is all garbage.
Re: (Score:3)
It all depends on lactase persistence [wikipedia.org] and that depends on genetics. The relevant mutation in the gene for lactase is relatively new, without it you simply can't handle lactose after puberty.
The mutation is common in people with Caucasian ancestry, in purely non-Caucasian ancestry lactose intolerance is extremely common. If 90% of your adult population gets the runs from lactose then cows milk isn't going to appear in the national cuisine, except for maybe as a drink for children.
It is an interesting gene to
Re: (Score:3)
The Paleo diet today [wku.edu] isn't good for your health.
Unsurprisingly, here is a study in Nature [nih.gov] that points out copying Paleolithic diets would not be very useful anyway (not in the least because we've evolved since then, through the Neolithic era).
The paleo diet is yet another fully trademarked fad diet.
The Paleo diet was originally known to most Australians as the CSIRO diet and it's meant for weight loss, not as a regular diet. Its the same with Paleo which has the same high protein, low carbohydrate principles. The CSIRO diet is coupled with exercise and other elements as a 12 week program. Like Paleo, it's designed to induce Ketosis which isn't a healthy state to be in for years, but is just fine for a few months whilst you drop a few kilos.
Unlike fad diets, high protein, low carb diets are proven t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you include fruits, it's pretty damn close to true. People didn't start eating grains in significant quantities until about 10000 years ago. Before that nearly 100% of their diet consisted of fruits, vegetables and meat (including fish). Humans became "behaviorally modern" about 40000 to 50000 years ago. So it's clear that a diet containing no grains can be nutritionally adequate for modern humans.
The only net benefit of eating grains and processed foods is that they're a cheaper way of fulfilling yo
Re: (Score:2)
Before that nearly 100% of their diet consisted of fruits, vegetables and meat (including fish).
What about roots?
Humans became "behaviorally modern" about 40000 to 50000 years ago. So it's clear that a diet containing no grains can be nutritionally adequate for modern humans.
This explains why it's not clear [slashdot.org]. Trying to understand how humans ate 50,000 years ago doesn't help much in understanding what is good for us today.
Re: (Score:3)
Roots are usually included in the term "vegetables."
Yeah, it's true that modern people have some adaptations due to what they call "niche construction" which appears to be a fancy term for "agriculture" + "cooking" when it comes to diet.
For example, most modern people can digest milk, whereas our paleolithic ancestors mostly couldn't, and some populations of humans have developed heightened tolerance for carbohydrate-heavy diets that probably would have given our paleolithic ancestors diabetes. They still
as well as.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's very obviously not a matter of bank account balances having a direct effect on development. They can get back to us when they've found an actual useful correlation.
Re: (Score:3)
I was once in the poverty state, food choices between Manufactured "food" and fresh foods wasn't that much. It is a lifestyle choice. I've seen what poor people eat. And here, in America, you can be poor, and obese, and that is a choice.
Bank accounts might matter if you're buying a lot of meat, but my guess is poor people shop once a month, for the whole month, and thus don't buy non-processed foods. It is a discipline to be able to keep money through the month, so you can buy fresh food. IMHO many (perhaps
Re: (Score:3)
My first thought was poor nutrition as well. It's the same sort of claim that dentists make, like how unhealthy teeth can lead to other health problems. I've always figured it's more likely that people who don't take care of their teeth also don't take care of their bodies in general.
About your proposed food stamp rules... you're missing the "grains" food group (bread, flour, rice, etc) entirely, not to mention a few other fundamental things like eggs, butter, salt, and sugar. I'm going to take a wild gu
Re: (Score:2)
Should science be based on what is intuitive for Archangel Michael (180766), or peer reviewed step by step understanding?
Alternatively, can you back up your statement with a peer reviewed study?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is more likely to be down to the input from the parents, or in the case of poverty lack of input. The basics are that poor parents are on average less well educated and don't have either the inclination or knowledge to give their children quality input especially in early years.
The is also a growing problem with the children of wealthy/educated parents who are too busy with their jobs to give their children the quality input they need to thrive.
Diet has very little or nothing to do with it. Any sensible
Re: (Score:3)
They've found a correlation between poverty and small brain size, but it's a complex issue that's not as simple as money or food or whatnot causing a small brain. You have a point about nutrition, and that's an important consideration going forward; it is unfortunate that we can't solve this readily, but it's a good consideration to make.
Still, nutrition is only one small part of it. The brain isn't a muscle: you don't get stronger at math by flexing your math brain parts; you only get better at the p
Brain size? (Score:3)
I'm not sure that brain size by itself is a particular indicator of intelligence but when it's combined with poor nutrition and stressful living it probably is correlated. If you're concerned about the welfare state then it's something that should concern you. People with low intelligence are much more likely to require welfare to get along in life.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know what is surprising about this. We've known for decades that poor nutrition during the developmental years can lead to poor brain development and permanent cognitive problems.
Re: (Score:2)
I can read it to you, but I can't understand it for you. If you have questions, please read the article before wasting our goddam time.
Caution (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Caution (Score:4, Insightful)
This study may only be referenced by Liberals when promoting new ways to take from those who produce.
You mean the workers on the production lines? because those are the only ones who do any producing.
Rich people allocate capital and if they do it well this is a Good Thing (TM), but certainly on and itself does not produce anything.
Top 1 % (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So the Top 1% needs to give the bottom 99% all their money. Problem solved.
Until next year, when the ones who suddenly find themselves in the new 1% have everything taken away from them and given to everyone else. As in, what do you do when the money you've just given away is gone and you need to do it again? Do you really imagine that those people who had no money will save whatever windfall they get by eating the rich for use over a long period of time? (And taking everything away from the 1% is as close to "eating the rich" as you can get without actually eating them.) The vac
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that a lot of 1%er money never gets spent (and thus raise the price) to buy things you would. Unless you were in the market for a multi-billion dollar yacht, it doesn't really matter what Bill Gates, Buffet and Cook spend their money on.
If everyone ends up with all their money and go to the grocery store with it instead....things won't stay rosy very long.
Correlation v Causation, yada yada (Score:3)
But inequality's effects may go beyond simple access to opportunity
I'm not sure what they're defining as "opportunity" here, but it clearly doesn't include access to a healthier diet, better educational tools, more experiences in life, quality time & attention from their guardians, etc, etc.
In fact, I'd like to know exactly what they what they think opportunity is if it's *not* those things?!
This should be obvious (Score:3)
More BS blaming 'the system' for bad parenting (Score:2, Interesting)
In theory, anyone can scrimp and save and work hard and get ahead. I've done it .. without a college education and growing up in a from a family barely getting by, I've managed to improve my income starting as a minimum wage bike repair worker, working two years as an office clerk, and 35 years later clear over $130K/year. I did it because I'm smart, reasonably personable, and have a strong work ethic that makes it easy for me to do just about any job my company asks for, yet strong enough to go look elsewh
another Temporarily Embarrased Millionaire (Score:2)
Nobody is lining up to give poor people professional baseball teams [publicintegrity.org], or choice executive positions at energy [foxnews.com] companies. [wikipedia.org] Nor does a poor working stiff who just finished a hard day of running pipes or installing drywall open his motel door in the middle of the night to see women looking to have sex with him [cnn.com].
It's not being willfully obtuse [washingtonpost.com] as to how this country, and capitalism in general, actually works.
Re:More BS blaming 'the system' for bad parenting (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you statistically the same as the studied subjects?
Nope, you are an outlier. Thanks for your Republicanism, but try actually understanding things.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that 35 years ago I lived with my parents and didn't get married or raise kids until my income became enough to actually move out and do it. By then I was a computer programmer. Took me 5 years to go from office clerk to junior programmer, and then 20 more to make the salary I make today.
Please explain why people today can't do the same thing I did (it's called living within one's means) Just because somebody wants to get married and have kids doesn't mean they should do it and then expect t
Re:More BS blaming 'the system' for bad parenting (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you understand what "equality of opportunity" means. For example, it means that all children would have the opportunity to get a high quality education. Obviously some children are less bright than others, but the high quality education is offered to everyone. More over, children shouldn't be disadvantaged because of their parents failings, because that isn't fair to them. That's one of the reasons why children must attend school by law in most countries - even if the parents would prefer them to stay at home or work they must be given the opportunity to learn.
As for jobs, equality of opportunity means that everyone can apply for a particular job, i.e. the employer can't arbitrarily discriminate against say Latino people. It also means that we should try to make high quality jobs available everywhere, or ensure that people can relocate if necessary without artificial barriers. Imagine there was some bright kid just out of college who couldn't afford to move to where high end jobs in his field were. Someone might decide to help give him the opportunity to apply for and get those jobs by offering assistance to move.
In Soviet Russia... (Score:2)
... in 1960-th there was a toy - a metal constructor. It was a big box full of different plates, axes, wheels, nuts, bolts a.s.o. It was relatively cheap (since it was produced basically by the same plants where the nuclear bombs were made). It was needed to have some brains to model something with this toy. There were lots of cheap magazines publishing projects for this toy. Sometimes it was problematic to subscribe for these magazines (it's Russia!!!!1111) but they still were cheap.
About 2010, I needed su
Root causes, poverty, smaller brains, etc (Score:4, Interesting)
There are no studies that show spanking has any long term positive outcomes. There are plenty of studies that show negative correlation with long term negative outcomes. Just as is the case with this study, it is fair to call into question correlation and causation but if there were some food additive, fertilizer or herbicide that had even 1/10 of the correlative impact on children, the public would be freaking out and protesting around some multinational business but when it is parents damaging their own children we get relative silence.
Studies have shown that poor parents are more likely to spank their children. Studies have shown a correlation in spanking with smaller brain sizes, lower IQs, lack of self control. Studies have shown a high correlation between lack of self control and poverty. Again we don't have great data on cause v.s. effect but there are good indications that the early violence is causative in this chain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So there will finally be a financial benefit to using Slashdot after all?
Re: So What (Score:3, Insightful)
As a teacher for over 15 years , public subsidized populations are usually the result of unplanned pregnancy and parents drink, smoke and don't take prenatal precautions that regular parents do . Low income Mexican and Asian immigrants parents take care of themselves public assistant parents do not . Iq is lower on average vs normal children . Major prenatal outreach is needed before children get pregnant
Re: So What (Score:5, Insightful)
We get more from taxes. A poor person may get a pittance for food and lodging, but we, and by that I mean middle class professionals, get roads on which to drive our nice cars, police protection for our belongings, safe streets around where we live... and basically a nice life. And yes, we get it from the society that is made possible by taxes.
If you are one of the brainless retards who think that their guns and mad macho skillz will keep them on top if there is a breakdown in law and order, I won't even bother arguing with you. I'll just say that I lived through Bulgaria's transition from a police state to a society run by organized not-quite-criminals, and saw how happy people were to see an end of the truly lawless times.
Without taxes, there is no law enforcement. Without law enforcement, there is no security. No one is tough enough to guarantee their own security without organizing with like minded and skilled people. Once they have organized, they decide that they don't be keeping themselves secure, they are protecting others as well, and... start collecting taxes.
Re: So What (Score:4, Informative)
Total government expenditures in the US were around 10% of GDP in 1930. Was the US a lawless hellhole at 10%?
Cause it's around 40% today.
Re: So What (Score:5, Informative)
The intentional homicide rate in the 1930s in the US was more than twice what it is today. So, yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Strange, I read that the cause of this was high amounts of lead in the environment. Why is it that all of a sudden the low tax rate is the cause of it?
Re: So What (Score:4, Informative)
There is strong evidence that the lead ban had a direct causal impact on lowering the crime rate post-1990.
But it couldn't have been a factor in 1930 since the lead pollution levels at that time was still ridiculously low. The single biggest contributor: tetra-ethyl-lead (as was used in gasoline) wasn't even invented yet.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, I think that ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE agrees that our taxes are spent on the wrong things. The young think too much is spent on the elderly, the healthy think too much is spent on the sick, the pedestrians think too much is spent on roads, the childless think too much is spent on education, etc... And I bet there are people who think that homeland security, the police and the military are getting way too much.
But until someone comes with a better way to decide where the money gets spent we are stuck with
Re: So What (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: So What (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Total government expenditures in the US were around 10% of GDP in 1930. Was the US a lawless hellhole at 10%?
Cause it's around 40% today.
Bonnie and Clyde, heyday of the Mafia... Sure sounds like it was much safer in the 30's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Grandpa probably could have been entitled to his own generation's money[...]
Actually no. Money is only worth what you can buy for. The work, the good or the service Grandpa wants to pay for has to be done right now for today's prices. And while people working today also get today's payment, Grandpa has no negotation lever on today's pricing. He earned his money in former times at former prices, and now he is retired. If the older generation which doesn't work anymore has too much money, we the working generation will (free market to the win!) just increase prices until the purchasi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Another advantage to the middle-class is paradoxically welfare. People in good jobs like to rant about how their taxes are paying for some deadbeat but... ... if there was zero welfare the employment market would be flooded by the unemployed willing to work for anything - a couple of dollars, some free food etc. This would allow employers to reduce wages and middle-class earners would suddenly find their wages dissolve to whatever the 'free market' allowed - i.e. in most cases about the same as welfare leve
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how long that will last.
Re: (Score:2)
right now we have people who do small stuff just to get in to jail / prison. Hell the doctor there costs less and cover more stuff then the ER
Re: (Score:2)
Why isn't everyone entitled to a brain of the same size, if it's feasible?
Re:So What (Score:5, Insightful)
Why isn't everyone entitled to a brain of the same size, if it's feasible?
The language you use there is weird. The world is cold and hard, and any of us could be dead tomorrow; entitlements aren't a god-given right, there's no such thing (and that's true whether you're atheist or strongly believe in God).
Why don't you say, "hey guys, these poor people are out there with deficient brains, let's go help them!" Helping people is something we can actually accomplish as a society, and saying it like that would rally a lot more people to the cause.
Re:So What (Score:5, Insightful)
The world is cold and hard as we allow it to be. It is a *choice*, albeit one made by default for people who think like you.
Re:So What (Score:4, Insightful)
The world is cold and hard as we allow it to be.
Then allow it to end death: for that is the coldest and hardest thing we all face.
Re: (Score:3)
It is your choice to make your eventual obliteration the focus of your life. That's something you can either try to change (good luck with that), or it's something you can choose to accept. But choosing to accept that doesn't mean you have to sit around being miserable and resentful while you wait for the Grim Reaper. The world is only as cold and hard as the things in it you choose to focus on. There's also more wondrous and amazing and even funny things in the world than you an get around to thinking a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think people are holding back immortality due to being resigned to death, we just don't think it is yet possible. I'd tend to agree. There's a lot of varied shit that can kill you, and if you live long enough, it's eventually going to be *someone* who does the killing by sheer probabilities coming to roost. So, there's no reason to not be prepared for the most overwhelmingly likely scenario.
But yeah, if someone figures out a way to immortality without having to become some sort of undead or somet
Re: (Score:2)
It's a choice either way. The question is, who makes the choice?
Your suggestion seems to be that some all powerful authority mandates what choice everyone else must make.
GP's suggestion is that enough people can be talked into making the altruistic choice to make a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we all make the choice of the kind of world we want -- or maybe it'd be better to say the kind of world we can live with. It just so happens that some people can live with a world that they don't like very much, so long as that doesn't demand very much of them.
Anyone can by choice have an immense effect on the world around them. Maybe they can't change the *whole* world very noticeably, but they can transform their own neighborhood.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So What (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything in poverty affects brain development I expect that it's chemical or in the way that structures are formed. It's been demonstrated that some structures are larger in both musicians and mathematicians and that there's a direct correlation, the brain improves that structure as the person develops the skill.
I'm going to venture a guess that some people that are poor, particularly those that do not find themselves in a position to really be able to make important choices due to financial constraints or to exercise their brains in higher thinking, will have brains less suited to that kind of decision making until they're forced to start making those kinds of decisions regularly. I expect conversely that many wealthy people that have never been poor can't empathize with the poor because they simply have no idea how to do so, that their brains do not understand the concepts of making very seemingly small decisions that actually are very important when one has almost no resources.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to guess that it has a lot to do with nutrition too. But in the US, there is quite a few people who are considered in poverty who are there by choice. I don't mean they choose to be in poverty but choices they make places and keeps them there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you think there is a difference between someone who can afford booze and drugs who can hold a job and someone who drinks to the point they cannot? Isn't there a difference between someone who buys a bag of weed and someone who buys groceries?
Just because we do the same things doesn't mean we are equally doing them. When you know when to stop, when you don't do it beyond your means, you do not end up losing your means, you are not the same. But that really doesn't matter because other choices play a b
Re: (Score:2)
Given that in the Abrahamic religions, it's established that there other humans besides the progeny of Adam and Eve (there are references to cities) it might follow that compared to the rest of the population, Adam, Eve, and their progeny were significantly more self-aware than the rest of the pop
Re: (Score:3)
That's rather Lamarckian though. You'd have to demonstrate a selection mechanism that applies to those who have power in society, which has lasted for enough generations to generate a measurable response.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry but what was your point?
Its not like they did anything different than what was already happening. They just did it better. And in my neck of the woods, the vast majority of natives simply blended into society. They were not killed for the land.
Re:in that case how does that explain politicians (Score:4, Insightful)
most of our ruling class aren't poor!
Don't conflate intelligence (or, in the case of TFA, certain aspects of learning and higher order function) with social success. Politics is more emotional than technical. It is abundantly clear that intelligence (whatever the hell that actually happens to be), the ability to learn, the ability to think have only a modest bearing on what happens to an individual throughout their lives.
Besides, the actual magnitude of the effect in TFA seems rather small - there are likely a number of other factors involved to determine if you are fated to be Steve Woz or Idi Amin.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not a dig. The U.S is always boasting and purporting itself as a piece of heaven, but the country is in fact a third-world shit-hole in many places and aspects. Look up the documentary "Lalee's Kin" f.ex. to see some of the stark, rising inequality. The kind of inequality and shit-hole seen in this documentary doesn't exist in the little European country I live in, nor in many other places in the world. But it does in the U.S, and it's not a rare sight.
Re: (Score:3)
But it does in every other place in the world with the population the US has, which is more than most places. The larger the population, the larger the disparity. Comparing economic disparity of people in, say, Sweden, to the entire US is pretty silly when you realize Sweden's population is less than that of L.A county.
Re: (Score:2)
Do we even want a society where everyone has the exact same amount of money?
The only way to make everybody equally rich/poor is to just take everything away from everybody and make us all wards of the state. We tried that a few times in history, it's not a pretty outcome. Besides, there is always those capitalist types that end up holding more than their fair share of the wealth for one reason or another...
Re: (Score:3)
No, but it would be nice to have one where everybody has the exact same amount of opportunity.
Re:Would We Even Want That? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Aren't there any ways to get us a step closer to the goal of equal opportunity for all that doesn't take away freedoms?
Re: (Score:2)
No. We want to get everyone to the bare minimum of being a complete person. After that, the amount of money doesn't matter.
If nutrition is the problem, let's pledge to make sure everyone has the minimum money to make sure their children have the minimum amount of nutrition.
If something else is the problem, let's understand that, and then make sure that's at minimum levels for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
After correcting for cultural differences (e.g. Asians focus on education more than other races), does your claim still hold true?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see what that has to do with anything. I always see a lot of people with very high end degrees eating a lot of junk food. For example, I know of few programmers whose dinner doesn't routinely consist of doritos and mountain dew.
Re:Take a bus, sometimes (Score:4, Interesting)
was it like that when growing up?
also, what about the parents brain size?
what kind of poverty are we talking here anyhow? if you have money to feed your kids with overpriced flavored ice just wtf kind of poverty is that compared to europe directly after and during ww2?+??
or is it that if the parents constantly tell their kids that they are poor, then their brains don't grow?
Re:Take a bus, sometimes (Score:4, Interesting)
In places like that there is an abundance of inexpensive garbage filled with very stimulating ingredients and an uphill battle towards the less available, more expensive, all-natural options. This is why there's a bizarre regulatory mess in South LA about curbing the number of fast food joints all packed into a concentrated area.
See in this video [youtube.com] where the chef teaches some kids how to make home made breaded chicken breast, but they still find the McNugget more appealing. It reminds me of Dave Chappelle's old sketch about the rich kids having grape juice where he only knew "grape drink."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that's just a small part of it, I know plenty of rich people who give their children junk food, and poor people who make a big effort to only buy healthy stuff.
I think the researchers simply got cause and effect mixed up.
People with smaller brains tend to end up with a lower income and get less education. And their kids end up inheriting the smaller brain from their parents.
Obviously that doesn't mean than all poor people are stupid, just that statistically, people with larger brains tend to do bett
Re: (Score:2)
Your statement is not politically correct. In Russia you might get 100 hours of social works just for publishing the idea that there is a brainless social group. I think in USA the situation is not much different.