
How Poverty Changes Kids’ Brains - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/blog/how-poverty-changes-kids-brains
======
jinushaun
As someone who grew up poor (but not in utter poverty thanks to food stamps
and free school lunches) and is now making good money in tech, I'm actually
more concerned about the effects of HIGH income on kids' brains.

Unlike the overall negative tone of this study, I feel like poor kids actually
have an advantage because they have a natural instinct to try harder to
survive. Of course, there will always be those who simply give up because they
think their station in life is set. It's probably more likely society and
culture that keeps them down, not brain development.

On the other, rich kids have a skewed sense of need versus want, as well as
effort versus reward. If everything comes easy, I'd argue rich kids are more
developmentally challenged, possess less problem solving skills—especially
under pressure—less able to deal with failure and less creative. Hence the
"spoiled rich kid" stereotype. Whereas society constantly reminds poor kids
all the things they can't do, rich kids are constantly reminded that they can
do anything they want. Even well-meaning efforts like the "privilege" comic
strip a while back reinforces this meme. I think that's where the real
advantage comes from, and why the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

This is something very top of mind right now as I start to plan to have kids.

~~~
aantix
You may want to check the research on this. The book escapes me, but I
remember there being mounting research that says in general, long term
stressors make you weaker, not stronger.

_What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Weaker_

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-
therapy/201008/...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-
therapy/201008/what-doesnt-kill-you-makes-you-weaker)

"Developmental research has shown convincingly that traumatized children are
more, not less, likely to be traumatized again. Kids who grow up in a tough
neighborhood become weaker, not stronger. They are more, not less likely to
struggle in the world."

You're probably successful in spite of, not because of, the circumstances of
your upbringing.

~~~
pdex
On the other hand suffering builds resilience and character.

[https://ptgi.uncc.edu/files/2015/01/Positive-outcomes-
follow...](https://ptgi.uncc.edu/files/2015/01/Positive-outcomes-following-
bereavement.pdf)

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023034961045755602...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303496104575560261828332840)

[https://webfiles.uci.edu/rsilver/Seery,%20Holman,%20&%20Silv...](https://webfiles.uci.edu/rsilver/Seery,%20Holman,%20&%20Silver%202010%20JPSP.pdf)

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/out-the-
darkness/201111...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/out-the-
darkness/201111/can-suffering-make-us-stronger)

------
ideonexus
When I was going to become a father, this became a subject of great interest
for me. I want my children to grow up in an environment associated with the
highest-possible IQs. In my research, I learned that President Nixon created
the social welfare program WIC because the science of the time overwhelmingly
indicated that malnutrition and childhood stress was causing children to grow
up to become a burden on society. If society spends the money on social
welfare programs to alleviate that stress in childhood, we save money on
having to incarcerate or support adults who are incapable of contributing to
society.

That said, this article is extremely light on the science and history of how
and why we know what we know. I've written an essay on the history and hard-
science behind why we have social welfare and how we know why poverty
influences IQ if anyone is interested in learning more about it:

[https://medium.com/@ideonexus/the-scientific-imperative-
for-...](https://medium.com/@ideonexus/the-scientific-imperative-for-social-
welfare-809a49171f2d)

This is not new information. We have known about this correlation--and more
importantly the causation--for decades. I wish it would become common
knowledge so we can stop rediscovering it and debating it each time it comes
up.

~~~
kefka
"But the $X cost I can ignore now looks better on the books rather than 20
years down the line with $1000x cost it will cost to fix."

/kicking cans

~~~
yummyfajitas
20 years later, do we have any evidence of a 1000x benefit, or even a 2x
benefit?

~~~
kefka
Better question is "Do we have the measurements to be able to say what kind of
losses/gains are done by differing policy?"

I'm going by logic that Ben Franklin said, "An ounce of prevention is equal to
a pound of cure." However I admit that I accept this by experience, and not by
scientific study.

------
mbesto
Socioeconomic status is simply a proxy for the amount of engagement parents
have with their children in the first 1000 days of a child's life. This is
pretty well studied and documented by the Stanford infant learning lab:

[https://web.stanford.edu/group/langlearninglab/cgi-
bin/publi...](https://web.stanford.edu/group/langlearninglab/cgi-
bin/publications.php)

[http://www.versame.com/research/](http://www.versame.com/research/)

EDIT: Point being, lower socioeconomic households can speak more to their
children for free, and the brain development would much greater match those in
higher SES.

~~~
scott_s
The authors were asked about potential reasons, and responded with:

 _There are many pathways potentially linking family economic circumstances
and brain structure and function, and we are very interested in two of them.
The first is the investment, or “what money can buy,” pathway. Parents with
more resources can buy more books and toys, afford better child-care
experiences, provide housing in better neighborhoods, and provide better
learning opportunities inside and outside the home.

The second possibility is the family-stress pathway: Families facing economic
strain often deal with stressors that are associated with less responsive and
less warm parenting. If the parents are very worried about how to keep the
lights on, or they have to work that third job, they’re less able to be
present with their kids._

I suspect it's a combination of the two.

------
bobby_9x
Is it poverty or the culture and actions of the parents that raise these
children?

I grew up poor, yet my family stressed education (I had a library card at 6
and checked out books every week for 10+ growing up). Myself and my 3 brothers
all went to college and have somewhat successful careers. My dad is uneducated
and grew up so poor, he couldn't even afford clothes.

Friends that I had that were poor didn't have that push in education and never
went to college and are still in the same place they were when we used to hang
out 15 years ago (minimum wage job..living paycheck to paycheck)

There are TONS of resources to get ahead and now with free Internet at pretty
much every library in the US, you can get educated on many topics without
paying a dime.

Have they looked at the children of immigrants that came to the US 30+ years
ago? Many of these children went on to have successful careers and grew up in
abject poverty.

A friend of mine works as a teacher in one of the poorest school districts in
the US. She has heart-breaking stories about how no matter how much a child
learns in the classroom, it's all negated when they get home because the
parents either don't care, can't help (many don't have educations beyond
elementary school).

The problem with articles like this is that it gives this false impression
that there is no way to succeed in life if you are poor. It's doing a
disservice to all of the people really do have a chance.

Money will always give you some sort of advantage in life, but that doesn't
mean you can't overcome it with education (which is power).

Too many people are unwilling to sacrifice and do what it takes to succeed.

------
interfixus
"As neuroscientists, we believe that nothing could be further from the truth.
We know that the developing brain is very malleable. We believe that the
differences we reported are largely the result of experience, and have every
reason to believe that by changing those experiences—through preventive
measures or interventions—we can change children’s trajectories for the
better"

That's an awful lot of belief and very little inquiry concerning the genetics
behind results as reported.

~~~
danharaj
Neuroscientists also believe that all mental behavior can be correlated with
physical processes, but you will not see this belief justified every time it
is brought up. In research level geometry you will not see the definition of
manifold in the preamble of every paper, nor will you see a reference for each
standard theorem used. All domain experts have knowledge which they do not
attempt to justify to other domain experts, and someone on the outside looking
in cannot readily discern what is widely-held and justified knowledge and what
is widely-held but unjustified knowledge.

It gets even worse actually. Every scientific discipline has "folklore":
Results commonly known by experts but not organized for pedagogical purposes
anywhere. Unpublished theses, coffee table discussions, lecture notes that are
distributed in private, etc. So even if one knows where to look in the
literature to find evidence for a claim, it might not even be there. One may
have to talk to an expert directly.

------
tosseraccount
Is there a link to the source article?

I see "Ursache, A. and Noble, K.G. (under review). Socioeconomic Status, White
Matter Development, and Executive Function." from the Lab's website.

It's not clear that poverty is causing the changes, but are merely correlated.

There could be many problems with the methods which need to be examined
closely to see if the assertion that poverty is causing the changes is true
and not something like poor parenting.

------
lintiness
no attempt to understand the role genetics might play in all of this.

~~~
murbard2
It's sad because that's an obvious hypotheses (IQ correlates to income and is
hereditary) and they don't even put it an the table, at best for fear of being
treated like pariahs, at worst because they have internalized the absence of
genetic effect on intelligence and poverty as some indisputable axiom.

~~~
Moshe_Silnorin
Denying the heritability of IQ and its attendant effect on class is just
perpetuating the state they bemoan. Intelligence is heritable. Most people
desire wealth. The more intelligence you have, the more able you are to
achieve your desires. Smarter people, on average, will tend to become
wealthier than less-inteligent people. Though regression to the mean certainly
exists, even accounting for this their children will tend to be smarter than
average, which will be caused by differences in brain structure. Obviously
this is neither fair nor good. But natural selection is a lecherous
Lovecraftian horror - we should not expect it to be fair. It's up to us to fix
it. Sticking our heads in the sand an pretending everyone is equally
intelligent isn't going to fix anything.

If IQ is hereditary (which the evidence really does support) improving the
lives of impoverished children is an engineering problem - nothing some pretty
doable advances in embryo selection won't fix, basic embryo selection gives
you about a standard deviation per generation, iterated embryo selection takes
you to the edge of human capability in one conventional generation. The fact
that IQ is heritable and increases human productivity is reason for hope.
Biology is mutable, society is
fixed:[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/10/society-is-fixed-
biolog...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/10/society-is-fixed-biology-is-
mutable/)

~~~
murbard2
Mostly agreeing, but your numbers on embryo selection assume we have a
reliable model for predicting IQ from genome, which AFAIK we don't have. How
much of the variance of the IQ can we currently explain out of a genome?

~~~
Moshe_Silnorin
Yes. I should specify, we don't have it now but are likely to have it very
soon. Today embryo selection for intelligence isn't possible. I think the
higher 80%+ estimates are correct once controlling for reasonable nutrition.

------
PebblesHD
Its been said a few times already but I'd like to add in my own experience in
this area. I grew up in an environment just above what could be considered the
poverty line in Australia. Tiny house, no real toys, books, daycare etc. and
with parents who had both worked in shops or sales their entire lives. Adding
to this my father left when I was around 3 and didn't provide any support
making things a little more difficult. When I was old enough to appreciate
them my mum got me interested in books and technology, I couldn't get access
to a computer but I went to the library and the local school a lot which had
some basic tools I could use. This got me a good start in my love of
technology and an enjoyment of learning that kept me going through school even
when compared to my much better off cohort who were able to do things like
powerpoint presentations in class etc. In the long run it didn't hurt me too
badly, by the time I was getting to the end of high school I had put in enough
part time work to get my own computer and sort of bootstrapped my own learning
from that, going from programming to website creation and building from there,
that has in a few short years taken me from the absolute bear minimum
existence to quite a comfortable life as a 20-something working for a
respected financial institution and attending uni. From that I absolutely feel
that my experiences of living as I did drove me to want better and to work for
my goals, I feel like my drive gave ma an absolute edge against my better-off
peers, although I can't say I'm a picture of absolute mental health, I feel
like I became a well rounded person despite my origin. With motivation, you
can overcome disadvantages like being poor, although there are other things I
was lucky to live without like abusive or totally unsupportive and unmotivated
parents, against which I feel I would have a much lesser outlook and
possibilities.

------
andrewl
There's been a good bit of research into this at the University of
Pennsylvania's Center for Neuroscience & Society. Here's an overview:

[http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~mfarah/research/socioeconomic-
st...](http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~mfarah/research/socioeconomic-status-and-
brain/index.html)

------
dudul
"Might some people see the data about poor kids’ brains as proof that these
kids’ fates are set, and that they’ll never amount to much?

As neuroscientists, we believe that nothing could be further from the truth.
We know that the developing brain is very malleable. We believe that the
differences we reported are largely the result of experience, and have every
reason to believe that by changing those experiences—through preventive
measures or interventions—we can change children’s trajectories for the
better."

Or how not to answer the question. Sure if the study is right it may be
possible to apply preventive measures and avoid that, but that was not the
question!

The question is: do you think that by growing poor, these kids are now
"worthless". As in, is there no way to go back for the _current_ poor
children, not the ones in the blue sky future.

~~~
washadjeffmad
Isn't that was the term "poor" feels like when you use it? When you think it
about somebody you see?

There is a class of person in this world who were made slightly broken, and
whose lives and conditions embody every aspect of the term we use to describe
them: poor. Poorness in ability and work ethic, or else they would have earned
wealth. Poorness in morals, because we all know poor are more disposed toward
crime. Poorness in learning, or they would see how uncultured the way they
live and behave is. Poorness in character, since they can't muster the resolve
to elevate themselves from their state. Poorness in foresight and planning,
since any money they get they squander. They are poor because they are poorly.

In so many ways, they are like children that need the scolding and guidance of
those who have made something of their lives, or, at the very least, our mercy
and pity for lacking what the rest of us have. When you do consistently poorly
in school, you are not promoted to the grade for your failures. In the same
way, poor people should not be elevated from their class except by their own
means and efforts. And when their failures compound, though they resist,
taking their children to be raised in better homes is a kindness that saves a
life that might been ruined by their parents' poorness.

If any part of either of these passages rubs you the wrong way, why is it that
you don't you do your shopping on that side of town or worry whether your
doors are locked in some places more than other?

I know people exceptionally biased against those in poverty, who draw a broad
line between "them" and "us", without being aware. And despite years of
volunteerism, until I read "Poor Economics" by Banerjee and Duflo
([http://www.pooreconomics.com/](http://www.pooreconomics.com/)), I didn't
really understand much about how poverty worked at any scale, and I'm glad for
the excellent and sometimes damning research into its effects.

Children currently in poverty are not doomed, but resource scarcity is a
tremendous drain on their ability to engage in risky but impactful changes. I
think this complication is reinforced by mores on respecting elders and
authority, who may command that children not value academic educations over
the teachings of their family or religion or else risk punishment or conflict.
Parents who didn't receive education can also be dismissive of its value, and
prideful authoritarians can resent children who outgrow them too quickly. A
good question, then, is, how do cultures and societies survive new
information?

------
swehner
I feel this is unethical: "In this study, we’ll recruit 1,000 low-income
families across the country at the time of their children’s birth. Half of the
families will receive a large monthly income supplement, and half will receive
a nominal monthly income supplement."

~~~
saint_fiasco
How is it different from giving half the test subjects a potential cure for
cancer and the other half placebo? Scientist do that kind of thing all the
time.

~~~
droffel
Actually, I can recall reading about a few double-blind medical studies that
were terminated early, because of this very reason. The efficacy of the
treatment was so overwhelmingly positive in the variable group, that it was
deemed unethical to not give the treatment to the control group. I don't have
a citation right this second, but if you want one, I can do some searching. If
anyone remembers a particular case of this happening, I would appreciate a
citation.

~~~
DanBC
Circumcision to prevent HIV infection is one example.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV)

This strongly anti-circumcision site has some more info, but the ranting gets
a bit much: [http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-
SA.html](http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html)

------
ommunist
Is this somehow connected with Big Money influence on adult brains?

------
spatulan
So on one hand we have a scientific study, and on the other some guy on the
internet with a pet theory.

~~~
return0
Your point? You know any studies disproving his theory?

~~~
s73v3r
The one who's article we're commenting on right now?

~~~
return0
The article doesn't talk about rich kids.

------
scottmwinters
I'm rather tired of hearing that people are a product of their environment.
"Its not your fault you dont do anything with your life, its what you were
born into" is dumb as hell.

Also, this study doesn't look remotely thorough. Correlation does not imply
causation. Explain the test parameters better, etc, etc.

People are responsible for their own actions and own lives, not their
environments. Lets move on

~~~
themartorana
But... It _does_ matter. I'm personally pretty tired of hearing this "personal
responsibility" line. While I agree adults have certain responsibilities, the
idea that the cycle of poverty and crime are purely personal responsibility
failings on enormous groups of people is not only scientifically wrong, but
also terribly laden with consequences.

~~~
wpietri
Yes. The "let's move on" bit is a tell. It doesn't mean, "this is so obvious
that everybody will agree once they think about it." It's a plea to stop
thinking about it so as not to disturb his gut-level conclusion.

I can forgive that on some topics. We all have things we'd rather not think
about, biases we're inclined to protect. But when the basic line of argument
is, "I want to indulge my just-world bias [1] so please let's let young kids
continue to live in misery" it seems monstrous to me.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-
world_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis)

------
talles
If this article were tackling extreme poverty, like in the families that
literally wonders how tomorrow will be, I would probably agree with the
finding that this scenario greatly affects the brain structure.

But implying that brain development is directly affected by the family income,
without any other cultural aspect whatsoever, that's bullshit.

Brain development is not a money problem.

~~~
vinceguidry
It's not ignorance on the part of the journalists. They did not claim
causation. In fact they outlined possible root causes.

The problem is how you are reading the article.

~~~
talles
"Families facing economic strain often deal with stressors that are associated
with less responsive and less warm parenting."

"economy strain" -> poverty

"often deal with stressors" -> causes

"less responsive and less warm parenting" -> bad parenting

How come this quote doesn't read as implying causation? There's no further
explanation of such correlation other than "parents are worried on how to keep
the lights on". And that's a very simplistic and narrow attempt of an
explanation. In other words, _that 's bullshit_.

~~~
ceejayoz
"Associated with" means correlation, not causation. They're being quite
careful in how they word it.

~~~
talles
What about the article title? ("How Poverty Changes Kids’ Brains")

There's absolute no answer on "How", only a couple of poor blind guess.

"Family Income Changes Kids’ Brains" would be more honest, since this is
precisely what they found.

~~~
vinceguidry
You're misreading that too. The 'how' mentioned is indicating the measured
changes in the brain as opposed to the way in which they came about. "How did
the brain change?" "Measured surface area was reduced by 20% in the low-income
sample."

A grammatically similar statement might be "How bananas are changed when you
cut them in half," followed by a treatment of the measured effects of
different kinds of knife.

Sure, it's somewhat confusing, but the article makes it clear.

~~~
talles
Even if that's the case, I still think it's a poorly written article.

Scientists have reached a very interesting finding. You can either write an
article about how such finding was made(actual experiments, data collected,
curiosities along the work, oppositions against common sense, etc) or what
such finding means (what I already made a point).

If the article is about the finding (and not what it means), as I believe it's
what you're saying, note that there is nothing meaningful about the research
at all, just the conclusion.

Great articles tackles both points. Good articles tackles one. This article
tackles none.

