Poverty->stress->bad memory->underachievement->poverty

The Coffee Shop
1

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13403177&source=hptextfeature

“That stress, and stress alone, is responsible for damaging the working memories of poor children thus looks like a strong hypothesis. It is also backed up by work done on both people and laboratory animals, which shows that stress changes the activity of neurotransmitters, the chemicals that carry signals from one nerve cell to another in the brain. Stress also suppresses the generation of new nerve cells in the brain, and causes the “remodelling” of existing ones. Most significantly of all, it shrinks the volume of the prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus. These are the parts of the brain most closely associated with working memory.”

2

That is a pretty amazing study. I am going to do a little research on this and find the primary source for this.

Bernie

3

What I am pondering on is, if the study is true, what catering mechanisms in a purely capitalist society are available to break this cycle.

4

what catering mechanisms in a purely capitalist society are available to break this cycle.

I don’t know. I am a mere firefighter/paramedic/psychology student. My interest in this article is more based on the stress response on the neurotransmitters that affect the working memory development.

Looking at the cycle, it would seem to me that you need to break it at the poverty->stress. I wonder what would happen if you taught kids how to effectively deal with stress. There are techniques that are shown to work to reduce stress. Teach them to kids. This is probably too simplistic of an approach.

You could address the stress->bad memory part of the cycle with medications…but that is simply treating the symptom. Breaking the cycle ar bad memory->underachievement connection sounds suspiciously like where our education system is today (rewarding underachievers because we don’t want them to have low self-esteem).

Very interesting.

Bernie

5

what catering mechanisms in a purely capitalist society are available to break this cycle.

I would say that capitalism would effectively deal with this at each and every step.

Let’s assume this is the cycle poverty->stress->bad memory->underachievement->poverty It would stand to reason that at any point in this cycle you can make “Improvements” you would lessen the effects of the cycle. Let’s also assume that ones “Stress level” is not only associated with poverty level only.

First “Poverty”, which countries have the least amount of “Poverty”, in almost every case the countries that have the highest level of truly free market capitalism. So the effects of capitalism often times deals with the problem directly by simply lowering the likely hood that one is even in poverty. The number of people being lifted out of poverty in countries like China and India due mostly to free market capitalism is truly astounding when one steps back and looks at it.

Second, “Stress”. I would contend that there are all sorts of kinds of stress. The “Stress” of poverty is likely quite damaging as well as simply disruptive. Wondering where ones next meal is coming from I can only imagine causes the exact “Over stress” conditions mentioned in the article. Also coupled with this stress would be the stress in a “non free market” of the “Loss of freedom” and stress brought about by not being able to pursue ones actual desired path. Granted a free market does not deal with the “stress” associated with lack of food, housing shelter, but it does deal with the “hope” issue and allows one to pursue ones dreams if they so desire.

Third, bad memory. I actually see this as only a very minute portion of the problem and once again a “Free market” allows just about anyone, good memory or otherwise a chance to succeed. Those that fail horribly in “Academics” have often times become successful in a “Free market”. “Bad memory” does not equate to “No talent”. A free market is FAR FAR better at exploiting the resources available to it than any other system we have implemented to date. Thus a child with a resultant “Bad memory” still has a far greater chance of success in a “Free market” than does a child with the same condition in a controlled market or strongly suppressed market.

Fourth underachievement, I see above. “Underachievement” is a “Narrowly defined” description, often times referring to “Education”. A free market does really discriminate on education, it looks to fill “Needs”. If “Education” is needed that’s what it looks for, if a hammer swinger is needed, that’s what is looked for. People “Achieve” based on their desires and choices, which is a great “stress reliever”…again breaking the cycle.

~Matt

6

that data does not back up the claim that stress, and stress alone, damages the memories of poor children.

There is plenty of evidence that genetics plays a major, even overwhelming role.

Just as there is evidence that stress and diet contribute to cognitive function.

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13403177&source=hptextfeature

“That stress, and stress alone, is responsible for damaging the working memories of poor children thus looks like a strong hypothesis. It is also backed up by work done on both people and laboratory animals, which shows that stress changes the activity of neurotransmitters, the chemicals that carry signals from one nerve cell to another in the brain. Stress also suppresses the generation of new nerve cells in the brain, and causes the “remodelling” of existing ones. Most significantly of all, it shrinks the volume of the prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus. These are the parts of the brain most closely associated with working memory.”

7

healthy school breakfasts and lunches, excellent public schools.

take 3/4s of every social welfare dollar and move it into hiring more qualified, more talented teachers and better school food and security.

What I am pondering on is, if the study is true, what catering mechanisms in a purely capitalist society are available to break this cycle.

8

healthy school breakfasts and lunches, excellent public schools.

take 3/4s of every social welfare dollar and move it into hiring more qualified, more talented teachers and better school food and security.

Are these not “Socialist” programs which do not fall under the realm of a “Free market”?

~Matt

9

They are, I don’t share your optimism that a purely free market would address this issues optimally as it requires too much long term planning and cooperation between companies and industries =)

healthy school breakfasts and lunches, excellent public schools.

take 3/4s of every social welfare dollar and move it into hiring more qualified, more talented teachers and better school food and security.

Are these not “Socialist” programs which do not fall under the realm of a “Free market”?

~Matt

10

They are, I don’t share your optimism that a purely free market would address this issues optimally as it requires too much long term planning and cooperation between companies and industries =)

But that wasn’t the question this was.

***what catering mechanisms in a purely capitalist society are available to break this cycle. ***

I merely listed “Some” mechanism that I thought would break the cycle, I did not say that “Some” socialist policy might help as well.

In response to your…

healthy school breakfasts and lunches, excellent public schools.

take 3/4s of every social welfare dollar and move it into hiring more qualified, more talented teachers and better school food and security.

I would state as before that there is very little evidence that “More” money is as large as a factor or even close to “Changing the environment”.

You can dump 10X the money into schools but if 50% the students believe they won’t live past 21 they probably aren’t going to be very good students.

Change the environment first. My suggestion would be to legalize drugs as a start and drive the gangs out of the drug business. Lower the crime rates and take away “Quick drug money” as a career opportunity.

Next I would put the people receiving “Social welfare” to work if they were even close to able bodied. Plenty of crap needs to be cleaned up in every community and there’s always something that needs to be done. You end up implementing a “Work ethic”, create pride in the community and parents that start to make sure their kids aren’t out vandalizing because they are going to have to clean up after them.

As the community cleans up, people realize that they could probably make more money working a regular job and people in general start to create “Self worth” businesses will move in rather than out. Eventually there will be a market for “Private” schools just as there is in the suburbs and people will start to place more importance on education, again like they do in non poverty stricken areas.

I know, life thru my rose colored glasses, but I’ve yet to see anyone tell me how “Welfare” does anything to “Teach a man to fish”, it doesn’t and it won’t.

Also I’m not against “Socialist” programs where they are TRULY needed. We will always have people that have no one and no resources, I’m not against helping those people out. However we have gone WAY past that point with our social programs and in essence have destroyed the ability of many individuals to learn and thrive by “Providing” everything for them.

~Matt

11

I agree that money is not a sufficient condition to make education work better

but it may be a necessary condition =)

i like the legalize drugs idea, you either need to do that or use a carpet bomb approach to the drug war. throw out most of american law and just kill the bad guys and a few innocents along the way in the name of progress.

They are, I don’t share your optimism that a purely free market would address this issues optimally as it requires too much long term planning and cooperation between companies and industries =)

But that wasn’t the question this was.

***what catering mechanisms in a purely capitalist society are available to break this cycle. ***

I merely listed “Some” mechanism that I thought would break the cycle, I did not say that “Some” socialist policy might help as well.

In response to your…

healthy school breakfasts and lunches, excellent public schools.

take 3/4s of every social welfare dollar and move it into hiring more qualified, more talented teachers and better school food and security.

I would state as before that there is very little evidence that “More” money is as large as a factor or even close to “Changing the environment”.

You can dump 10X the money into schools but if 50% the students believe they won’t live past 21 they probably aren’t going to be very good students.

Change the environment first. My suggestion would be to legalize drugs as a start and drive the gangs out of the drug business. Lower the crime rates and take away “Quick drug money” as a career opportunity.

Next I would put the people receiving “Social welfare” to work if they were even close to able bodied. Plenty of crap needs to be cleaned up in every community and there’s always something that needs to be done. You end up implementing a “Work ethic”, create pride in the community and parents that start to make sure their kids aren’t out vandalizing because they are going to have to clean up after them.

As the community cleans up, people realize that they could probably make more money working a regular job and people in general start to create “Self worth” businesses will move in rather than out. Eventually there will be a market for “Private” schools just as there is in the suburbs and people will start to place more importance on education, again like they do in non poverty stricken areas.

I know, life thru my rose colored glasses, but I’ve yet to see anyone tell me how “Welfare” does anything to “Teach a man to fish”, it doesn’t and it won’t.

Also I’m not against “Socialist” programs where they are TRULY needed. We will always have people that have no one and no resources, I’m not against helping those people out. However we have gone WAY past that point with our social programs and in essence have destroyed the ability of many individuals to learn and thrive by “Providing” everything for them.

~Matt

12

I agree that money is not a sufficient condition to make education work better

but it may be a necessary condition =)

My approach is that whenever you have a “Study” that shows something to be so insignificant in results that it could very well be “Background” noise as a factor, it makes little sense to “concentrate” on that factor.

I agree, without doubt money will be necessary to have “Successful” education. But when you have some districts that are doing 2-3x better on similar or less money than other districts, it’s pretty obvious there are factors far greater than money alone. Makes no sense to try and change the minor factor and do nothing about the major factors.

Problem is that in this case the major factor, changing the peoples mindset, doesn’t fall into the parameters of what we believe can be done the easy way, which is “Throw more money at it”, so we choose to ignore the real problem.

I guess I could say the same thing about many of our “Social ills” though.

i like the legalize drugs idea,

People asked for change, for the love of god give it to them :-). Seems we’ve been doing things this way for several decades and doesn’t seem to be working, time something REALLY different I say.

you either need to do that or use a carpet bomb approach to the drug war.

No need, have you seen some of these places? Take a wrong turn in Chicago and it pretty much looks like it had been carpet bombed. I’m guessing I’ve never been to the REALLY bad places either.

~Matt

13

You would need to control that for the quality of the students they get, I think. Also you may have a case wherein, a states salaries for teachers attracts X many decent teachers.

And the better schools get them ALL because being good performers they are able to work that out for themselves.

Higher salaries could deepen the pool of good teachers.

Just total wild ass guess on my part though

I agree, without doubt money will be necessary to have “Successful” education. But when you have some districts that are doing 2-3x better on similar or less money than other districts, it’s pretty obvious there are factors far greater than money alone. Makes no sense to try and change the minor factor and do nothing about the major factors.

14

You would need to control that for the quality of the students they get

And again is this not a product of the community and has nothing to do with money? In essence smae money better results, why, better students.

Also you may have a case wherein, a states salaries for teachers attracts X many decent teachers.

And the better schools get them ALL because being good performers they are able to work that out for themselves.

Higher salaries could deepen the pool of good teachers.

I’m not discounting the idea that “More pay” will get better results. What I’m suggesting is that from the data we have the effect is minimal enough that without MASSIVE increases of pay, something we can’t afford, it’s to be insignificant.

When you have one district that is getting “X” dollars per student, and another district getting the same yet you have completely different results as far as student success there’s something going on besides “Better pay for teachers”.

We aren’t talking a few percent here but factors. My unsubstantiated guess is that doubling the pay that teachers get in Detroit is not going to get the graduation rate to that of some districts that are currently paying there teachers substantial less and have a 70-75% graduation rate were as Detroit is around 25%.

I’m certain we can’t afford to double the pay of teachers so we can bump that 25% up to say 35%…which I’m guessing is closer to what might happen, again just a guess.

~Matt

15

“I agree that money is not a sufficient condition to make education work better but it may be a necessary condition.”

Without boring everyone with an extensive analysis of the relationship between money and education, I just wanted to make one observation. Any time you’re talking about the contribution of some factor (money in this case) toward the production of a good (education in this case), you have to recognize that in economics it is not generally an issue of all vs. nothing, but rather of marginal benefit. In other words, no one is suggesting that education does not require any money; in that sense, everyone acknowledges that money is a “necessary condition.” The real question, as Matt observed, is whether more money will be of as much benefit as other approaches, such as the changes in environment that he recommends.