3 ms·

I suspect that the average "rich" environment is lacking plenty of things that a perfectly nurturing environment would have. If you look at this through the le

I suspect that the average "rich" environment is lacking plenty of things that a perfectly nurturing environment would have. If you look at this through the lens of Maslow's hierarchy, a kid growing up in a poor environment is going to lack the fundamentals needed for cognitive development. He may be undernourished, for example. His guardians are probably too busy trying to make ends meet to read to him. They may even actively ignore him. He's handicapped right out of the starting gate and will likely never have a chance to reach his genetic potential. In contrast, a child growing up in a rich family will have access to plenty of material goods. He's not going to worry about having to move 4 times in a year because his parents keep getting evicted. He's going to get sent to the best preschool money can buy. However, money can't buy him the drive to succeed on his own - to self-actualize, if you will. He's grown up in an environment where everything has been provided and nothing intrinsic to that environment is going to push him. He'll get closer to his genetic potential than the poor kid, but unless someone actively encourages him to develop his own potential, he's not going to get all the way, and there's your gap.

jimmyjim 16y ago
Judging from the general numbers of successful individuals having been nurtured in "rich" environments (e.g. you'll find _much_ more kids going on to college in suburban schools than in inner-city schools), I would guess that either 1) the importance of success and the things that are required to achieve that success are clear to them - and so, they're better set to make wise, informed decisions, or 2) they've already gotten into a good work ethic - and if you're there, then it's easy - you largely have it made.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
He may be undernourished, for example. This is an insignificant issue in the US. http://www.who.int/entity/nutgrowthdb/database/countries/who_standards/usa.pdf http://www.who.int/entity/nutgrowthdb/database/countries/who... His guardians are probably too busy trying to make ends meet to read to him. They certainly have time to read to him. The average person earning < $500/week has 32 minutes/day more leisure than a person earning at least $1181/week. They just choose to spend it on other things. The average person earning < $500/week spends only 8 minutes/weekday reading (10 minutes on the weekend). In contrast, they spend 2 hours 15 minutes/weekday watching TV (3 hours 15 minutes on the weekend). That's 45 min/day more than the richer person. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm I suspect a big component of why the poor children don't develop as much is because they observe their parents spending 2-3 hours/day watching TV, 8-10 minutes reading, and emulate those habits. (It's probably closer to 4 hours/day for the 80% of the poor who are not employed.) The rich people observe their parents spending 15-30 minutes/day reading, less TV, more sports, and emulate those habits as well. A scary thought: most people spend more than 2 hours/day watching TV. Imagine what might happen if everyone in America turned the TV off for an hour and did something productive!
- borism 16y ago
  but outlawing TV would be too much government interference, wouldn't it?
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    I could certainly get behind making "no TV, more sports" a condition of receiving welfare/medicaid/etc.

jimmyjim 16y ago

Judging from the general numbers of successful individuals having been nurtured in "rich" environments (e.g. you'll find _much_ more kids going on to college in suburban schools than in inner-city schools), I would guess that either 1) the importance of success and the things that are required to achieve that success are clear to them - and so, they're better set to make wise, informed decisions, or 2) they've already gotten into a good work ethic - and if you're there, then it's easy - you largely have it made.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

He may be undernourished, for example. This is an insignificant issue in the US. http://www.who.int/entity/nutgrowthdb/database/countries/who_standards/usa.pdf http://www.who.int/entity/nutgrowthdb/database/countries/who... His guardians are probably too busy trying to make ends meet to read to him. They certainly have time to read to him. The average person earning < $500/week has 32 minutes/day more leisure than a person earning at least $1181/week. They just choose to spend it on other things. The average person earning < $500/week spends only 8 minutes/weekday reading (10 minutes on the weekend). In contrast, they spend 2 hours 15 minutes/weekday watching TV (3 hours 15 minutes on the weekend). That's 45 min/day more than the richer person. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t11.htm I suspect a big component of why the poor children don't develop as much is because they observe their parents spending 2-3 hours/day watching TV, 8-10 minutes reading, and emulate those habits. (It's probably closer to 4 hours/day for the 80% of the poor who are not employed.) The rich people observe their parents spending 15-30 minutes/day reading, less TV, more sports, and emulate those habits as well. A scary thought: most people spend more than 2 hours/day watching TV. Imagine what might happen if everyone in America turned the TV off for an hour and did something productive!

borism 16y ago
but outlawing TV would be too much government interference, wouldn't it?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I could certainly get behind making "no TV, more sports" a condition of receiving welfare/medicaid/etc.