Posted on 04/16/2015 5:12:57 AM PDT by reaganaut1
New research that shows poor children have smaller brains than affluent children has deepened the national debate about ways to narrow the achievement gap.
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.
...
In another study that has been accepted for publication in Psychological Science, a team led by neuroscientist John Gabrieli of MIT found differences in the brain’s cortical thickness between low-income and higher-income teenagers. The study linked that difference for the first time to standardized test scores: Fifty-seven percent of the poor children scored proficient in math and reading tests given annually in Massachusetts, compared with 91 percent of the higher-income students.
...
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
That IS genetic, according to The Bell Curve.
But there are different kinds of intelligence. Poindexter may excel at math while he is hopeless at anything involving good hand/eye coordination, while Jamar has a hard time in Algebra but can consistently nail the 3 point shot in basketball. Both involve brain sophistication, but different kinds. Neither person is "smarter" than the other one.
To put it another way:
Maybe that's because their parents are smaller.
Think about it. Two brothers, one big and burley and the other smaller and frail. Which one is going to take over the farm and which one is likely to move to the city to get a job?
All these data are after the fact. The only experimental data - the kind of data you need to answer the question of causality - is from genetic studies. They mainly from agriculture and animal breeding. Genetics of humans is a taboo topic.
The problem for Jamar is that the economic value of the ability to make a 3 point shot is zero unless he is so good that he makes the NBA(in which case it is worth a lot).
Meanwhile Poindexter's math ability has a positive economic value along a wide spectrum of ability.
Yet the federal government's discrimination rules prohibit recognizing that Jamar and Poindexter have different economic values.
This would indicate that Africans who burn wood should have higher IQ than city-bred Europeans. Doesn't seem to be the case.
Libtard BS. Many animals have far superior physical skills than any human athlete and they are not equally intelligent as humans by any sane definition of the word. Unlike animals, human evolution is largely driven by warfare. Never go to war unless you have more Poindexters on your side than your opponent.
Roughly half of the difference is explained by genetics but the other half is environmental. A big city full of Democrats is not a healthy place to raise a child for a long list of reasons.
The relative proportion accounted for by genetics versus environment isn’t well determined yet. It probably varies by characteristic. The safest bet, given no further data, is to estimate it at .5 but that’s just an estimate.
I totally agree that a rural environment is the best and safest, assuming the child is kept away from farming pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals. It’s in our genes to want to be close to the earth and not raised in a concrete and asphalt environment.
The smell of the soil stirs the ancient memories of our ancestors. It’s got to be good for our brain chemistry. Just two weeks ago I planted the peas and some cabbage. Just working the soil has to be better than any kind of psychotherapy.
Yet the federal government’s discrimination rules prohibit recognizing that Jamar and Poindexter have different economic values.
Libtard BS.
;-)
Why is that?
Is anybody seriously contending that in this country rich people are on average of higher IQ than poor people? Really?
Since we know IQ is at least 50% hereditable, wouldn't we expect this correlation?
Notice none of the others are referred to as "liberal political scientists." Though they almost certainly are.
Since we know IQ is at least 50% hereditable, wouldn’t we expect this correlation?
I think the main factor is pre- and post-natal care. And the post-natal goes all the way to the teenaged years. It includes not just a proper diet but the best training.
i.e. take an illegitimate baby from a dirt poor mom that at least gave it good pre-natal care, adopt it out to a well off and caring family, and you could end up with a VERY intelligent individual in adulthood.
Since we know IQ is at least 50% hereditable, wouldn’t we expect this correlation?
1. Diet - there are a LOT more fat people here.
2. Lack of good hairdressers, money for stylish clothing, or motivation to make yourself look nice.
Last time I looked at the data, the studies seemed to indicate between 2/3 & 3/4 heredity. But be that as it may.
The Left has to embrace the make-believe world of human interchangeability in order to keep their grievance (Blame & Envy) explanation for inequality, viable. Once you recognize that most high achievers deserve to be high achievers, and are not exploiting those who are not, the whole rationalization for turning society upside down by bureaucratic intervention, crumbles in the dust where it belongs.
Of course two very smart people can have a dumb kid and the reverse.
So what? The children of intelligent people are on average going to be more intelligent than the children of stupid people.
Why would anybody even try to argue this point?
Two tall people can have a short child, and two short people can have a really tall child, but on average heredity does its thing.
How does anybody think we developed dog and horse breeds?
Many (most) characteristics are hereditable.
One could, in theory, breed humans for desired characteristics (intelligence, beauty, height, etc.) just like any other species of animal. Ideas for doing so have always foundered on two rocks: the people in question won't cooperate, and the long breeding cycle of humans makes it impractical relative to other animals. (Not to mention ethical considerations. :))
That is what people are, you know, animals. We are not JUST animals, but that is what at root we are.
The problem is that people don’t usually select their mate based on intelligence. This includes “the rich” as well as “The Poor”.
This may enlighten:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BKPgI5lw_Q
BTW, I was basically parroting information I got from an article in Scientific American about 30 years ago. It was comparing sex with cloning and had a funny picture of “obviously dumb as a box of hammers” parents beaming over their daughter singing and dancing in her crib.
This used to be the case.
Until quite recently in historical time, there were far more intelligent people than occupations in which their intelligence was needed or even particularly rewarded. Thus for most of human history there have been large numbers of highly intelligent slaves, serfs, peasants, etc. In such occupations high intelligence may often have been a handicap, leading to inappropriate behavior punished by the power that be.
High status in society was determined more by birth than by competence. Thus there were many high status but dumb people, and lots of smart but low-status people. People associated closely with, and married and had children with, people of widely varying IQs.
This situation has completely reversed. The only occupations in which there is more demand than supply are those requiring high intelligence.
Male doctors and lawyers associate mostly with female doctors and lawyers and are much more likely to marry them than in the past, when they tended to marry secretaries, etc. This was of course because there were very few female doctors and lawyers.
IOW, this country is largely sorting itself out by status, and therefore in a rough way by intelligence, and people mostly marry within these groups.
Not entirely a positive development, IMO, but one that cannot be stopped in a free society.
This was all covered in the Bell Curve 20 years ago, and the trends they discussed have only increased since then.
The issue here is one of opportunity. If government raises the bar on work via zoning, licensing, permitting and work laws, then they’re really making it hard for the poor to succeed. You don’t need to be highly intelligent to be successful. You just need the opportunity.
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.