Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Poverty affects way brain works, study suggests

The Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 11:15 PM EST 04/12/08

Brains of poor children function differently from brains of kids from wealthy homes, UBC report says ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. Devonnay Stratton from Ottawa, writes: 26 children is a pretty small sample size. I'm sure this sort of research is expensive, but making conclusions based on such a small number of kids seems a bit much.
  2. michael luger from montréal, québec, Canada writes: “Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they are so clever. I’m very glad I’m a Beta, because I don’t work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki…” Brave New World, Aldous Huxley.
  3. John Smith from Canada writes: Agreed Devonnay Stratton from Ottawa, however I think the purpose of study is to begin to identify the biophysical markers or pathways to support large empirical studies that have identified association between income status and early learning.

    The headline is misleading and when one reads the article, the finding is not that "poverty affects way brain works". On the contrary, the study investigators point more towards issue of early stimulation, verbal and otherwise. They do not reach the conclusion that "poverty affects way brain works". They point out an association between income status and brain development, and they rightfully acknowledge it is a small sample. The question unanswered (in the article) is whether it is low income status or educational status of parents (with low education being strongly associated with low income) that might better explain the limited findings. The headline would suggest simply increasing income of parents would improve brain development, while other explanation would be to encourage early learning centres that provide stimulation and perhaps provide some compensation for lack of such environments at home.

    Of course, reducing poverty would be a good idea for matters of moral and fairness rather than brain development.
  4. Kim Philby from Canada writes: Besides less intellectual stimulation, another factor that may affect children from poor families is lack of proper nutrition, due either to lack of money, or parents' ignorance about nutritional matters. One of the great tragedies of third-world poverty is the number of people permanently intellectually disabled by hunger or poor nutrition in their developing years.
  5. Tree Hugger from Canada writes: I was born poor and there's nothing wrong with my brain. Skewed triangles indeed!
  6. John Smith from Canada writes: Yes Kim Philby, nutrition is important consideration as well. Also there is issue that many low income families are stressed and might have less time to spend with children trying to earn minimum buck.

    I really should qualify my last statement somewhat. I do not think we can rule out effects of poverty on brain development - simply that the headline is atrociously wrong and the article content points more to early and positive stimulation than it does an direct income effect.
  7. Fake Name from Canada writes: Skewed triangles with EEG monitoring, and a relatively small sample size? And they got published for noticing a "slight" delay?

    Sod that. Show me fMRI monitoring of a more complex test, and then we'll talk.
  8. Rudy H from Canada writes: This could have a bigger effect on the NDP than Harper taking away the subsidy.

    A joke.
  9. Fake Name from Canada writes: Rudy ... good one.
  10. El Christador from Vancouver, Canada writes: But Saint Steven Jay Gould told us that poor people are fine and poverty doesn't damage their cognitive development. There's no problem, look the other way, hide your heads in the sand, the poor aren't being hurt by poverty, they're just doing fine...
  11. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: Whoopty doo. Poor parents don't teach their kids as well when they are young. So what?
  12. El Christador from Vancouver, Canada writes: simply that the headline is atrociously wrong and the article content points more to early and positive stimulation than it does an direct income effect.

    What exactly would a "direct income effect" be? It seems obvious to me that any effects associated with poverty would have to come about through environmental conditions that one is more likely to find among poor people. I can't even imagine what it would mean to say "poverty itself" is the cause. Well, I can imagine one scenario: the net income number on the parents' paycheque could emit harmful radiation if it's sufficiently low, but that seems unlikely...

    That is, of course it's got to be environmental conditions correlated with poverty that are having the actual effect. Obviously the harmful part of poverty is not the simple lack of money, it's the consequences of that lack of money: reduced control over one's life, increased stress, reduced opportunities, increased instability, and the consequences of those things, and the interaction of all of these things together which means that poverty tends to facilitate the kind of problems which cause the actual damage, such as reduced parental interaction and an understimulating environment.
  13. emilio D from Canada writes: They should do a bigger study of this kind in B.C. to make it conclusive. British Columbia is number one province in child poverty in Canada. And that's a fact.
  14. Maximilian Widmaier from East Van, Canada writes: El Christador from Vancouver, Canada writes: "But Saint Steven Jay Gould told us that poor people are fine and poverty doesn't damage their cognitive development. There's no problem, look the other way, hide your heads in the sand, the poor aren't being hurt by poverty, they're just doing fine... "

    When did he say that, exactly? Cite the source please, I'm interested. On the surface, it looks like the exact opposite of everything Steven Jay Gould stood for. Or are you just misrepresenting him because you have some weird hobby-horse issue with the guy?
  15. Maximilian Widmaier from East Van, Canada writes: El Christador from Vancouver, Canada writes: "... Obviously the harmful part of poverty is not the simple lack of money, it's the consequences of that lack of money"

    You obviously enjoy splitting your hairs.
  16. Maximilian Widmaier from East Van, Canada writes: Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: "Whoopty doo. Poor parents don't teach their kids as well when they are young. So what?"

    Perhaps we should investigate how to improve poverty? Or how people might more effectively teach their kids maybe? Or feed them? You seem to have trouble drawing inferences.

    I agree with others though, the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions.
  17. John Smith from Canada writes: El Christador from Vancouver, i would agree these factors have an influence. However, there is evidence that poverty does not seem to affect childhood development and subsequent academic accomplishment of the children of recent immigrants who are in poverty to the same degree. Chances are, the children of a recent immigrant engineer driving a taxi and suffering low income will grow up to be an engineer rather than a taxi driver. This would tend to point towards something beyond the "environment" of poverty. The human capital of the parent and increased likelihood of creating a stimulating environment of some sort as well as having high expectations. Research by Miles Corak at U of Ottawa looking at social mobility from perspective of inter-generational economic mobility and educational achievement also indicates that it is less the level of income and probably more the equitable opportunities in development and learning that influences achievement and mobility (and presumably reflects elements of brain functioning). This is not an argument for failing to reduce poverty in this country. Poverty is unfair and a blight on Canada. Only a suggestion that if the expectation is that eliminating poverty will significantly improve life chances of poor children, one might be surprised to find otherwise in about 25/30 years. So the lack of a national system of early childhood development should be no less a concern that poverty.
  18. Pierre-Yves P from Canada writes:
    Poorly chosen title really: effort and stimulation affect brain development; and families where effort and stimulation are core values fare usually better economically that those where they are not. Correlation does not mean cause and effect relationship. Fix the values, and you will fix the poverty problem, not the other way around.
  19. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: part one of three

    No, Pierre-Yves, it is even worse than you suggest - it is without evidence to support your last (hopeful) sentence.

    .
  20. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: part two of three

    .

    In order to be persuasive, a study needs good controls.

    Did this study have good controls? The newspaper article is not clear there.

    Good controls would be looking at the brains of identical twins separated at birth, where one twin was adopted out (or otherwise separated out) to a rich family whilst the other twin stayed within (or was separated out to) a poverty situation.

    Unless some good controls are done (to address nature versus nurture), you wind up with mere correlations and some people shouting "the egg came first!" and others shouting "but no, the chicken came first!".

    .
  21. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: part three of three

    .

    So, suppose for a moment that this is the truth:

    Maybe kids in poverty tend to have parents who are not smart in the first place (which is why they fell into poverty) and genetically the kids don't get a lot of smarts genes, including the genes needed to make the smarts structures (in the brain) that were assessed.

    And maybe rich parents tend to be smart (which is how they got rich, through smart decisions) and genetically the kids get a lot of smarts genes, including genes needed to make the smarts structures (in the brain) that were assessed.

    Now, I am not saying the above is the truth, I am just saying SUPPOSE it is.

    If it is, then the study (as described) shows nothing other than not-smart parents producing not-smart children. Period. Poverty is correlative, NOT causative: The kids got the poverty because the parents were not smart, which is also why the kids aren't smart.

    That is, the study (as described) does NOT show what it claims.

    That is, it is NOT that POVERTY affects the way kids brains' work, but rather it is GENETICS that affects how much smarts a kid gets (and poverty is where not-smart parents wind up through not-smart decisions).

    A study without proper controls is not science, it is an activist's placard.

    What, if anything, were the controls in this study?

    .
  22. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: .

    Incidentally, since many folks are talking about politics and public policy, I will make clear my own preference:

    I would be perfectly happy if my own income taxes were increased a lot (like up them 10 percent or more from where they are now) if the extra collected money were to be used specifically to help the education of the poorest third of children, including breakfast and lunch programs and including early childhood education and including after school programs and school supplies and many other things.

    .
  23. The Work Farce from Canada writes: "Poverty Psucks". That's a button slogan from the 1970's. Clearly some evil force got off on it because child poverty is more common, more deeply entrenched and more established than ever before. Not rocket science. Impoverished kids grow up smaller, with smaller brains. Their nutrition is poorer. The parents have less time for care and play. Their environment is diminished. Teachers pre-judge them as less smart. Other kids bully them. They grow up stressed out with a sense of inferiority, inadequacy and helplessness. Etc.
  24. Used to be there from Canada writes: Fake Name from Canada writes: Skewed triangles with EEG monitoring, and a relatively small sample size? And they got published for noticing a "slight" delay?

    Sod that. Show me fMRI monitoring of a more complex test, and then we'll talk.

    ------------------------------------------

    Why do you assume that fMRI is superior to EEG?
  25. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: .

    The Work Farce makes a good point regarding the concept of the importance of good nutrition for healthy development of the brain and body. Incidentally, that is partly why I support school breakfast and lunch programs for poor kids.

    But it should be emphasized that THAT concept is NOT a part of this study's claimed findings and recommendations as described in the article.

    What these particular researchers are claiming, according to the article, is that "with proper training these brain differences can be eliminated" from kids in poverty, and that that needed "training" should involve more "communicating" with kids and exposing them to hundreds more words each day.

    .
  26. Moe J from Montreal, Canada writes: In the country I came from, it is just the contrary!

    It is well-known there that on average kids of higher income families score less at school and education; alternatively, those descending from lower income parents (or monoparent) are almost always occupying the honor lists and the first to enter the med, pharma, and eng. schools (which require the highest GPA achievement in high school).

    Then the 'small response delay' observed by the above researchers might be due to 'intellectual ability/wisdom/depth of analytic skills' rather than 'shallowness/lower IQ'.

    Later differences in educational level might be explained by access to university expenses, well-being of parents, and less need to pursue immediate employment.

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top