5 ms·

Not when it comes to pure improvisation and ingenuity to get by, solve or problem and make life easier. It's astounding what people in that situation can come

by ourcat 8y ago

Not when it comes to pure improvisation and ingenuity to get by, solve or problem and make life easier. It's astounding what people in that situation can come up with.

matte_black 8y ago
Wouldn’t that be explained by survivorship bias?
- closeparen 8y ago
  It's possible but not typical to literally die of poverty in the United States.
  - dv_dt 8y ago
    I think that is systematically untrue. Poverty is correlated with a shorter lifespan. More graphs in the second link... https://news.stanford.edu/2016/04/11/geography-income-play-roles-in-life-expectancy-new-stanford-research-shows/ https://news.stanford.edu/2016/04/11/geography-income-play-r... "Being richer was associated with living longer at every level of the income distribution. And the gap between the richest 1 percent and the bottom 1 percent in the nation was vast. At 40, the richest men could expect to live to 87 while the bottom 1 percent had a life expectancy of just above 72 – equal to the average in a developing country like Sudan" https://healthinequality.org/documents/paper/healthineq_summary.pdf https://healthinequality.org/documents/paper/healthineq_summ...
    - Domenic_S 8y ago
      That's a deeply reductionist way of looking at it. > At the same time, the researchers are quick to point out that the findings cannot immediately be reduced to simple cause-and-effect explanations. For instance, as social scientists have long observed, it is very hard to say whether having wealth leads to better health — or if health, on aggregate, is a prerequisite for accumulating wealth. Most likely, the two interact in complex ways, something the study cannot resolve. - https://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap-us-0411 https://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap... In other words, this is a chicken-and-egg problem.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - dv_dt 8y ago
        If you parse that question carefully, it is not asking if existing wealth can help confer health. The question is if health is needed to accumulate (more) wealth. Word in () added. And that seems like a silly question - of course people are going to have more difficulty accumulating wealth with sufficiently bad health.. I think there is a definite policy question of how exactly is it that wealth helps grant better health, and can we effectively increase our society's health by knowing in more detail... but to me the fundamental link doesn't have much more to prove with that data.
  - klmr 8y ago
    Leaving mortality aside, survivorship doesn’t just apply to literal death; it usually (and importantly here) applies to sampling: Let’s assume for argument’s sake that poverty does indeed have a significant, detrimental effect on brain development. If a researcher now looks at poor people that beat the odds, they might well observe that these people used their (above-average) intelligence to surmount problems in their lives cause by poverty. But it would be invalid to use that observation to extrapolate that all (or most) poor people possess this kind of ingenuity. No: it was only the ones that were very smart to begin with. This faulty generalisation would indeed be an instance of survivorship bias.
  - splitrocket 8y ago
    Incorrect. https://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap-us-0411 https://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap...
- tlarkworthy 8y ago
  Intelligence is a better predictor for success than wealth https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329142035.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329142035.h...
  - jonbarker 8y ago
    Intelligence is mostly a result of environment: access to 1-1 tutors, high quality nutrition, supportive peers. None of these things exist in poor areas in the US as far as I can tell.
    - quantumofmalice 8y ago
      That is not true. Adult intelligence appears to be ~70-80% based on genetic factors. See The Neuroscience of Intelligence by Richard Haier for an overview of the current consensus in intelligence research.
      - moate 8y ago
        IQ tests are frequently biased. How biased will vary from test to test. Also, the data is can be misinterpreted by those unfamiliar with the tests procedures/results 1 70-80% comes from where? Nobody knows exactly what the "smart genes" are, and studies in twins show that variance between individuals in IQ is about 50%-60% genetic...or 40-50% environmental factors2A/2B Even Haier has said that the fact that intelligence is in some way genetic just means that the factors that might influence those aspects of it would also need to be genetic. This can include things like nutrition and mental illness/stress, which are more prevalent among poorer communities. TL;dr- Just because it's genetic, doesn't mean that it's determined at birth. Your biochemistry is constantly changing based on your environment. 1- http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2013/09/intelligence-testing-accurate-or.html http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2013/09/intelligence-testi... 2A- http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influ... 2B*- https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence
- gtowey 8y ago
  Bingo. I think there are different kinds of poverty being assumed here. On one had you have the innovation coming from the poverty of Cuba where they have adapted in amazing ways. But that's a society where poverty is the norm and things like family structure isn't much affected by it (I'm guessing). On the other hand you have the poverty of the US where it's not the norm. The gulf between poor and rich (or just middle class) is overwhelming. The poor in the US are marginalized -- living in the least desirable areas, terrible access to education, jobs, grocery stores. High crime, broken families. Kids grow up with constant police sirens, sounds of domestic disputes, drugs, crumbling houses. That stress takes a toll. Focus on education is secondary to just surviving another day. Long term stress has been shown to cause a constellation of effects that are ruinous for our health -- mentally and physically. Remember: it's not the absolute value that matters in poverty, it's the income inequality.
  - graeme 8y ago
    Cuba has a lot of inequality too. There's a massive gulf between those with family abroad and those who have to make do only with the income from the (broken) official system. On the other hand, there is very little crime or drugs, and consequently few sirens. So even though Cuba does have slums, there are elements that are better than a poor person in the US would experience. You also don't need a car or need expensive shelter, so there's less chance that everything will crumble if you hit a financial snag. My understanding is that is a major source of stress for US poor. I don't have enough firsthand experience to know whether family structure is affected. But there are definite class differences you can note when talking to people.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
cryptoz 8y ago
> can come up with The ability of a population to sometimes come up with incredible solutions does not negate the theory that growing up poor harms brain development. You have structured your post as a criticism or denial of the point in the article, but your post is just a logical fallacy that makes no sense. Additionally, your post suggests that you think poverty is almost a desirable situation, you show no compassion or concern for the 40 million Americans living in poverty or how the system of American capitalism has left so many of them with likely brain development problems. You dismiss leading science and modern culture for an attitude that certaintly doesn't belong in reasonable conversation online or anywhere. Your post is effectively 'F the poor, nothing is wrong with the situation, they are smart enough to get out of the whole we put them in, who cares about trying to help them or even understand what poverty is like'.
crunchlibrarian 8y ago
The other side of the coin (having grown up dirt poor, nearly starved to death as a child) is that by the time I hit 45 about half my high school class was already dead. Mostly alcohol and the sorts of accidents that come from working dangerous jobs. Only a couple really made it out and thrived, of the ones that remain many are broken and on barbiturates or meth, still just trying to make it through the day somehow. I work with a lot of people now who grew up wealthy on the east coast or in Orange County, and they often just don't believe me that people starved to death a couple states over while they were summering at the Hamptons. These venn diagrams just don't mix, ever.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Hell, on this board itself, there are many people who will flat out say, "Hunger is not a problem in the US," when talking about people losing jobs.

by ourcat 8y ago

Not when it comes to pure improvisation and ingenuity to get by, solve or problem and make life easier. It's astounding what people in that situation can come up with.

matte_black 8y ago

Wouldn’t that be explained by survivorship bias?

closeparen 8y ago
It's possible but not typical to literally die of poverty in the United States.
- dv_dt 8y ago
  I think that is systematically untrue. Poverty is correlated with a shorter lifespan. More graphs in the second link... https://news.stanford.edu/2016/04/11/geography-income-play-roles-in-life-expectancy-new-stanford-research-shows/ https://news.stanford.edu/2016/04/11/geography-income-play-r... "Being richer was associated with living longer at every level of the income distribution. And the gap between the richest 1 percent and the bottom 1 percent in the nation was vast. At 40, the richest men could expect to live to 87 while the bottom 1 percent had a life expectancy of just above 72 – equal to the average in a developing country like Sudan" https://healthinequality.org/documents/paper/healthineq_summary.pdf https://healthinequality.org/documents/paper/healthineq_summ...
  - Domenic_S 8y ago
    That's a deeply reductionist way of looking at it. > At the same time, the researchers are quick to point out that the findings cannot immediately be reduced to simple cause-and-effect explanations. For instance, as social scientists have long observed, it is very hard to say whether having wealth leads to better health — or if health, on aggregate, is a prerequisite for accumulating wealth. Most likely, the two interact in complex ways, something the study cannot resolve. - https://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap-us-0411 https://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap... In other words, this is a chicken-and-egg problem.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - dv_dt 8y ago
      If you parse that question carefully, it is not asking if existing wealth can help confer health. The question is if health is needed to accumulate (more) wealth. Word in () added. And that seems like a silly question - of course people are going to have more difficulty accumulating wealth with sufficiently bad health.. I think there is a definite policy question of how exactly is it that wealth helps grant better health, and can we effectively increase our society's health by knowing in more detail... but to me the fundamental link doesn't have much more to prove with that data.
- klmr 8y ago
  Leaving mortality aside, survivorship doesn’t just apply to literal death; it usually (and importantly here) applies to sampling: Let’s assume for argument’s sake that poverty does indeed have a significant, detrimental effect on brain development. If a researcher now looks at poor people that beat the odds, they might well observe that these people used their (above-average) intelligence to surmount problems in their lives cause by poverty. But it would be invalid to use that observation to extrapolate that all (or most) poor people possess this kind of ingenuity. No: it was only the ones that were very smart to begin with. This faulty generalisation would indeed be an instance of survivorship bias.
- splitrocket 8y ago
  Incorrect. https://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap-us-0411 https://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap...
tlarkworthy 8y ago
Intelligence is a better predictor for success than wealth https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329142035.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329142035.h...
- jonbarker 8y ago
  Intelligence is mostly a result of environment: access to 1-1 tutors, high quality nutrition, supportive peers. None of these things exist in poor areas in the US as far as I can tell.
  - quantumofmalice 8y ago
    That is not true. Adult intelligence appears to be ~70-80% based on genetic factors. See The Neuroscience of Intelligence by Richard Haier for an overview of the current consensus in intelligence research.
    - moate 8y ago
      IQ tests are frequently biased. How biased will vary from test to test. Also, the data is can be misinterpreted by those unfamiliar with the tests procedures/results 1 70-80% comes from where? Nobody knows exactly what the "smart genes" are, and studies in twins show that variance between individuals in IQ is about 50%-60% genetic...or 40-50% environmental factors2A/2B Even Haier has said that the fact that intelligence is in some way genetic just means that the factors that might influence those aspects of it would also need to be genetic. This can include things like nutrition and mental illness/stress, which are more prevalent among poorer communities. TL;dr- Just because it's genetic, doesn't mean that it's determined at birth. Your biochemistry is constantly changing based on your environment. 1- http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2013/09/intelligence-testing-accurate-or.html http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2013/09/intelligence-testi... 2A- http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influ... 2B*- https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence
gtowey 8y ago
Bingo. I think there are different kinds of poverty being assumed here. On one had you have the innovation coming from the poverty of Cuba where they have adapted in amazing ways. But that's a society where poverty is the norm and things like family structure isn't much affected by it (I'm guessing). On the other hand you have the poverty of the US where it's not the norm. The gulf between poor and rich (or just middle class) is overwhelming. The poor in the US are marginalized -- living in the least desirable areas, terrible access to education, jobs, grocery stores. High crime, broken families. Kids grow up with constant police sirens, sounds of domestic disputes, drugs, crumbling houses. That stress takes a toll. Focus on education is secondary to just surviving another day. Long term stress has been shown to cause a constellation of effects that are ruinous for our health -- mentally and physically. Remember: it's not the absolute value that matters in poverty, it's the income inequality.
- graeme 8y ago
  Cuba has a lot of inequality too. There's a massive gulf between those with family abroad and those who have to make do only with the income from the (broken) official system. On the other hand, there is very little crime or drugs, and consequently few sirens. So even though Cuba does have slums, there are elements that are better than a poor person in the US would experience. You also don't need a car or need expensive shelter, so there's less chance that everything will crumble if you hit a financial snag. My understanding is that is a major source of stress for US poor. I don't have enough firsthand experience to know whether family structure is affected. But there are definite class differences you can note when talking to people.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

cryptoz 8y ago

> can come up with The ability of a population to sometimes come up with incredible solutions does not negate the theory that growing up poor harms brain development. You have structured your post as a criticism or denial of the point in the article, but your post is just a logical fallacy that makes no sense. Additionally, your post suggests that you think poverty is almost a desirable situation, you show no compassion or concern for the 40 million Americans living in poverty or how the system of American capitalism has left so many of them with likely brain development problems. You dismiss leading science and modern culture for an attitude that certaintly doesn't belong in reasonable conversation online or anywhere. Your post is effectively 'F the poor, nothing is wrong with the situation, they are smart enough to get out of the whole we put them in, who cares about trying to help them or even understand what poverty is like'.

crunchlibrarian 8y ago

The other side of the coin (having grown up dirt poor, nearly starved to death as a child) is that by the time I hit 45 about half my high school class was already dead. Mostly alcohol and the sorts of accidents that come from working dangerous jobs. Only a couple really made it out and thrived, of the ones that remain many are broken and on barbiturates or meth, still just trying to make it through the day somehow. I work with a lot of people now who grew up wealthy on the east coast or in Orange County, and they often just don't believe me that people starved to death a couple states over while they were summering at the Hamptons. These venn diagrams just don't mix, ever.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
Hell, on this board itself, there are many people who will flat out say, "Hunger is not a problem in the US," when talking about people losing jobs.