ADVERTISEMENT

Brain science

GMM

All-American
Oct 29, 2001
7,851
0
36
Looking forward to the science deniers on this board getting their feathers ruffled:

Neuroscientists who studied the brain scans of nearly 1,100 children and young adults nationwide from ages 3 to 20 found that the surface area of the cerebral cortex was linked to family income. They discovered that the brains of children in families that earned less than $25,000 a year had surface areas 6 percent smaller than those whose families earned $150,000 or more. The poor children also scored lower on average on a battery of cognitive tests.

No! No! No! Its all about "cultural conditioning" and "socioeconomic factors" and "white privilege" and "systemic racism" and "lack of role models in TV/movies" and...............you know the rest.

New brain science shows poor kids........
 
I'm not sure I understand your point


What the study seems to have shown is that the brains of children born into poverty appear to be less developed than children born into wealthier families, suggesting that socioeconomic factors play a significant role. It hardly seems surprising that, for example, poor nutrition, stress, etc. will inhibit brain development in children.
 
Re: I'm not sure I understand your point

It hardly seems surprising that, for example, poor nutrition, stress, etc. will inhibit brain development in children.

Does that explain why so many poor children grow up to be successful athletes?



Further, when is it acceptable to acknowledge these factors? You've provided an example of when it is acceptable: after the fact. How about before the fact?

Can an employer say "I'm not going to hire this person because they were born poor."? No, they may not say that or do that. But if, say, someone who was born poor ends up being a criminal or has no job skills then we have to make excuses for them and are obligated to help them. Usually by forcibly taking money from other people (welfare) or by forcing employers to hire them.

A larger question is: shoud we continue to import poor people?

Another one would be: should we stop subsidizing the children of poor women on welfare in order to discourage pregnancies?
 
I should add.......

......that we should consider that genes play a role. Is brain size, and therefore brain capacity, entirely the result of external factors or do genes play a role?

IQ is party inherited. There is a general correlation between IQ and income. Therefore low IQ parents are probably low IQ parents and will have low IQ children. People will freak out when you say this but its simply a reliable, general pattern.
 
You are right

I don't think it's mainly nutrition, although it could be partly. I think the ability to accumulate wealth is correlated with a variety of attributes and skills some of which are genetically influenced. I don't see how anybody could argue against that.

One of my parents was very smart (and had a very smart parent too) and my other parent was smart enough. I am very smart. I have made a lot of money in my life. I'm aware of the benefits of my genes in helping me to do that.

That said, the debatable points include: how much of economic success is determined by genetic talent, and how much by culture (family culture including work ethic and a component of social skills, some of which came from the other side of my family), nutrition, luck, access to capital, geography (tribe/nation/economic environment). Genetic talent (which includes smarts, other components of social skills, tendency to be healthy, and other economically advantageous attributes including good looks) is just a piece of the puzzle, maybe a small piece in many cases. Also, it can be argued, any society actually needs a mix of population with different levels of skill.

That's why GMM is such a pariah on this board. He repeatedly talks like he wants to take these subtle genetic differences and use them as a reason to round up everybody whose IQ is below a certain level and put them on a long ride in a leaky boat. More rational people see that if you can at least provide a level playing field, it might make more sense to embrace all of the beautifully diverse genetic elements in our population.
 
what??

The VAST majority of poor children, like 99.9999 percent of them do not grow up to be successful athletes.

You continue to show a complete lack of understanding between on genetics works and how epigenetics works.
 
Re: You are right

I don't think it's mainly nutrition, although it could be partly. I think the ability to accumulate wealth is correlated with a variety of attributes and skills some of which are genetically influenced. I don't see how anybody could argue against that.

You see it all the time. Its the dominant worldview of our time. Its really the only acceptable worldview.

We're supposed to believe that the reason there is poverty is because of external forces like racism and white privilege and police harassment and underfunded schools and.......you've heard it all before. The reason we're supposed to believe that is to convince people it can all be fixed with the proper redistribution of wealth. If we would just give the government enough authority over our lives, led by caring compassionate progressives of course, then we could eliminate income inequality and all the other problems associated with poverty.

Its completely bogus and has failed miserably. But we're still supposed to believe it.

That's why GMM is such a pariah on this board. He repeatedly talks like he wants to take these subtle genetic differences and use them as a reason to round up everybody whose IQ is below a certain level and put them on a long ride in a leaky boat.

No, its why you're a clown who has to resort to ridiculous exaggerations.

More rational people see that if you can at least provide a level playing field, it might make more sense to embrace all of the beautifully diverse genetic elements in our population.

Also, to resort to Afterschool Special talking points to (hopefully) make yourself look good.
 
Re: what??

The VAST majority of poor children, like 99.9999 percent of them do not grow up to be successful athletes.

Just like db you have to resort to exaggeration.

Explain all the poor kids who DO grow up to be successful athletes. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the average NBA, NFL, MLB player grew up in a relatively poor household. Would you? How can this happen when they receive such poor nutrition?
 
Re: what??

Holy cripes you can't be this dense! By successful athlete you are talking 100 people out of 300 million or so? Even if they grew up poor they rarely grew up starving or with a severe nutritional deficiency.

Your whole argument is bunk because it's based off of correlations, not causation. The other aspect you don't consider is that most, if not 95% of imaging studies are complete trash. There is so much data massaging going on it isn't funny. And then when you talk about a 6% difference.. junk science.

You forget that 100 years ago most people didn't have the nutrition and quality of life that even poor people enjoy here now. Yet we still some produced doctors, scientists, engineers and wealthy people. Personally I know wealthy people that I don't consider that bright, just lucky and/or hard working. I've met poor people that are extremely bright but not interested in material things / wealth. To paint your pictures in black and white (as usual) is ignorant. But works well for trolling, I get it.
 
Re: what??

By successful athlete you are talking 100 people out of 300 million or so?

Really? Thanks, I didn't know that. Very useful information.

You didn't explain why professional athletes come from disproportionately poor households. How can that be possible? If poor kids' lower academic performance is explained by poor nutrition then poor kids are also on average worse athletes, right?
 
there is no evidence

that "professional athletes come form disproportionately poor households."

I don't even know what that means, disproportionate to whom? What's the average household income of the average NBA player? NFL player? MLB player? Are we counting soccer? Tennis? Hockey?

The brain and the body don't have the exact same requirements at the exact same time. Your nutritional intake as a younger child vice an older child might affect one a lot more than the other. One might be easier to "catch up" on than the other.
 
if only

db could make himself look as good as you GMM...but alas...
 
db, you've always tried to position yourself as more intellectual than that

Originally posted by db:
I don't think it's mainly nutrition, although it could be partly. I think the ability to accumulate wealth is correlated with a variety of attributes and skills some of which are genetically influenced. I don't see how anybody could argue against that.

One of my parents was very smart (and had a very smart parent too) and my other parent was smart enough. I am very smart. I have made a lot of money in my life. I'm aware of the benefits of my genes in helping me to do that.

That said, the debatable points include: how much of economic success is determined by genetic talent, and how much by culture (family culture including work ethic and a component of social skills, some of which came from the other side of my family), nutrition, luck, access to capital, geography (tribe/nation/economic environment). Genetic talent (which includes smarts, other components of social skills, tendency to be healthy, and other economically advantageous attributes including good looks) is just a piece of the puzzle, maybe a small piece in many cases. Also, it can be argued, any society actually needs a mix of population with different levels of skill.

That's why GMM is such a pariah on this board. He repeatedly talks like he wants to take these subtle genetic differences and use them as a reason to round up everybody whose IQ is below a certain level and put them on a long ride in a leaky boat. More rational people see that if you can at least provide a level playing field, it might make more sense to embrace all of the beautifully diverse genetic elements in our population.
If that game applies to others (like GMM), it applies to you.

Shall we start apply the same nonsensical attributes to the mighty db, as you've done with GMM and others?

I doubt you'd like it. Or appreciate it. Or agree with it. Yet, you're okay doing it to others.
 
Re: what??

Originally posted by GMM:

You didn't explain why professional athletes come from disproportionately poor households.
Prove this statement. No one should take it as fact on face value, yet you're hanging a good part of your argument on it.
 
Re: what??

Well, I wouldn't say a good part of my argument is based on this. The main argument is related to the fact that poor kids' brain sizes are smaller. Therefore the fact that poor kids are more likely to grow up to be poor compared to other kids is not 100% proof of an unfair system. Its not a 100% justification to have the government rearrange the results. Sometimes we just have to accept that some things are beyond our control. There's a limit to what we can do to help poor kids.

Mainly, we should stop importing people from poor countries and stop encouraging (via welfare) poor women from having kids.
 
Re: what??

That in no way answers his question.

Come on Gregory M., if you want to run with the big boys you have to be able back up your statements.

No dodges allowed.

eta: Not a good part of your argument? It was the first reply you gave. You're embarrassing yourself again, Gregory M.

This post was edited on 4/16 7:52 PM by ecouch
 
lol

please tell us how we are "importing" people from poor countries.

And you think welfare encourages children. Do tell. Tell us the huge monetary increases poor women get by having additional children that isn't completely wiped out and then some by the cost of having a child.

You've clearly done the math.
 
Re: lol

please tell us how we are "importing" people from poor countries.

What an incredibly stupid question.

Besides, aren't you aware of all the wondrous things poor immigrants will do once they get here?

And you think welfare encourages children. Do tell. Tell us the huge monetary increases poor women get by having additional children that isn't completely wiped out and then some by the cost of having a child.

If they got zero additional money for additonal children they'd wouldn't have as many children. If YOU were subsidizing a poor woman I guarantee you'd take steps to make sure she didn't have more children.
 
riiight

as long as they get a single dollar more in welfare, it doesn't matter what the average or even low cost is for raising a child.
 
Re: what??

Yeah, it was the first reply to Noodle's reply. But go ahead and dismiss it if you want to because it wasn't the main point.

The main point, as I said to gr8, was:

The main argument is related to the fact that poor kids' brain sizes are smaller. Therefore the fact that poor kids are more likely to grow up to be poor compared to other kids is not 100% proof of an unfair system. Its not a 100% justification to have the government rearrange the results. Sometimes we just have to accept that some things are beyond our control. There's a limit to what we can do to help poor kids.

Agree or disagree?

Or do you believe in the Blank Slate theory of humanity? That would certainly be quite orthodox of you. It also would justify government power to equalize poor children. Or, you can accept that the fact that their brain sizes are smaller is simply because they're Born That Way. Which is it?
 
Re: riiight

Yes, which is why when single women go on welfare they stop having children altogether. There are basically zero children born to such women.
 
Re: what??

Originally posted by GMM:

The main argument is related to the fact that poor kids' brain sizes are smaller. ...

Or, you can accept that the fact that their brain sizes are smaller is simply because they're Born That Way.
I don't think your posted article said that at all. In fact it says quite the opposite.

"Noble and Sowell have two theories about why poor children have smaller
brains. One is that poor families lack access to material goods that aid
healthy development, such as good nutrition and higher-quality health
care. The other is that poor families tend to live more chaotic lives,
and that stress could inhibit healthy brain development."

Classic correlation, not causation.
 
Re: what??

In the article:



But James Thompson, a psychologist at University College London, has a third theory.



"People who have less ability and marry people with less ability have children who, on balance, on average, have less ability," he said. Thompson noted that there is a genetic component to intelligence that Noble and Sowell failed to consider.

"It makes my jaw drop that we've known for years intelligence is inheritable and scientists are beginning to track down exactly how it happens," Thompson said. "The well-known genetic hypothesis has not even had a chance to enter the door in this discussion."



Charles Murray, a conservative political scientist who argues there is a relationship between intelligence and economic class in his book "The Bell Curve," said genetics cannot be ignored.



"It is confidently known that brain size is correlated with IQ, IQ measured in childhood is correlated with income as an adult, and parental IQ is correlated with children's IQ," Murray wrote in an e-mail. "I would be astonished if children's brain size were NOT correlated with parental income. How could it be otherwise?"

So, which do you believe? Do you believe that's it all external forces that can be corrected? Or, do you believe there are limits what the rest of us can do to equalize the brain sizes of poor children?
 
Re: what??

My parents made no money, I lived in a trailer, had one pair of pants in eighth grade, and now I have a BA, JD, and LL.M.
I spent most of my teen years pretty hungry. I was 5-11, 130 when I enlisted in the Army at 22.

So, how do I fit into your theory?

Shouldn't my brain be too small to accomplish any of that? Poor, black, hungry...

Again, the difference is poverty does not equal stupid. Poverty can make someone less than what they could be, just like I might have made it to 6 foot or 6-1 if my parents made enough money to keep me well-fed my entire childhood. That does not mean that genetically I was going to end up shorter than average, in fact, I'm slight above the average height.

So, it's certainly true, that I might have ended up "smarter" if I'd been better nourished as a child, because we know how important that is in all facets to children as they develop.

Of course, all that suggests is that if we made sure every child was well-fed, then every child would have the potential to maximize their abilities.
 
no one said that

you made a very specific argument with a very specific reason why women on welfare have children.

That very specific reason is a load of horse-crap.

People have children for a ton of reasons, some great, some not so great, some neutral. Some people make poor decisions on how many children to have, again, has nothing to do with the extra bit a month they might get tacked onto their welfare payments. It in no way covers the cost of raising a child completely.
 
Re: what??

My parents made no money, I lived in a trailer, had one pair of pants in eighth grade, and now I have a BA, JD, and LL.M.
I spent most of my teen years pretty hungry. I was 5-11, 130 when I enlisted in the Army at 22.

So, how do I fit into your theory?


Simple, its you yet again commiting Lewontin's Fallacy. People like you always have to resort to individual anecdotes when attempting to disprove group trends.

Poor, black, hungry...

In a land of white privilege you identify as black. I understand why.

Of course, all that suggests is that if we made sure every child was well-fed, then every child would have the potential to maximize their abilities.

Even if we did poor children would still end up more likely to be poor. When that inevitably happens people like you would cite that as proof that we haven't done enough to help poor children. Which would be used to justify endless government control over society until all holy and sacred Equality has been achieved. Even though it never will be.
 
Re: no one said that

you made a very specific argument with a very specific reason why women on welfare have children.

No, you exaggerated the common sense acknowledgement that our welfare system has provided incentives for single women on welfare to have more children into a direct cause/effect relationship.

Some people make poor decisions on how many children to have, again, has nothing to do with the extra bit a month they might get tacked onto their welfare payments. It in no way covers the cost of raising a child completely.

Which is why poor, single women on welfare never have any children, right? Doesn't matter that it doesn't cover the cost of raising a child "completely". It still happens. Unless you'd like to make the argument that ever since the Great Society programs have been in place the phenomenon of single, poor women on welfare having millons of children is a total coincidence.
 
yes

no one else thinks of me as Black, it's just me...they'd TOTALLY see me as white if only I "self-identified" that way.

lol

You have no idea if "poor children would still end up poor" if poor children were universally given adequate food, a secure home, and decent educational opportunities...because that's never been consistently done.

I find the switch from race to poverty an interesting development for you though.
 
Re: yes

no one else thinks of me as Black, it's just me...they'd TOTALLY see me as white if only I "self-identified" that way.

You self-identify as black and people see you as black. Even though you're not black. Why is that?

You have no idea if "poor children would still end up poor" if poor children were universally given adequate food, a secure home, and decent educational opportunities...because that's never been consistently done.

Yes, it pretty much has. We've spent TRILLIONS on the War On Poverty. We've had affirmative action, minority outreach, Diversity goals, etc. that have extended into all areas of society for decades to help poor non-whites. None of it has worked. Mainly because we keep insisting on orienting society around the Big Lie of Equality. We don't see it as a lie of course. But that's why we keep failing.

I find the switch from race to poverty an interesting development for you though.

Both are related to the same explanation. Which you deny because you're one of those science deniers.
 
Re: yes

yes, GMM why is that? Why would I identify in a way that matches what universally anyone who ever glances my direction (except for the small handful of folks who've confused me for Hispanic) throughout my entire life also identifies me as before I even open my mouth?

Crazy huh?

And I'm not "white" either by your definition yes?

And with the "TRILLIONS" we've spent, we see high school graduation rates rise, an increase in the black middle class, an increase in the number of black millionaires, a rise in SAT and IQ levels reported...thanks for making the point, when you work to erase to systemic disadvantages you start to see improvements across the board.
 
Re: no one said that

so poor women choose to have kids, in part, because they get more money, even though, by any remote definition of "common sense" they will actually end spending more money, by far, for the cost of raising said child, then they would receive additionally.

Of course, you think poor people are generally stupid so of course you believe that.
 
Re: yes

You identify that way because there are so many advantages to doing so.

And I'm not "white" either by your definition yes?

No, but you could be Hispanic.
 
Re: what??

Originally posted by GMM:



So, which do you believe? Do you believe that's it all external forces that can be corrected? Or, do you believe there are limits what the rest of us can do to equalize the brain sizes of poor children?
Right. The key word to all of this is "hypothesis", yet you continue to state all of these things as "facts." Your words, not mine. Nothing you have presented in this thread are actually facts nor should they be accepted as such.

The answer, in my opinion, is in the middle. It's not one nor the other, it's both; genetics and environment play a role.
 
Re: yes

LMAO...what are the advantages to identifying as black?

So you are saying, if I identified as white, everyone would just assume I was white?

Dark skin, clear African features, but they'd say, well, he identifies as white, so he must be white, I'll treat him like a white person.

LMAO that's hilarious.

And how, could I be Hispanic? This ought to be good.
 
Re: yes

LMAO...what are the advantages to identifying as black?

According to what you implied......

And with the "TRILLIONS" we've spent, we see high school graduation rates rise, an increase in the black middle class, an increase in the number of black millionaires, a rise in SAT and IQ levels reported...thanks for making the point, when you work to erase to systemic disadvantages you start to see improvements across the board.

.......there must be numerous advantages. Its obvious to everyone that when applying to college or trying to get hired at government or corporate positions that checking "black" in the race box is an advantage. Hey, you also get to have an identity that you can be proud of.

So you are saying, if I identified as white, everyone would just assume I was white?

No.

Dark skin, clear African features.......

Yeah, like everyone else with one white parent and one black parent. Though I can't think of a single one that identifies as white. You claim that its a disadvantage to being black in this country yet many (most?) who are 50/50 identify as black. Why is that?

Also, are you saying you don't have any European features? I have no idea. Just asking.

And how, could I be Hispanic? This ought to be good.

Just claim it. Hispanic is not a race. Maybe you could change your surname to a Spanish one. NOBODY would question your Hispanic heritage once you did that. Then again your name could be "Bill Richardson" and you could still identify as Hispanic and even be considered a possible VP candidate.
 
Re: what??

The answer, in my opinion, is in the middle. It's not one nor the other, it's both; genetics and environment play a role.

I agree. But we're only allowed to believe that one plays a role.
 
Re: what??

Originally posted by GMM:
The answer, in my opinion, is in the middle. It's not one nor the other, it's both; genetics and environment play a role.

I agree. But we're only allowed to believe that one plays a role.
Yet on the other side, you seem to want to act as though only one plays a role, just not the same one.
 
Re: yes

Originally posted by qazplm:
LMAO...what are the advantages to identifying as black?

So you are saying, if I identified as white, everyone would just assume I was white?

Dark skin, clear African features, but they'd say, well, he identifies as white, so he must be white, I'll treat him like a white person.
Clear masculine features, has a penis, self identifies as a woman. Must be a woman.

How long until race is the same as gender?

(Sorry, couldn't resist that one!)
 
Re: what??

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by GMM:
The answer, in my opinion, is in the middle. It's not one nor the other, it's both; genetics and environment play a role.

I agree. But we're only allowed to believe that one plays a role.
Yet on the other side, you seem to want to act as though only one plays a role, just not the same one.
No, that would be others' exaggerations. The goal is to get everyone to admit that genes play a role. You know, something that's beyond our control. But if that happens then the left's entire enterprise falls apart. Not gonna be easy.
 
Good question!

If changing your gender is a "right" that everyone else has to accomodate then can we declare ourselves to be whatever race we want to be?
 
ADVERTISEMENT