4 ms·

Cash Aid to Poor Mothers Increases Brain Activity in Babies, Study Finds

16 points by RadixDLT 5y ago

xaxaxb 5y ago
is this official radix?
RadixDLT 5y ago
does anybody know the real cause? money alone could not have caused it.
- GolangProject 5y ago
  Freedom from financial stress allows mothers to spend more time bonding with their babies would be the obvious hypothesis. Money definitely gives the poor more freedom to control their own lives.
- adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
  malnutrition would be an obvious cause.
- vanusa 5y ago
  Money solves or allieviates many, many problems, actually. Stress, lack of sleep, and poor nutrition among them.
- smt88 5y ago
  Cash directly causes a lot of benefits to children that could improve cognitive function. Among them: - better (or more) food - more time with parents - better medical care - better housing, which would reduce exposure to things like lead So no, it's not like a baby sits next to a stack of cash and gets healthier, obviously. But it's very easy to understand why richer children are healthier and function better.
- beerandt 5y ago
  You've reminded me of the Southpark with Magic Johnson where they discover large amounts of cash is the literal cure for AIDS.
barrenko 5y ago
Moneybis a proxy to many of the life problems and many of the life skills.
cacioepepe 5y ago
In the supplement what's buried is that there were no effects on measured cognitive development in the overall sample. Meaning that in the subsample of parents who received cash disbursements and did EEG, they found differences in EEG, but that the outcome of importance -- cognitive performance -- did not differ. Also, as far as I can tell, the EEG measures did not relate to cognitive performance, which calls into question the validity of the EEG measures as markers of what matters. So, two things: Even when you preregister things, you can cherrypick your findings if you're allowed to write it up that way by the editor and reviewers. In some ways this paper is like a window into what might have happened if their results weren't preregistered. It raises the question of whether or not these neural measures are really of value, as they don't predict the thing of importance. I'm very in favor of financial assistance to people in poverty (and even those who are more resourced) but this study was poorly done (or at least poorly reported) and does a disservice to those advocating for the importance of social safety nets.
- SamReidHughes 5y ago
  Even for EEG the p-values were 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, and are not significant after applying their preregistered multiple comparison adjustment. IMO a more interesting outcome to measure is the quantity of bad outcomes. Assuming that almost all poor mothers take care of their kids, and I'd think $350/month would help the worst-off kids of low income mothers a lot more than the average kid. It would also be nice to see how "low income" is defined for this study.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    I think it's actually a pretty bad experiment, even as a concept. And because the same behavior is not applicable at scale, which is what these types experiments seem destined to promote as policy, whether intentionally or not. It's attributing a gain in purchasing power to an increased absolute dollar amount, when the extreme top and bottom segments of market participants are affected more by their position relative to everyone else participating in that market. In other words, as we've sort of seen with covid, the markets where everyone at the bottom gets aid in the same/ similar amounts are also the markets that see the greatest shortages and price increases, leaving those at the bottom in the same relative position as before, despite having more money. It's a similar phenomenon to how anti price-gouging laws will often make shortages worse or result in higher demand or both. Or will manifest a black market of profiteering arbiters. (There's also effects due to lack of overall supply and lack of elasticity or a slow market response time. Eg, in rental markets with the most protective eviction moratoriums, landlords were much more likely to require extreme vetting of new tenants as well as large deposits or even prepayment. All things that disproportionately hurt those who are at the bottom end of the market.) >It would also be nice to see how "low income" is defined for this study. Yeah, especially if it's based on a family size/status-adjusted percentile-type metric, which would make everything above even more pronounced and potentially inflationary.
jdkee 5y ago
https://twitter.com/StuartJRitchie/status/1486096592503455750 https://twitter.com/StuartJRitchie/status/148609659250345575...

16 points by RadixDLT 5y ago

xaxaxb 5y ago

is this official radix?

RadixDLT 5y ago

does anybody know the real cause? money alone could not have caused it.

GolangProject 5y ago
Freedom from financial stress allows mothers to spend more time bonding with their babies would be the obvious hypothesis. Money definitely gives the poor more freedom to control their own lives.
adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
malnutrition would be an obvious cause.
vanusa 5y ago
Money solves or allieviates many, many problems, actually. Stress, lack of sleep, and poor nutrition among them.
smt88 5y ago
Cash directly causes a lot of benefits to children that could improve cognitive function. Among them: - better (or more) food - more time with parents - better medical care - better housing, which would reduce exposure to things like lead So no, it's not like a baby sits next to a stack of cash and gets healthier, obviously. But it's very easy to understand why richer children are healthier and function better.
beerandt 5y ago
You've reminded me of the Southpark with Magic Johnson where they discover large amounts of cash is the literal cure for AIDS.

barrenko 5y ago

Moneybis a proxy to many of the life problems and many of the life skills.

cacioepepe 5y ago

In the supplement what's buried is that there were no effects on measured cognitive development in the overall sample. Meaning that in the subsample of parents who received cash disbursements and did EEG, they found differences in EEG, but that the outcome of importance -- cognitive performance -- did not differ. Also, as far as I can tell, the EEG measures did not relate to cognitive performance, which calls into question the validity of the EEG measures as markers of what matters. So, two things: Even when you preregister things, you can cherrypick your findings if you're allowed to write it up that way by the editor and reviewers. In some ways this paper is like a window into what might have happened if their results weren't preregistered. It raises the question of whether or not these neural measures are really of value, as they don't predict the thing of importance. I'm very in favor of financial assistance to people in poverty (and even those who are more resourced) but this study was poorly done (or at least poorly reported) and does a disservice to those advocating for the importance of social safety nets.

SamReidHughes 5y ago
Even for EEG the p-values were 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, and are not significant after applying their preregistered multiple comparison adjustment. IMO a more interesting outcome to measure is the quantity of bad outcomes. Assuming that almost all poor mothers take care of their kids, and I'd think $350/month would help the worst-off kids of low income mothers a lot more than the average kid. It would also be nice to see how "low income" is defined for this study.
- beerandt 5y ago
  I think it's actually a pretty bad experiment, even as a concept. And because the same behavior is not applicable at scale, which is what these types experiments seem destined to promote as policy, whether intentionally or not. It's attributing a gain in purchasing power to an increased absolute dollar amount, when the extreme top and bottom segments of market participants are affected more by their position relative to everyone else participating in that market. In other words, as we've sort of seen with covid, the markets where everyone at the bottom gets aid in the same/ similar amounts are also the markets that see the greatest shortages and price increases, leaving those at the bottom in the same relative position as before, despite having more money. It's a similar phenomenon to how anti price-gouging laws will often make shortages worse or result in higher demand or both. Or will manifest a black market of profiteering arbiters. (There's also effects due to lack of overall supply and lack of elasticity or a slow market response time. Eg, in rental markets with the most protective eviction moratoriums, landlords were much more likely to require extreme vetting of new tenants as well as large deposits or even prepayment. All things that disproportionately hurt those who are at the bottom end of the market.) >It would also be nice to see how "low income" is defined for this study. Yeah, especially if it's based on a family size/status-adjusted percentile-type metric, which would make everything above even more pronounced and potentially inflationary.

jdkee 5y ago

https://twitter.com/StuartJRitchie/status/1486096592503455750 https://twitter.com/StuartJRitchie/status/148609659250345575...