4 ms·
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 th
by talles 11y ago
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 11y agoIt'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 11y ago"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 11y ago"Associated with" means correlation, not causation. They're being quite careful in how they word it.
- talles 11y agoWhat 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 11y agoYou'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 11y agoEven 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.