It’s just as you might think: being poor can damage your brain

bmulligan

bmulligan

CAGiversary!
Feedback
25 (100%)
Here's one for Myke and all the other pseudo-intellectual acedemics who should be institutionalized, or at least prohibited from calling themselves scientists. From the times online:


It’s just as you might think: being poor can damage your brain

POOR KIDS tend to fare badly at school. Rich children tend to do better. Poverty seems to run, like an oppressive thread, through the generations. Affluence also knits generations together, although that thread has a silkier sheen. No great revelation, this. But one thesis about why poverty is so often paired with low intellectual attainment could prove seismic. Martha Farah, the director of the Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania, has raised the possibility that a deprived childhood may affect the physical development of the brain and render its owner less intellectually capable. For this reason, Professor Farah says, poverty deserves to be considered alongside such behaviour-altering drugs as Ritalin as an agent that can change the fundamentals of who you are.

I wasn't aware that the center for cognitive neuroscience was part of the sociology department at your local indoctrination academy. I'm not sure that this "story" is a newsworthy event, but it IS a case of media bias making it's own news and attempting to promote their welfare state, or communist agenda.
 
It's actually not a very controversial claim to make, when you consider the conditions in which poor children are raised relative to middle or upper-class children.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/14/1711

There's a book review in that bastion of liberalism, the Journal of the American Medical Association. We all know medicine has a liberal bias, since anything attempting to make a damaged/sick individual healthy is an attempt to thwart God's plan.

Here is a link to an article from another liberal stronghold, the highly reputable medical journal Pediatrics.

In short, bmugs, the phrase is "biological harms." It encompasses (hold on to your seat) the biological impact that certain environments have on people, and considers them in the likelihood of a person in that context. If you ever wondered why people living in third-world nations are still battling with diseases that we in the first-world consider a relic of our grandparents' age (I'm sure you think it was individual poor decisions), wonder no more.

You've been guilty of some severely shallow thinking this morning, cap'n.
 
This is news? I thought it was covered in all Developmental Psych textbooks. In fact, I think it was in my Intro to Psych book. Children growing up in impoverished conditions usually have poor nutrition, sleep habits, healthcare access, etc. Of course that's going to effect your brain's development.

It's not some political statement. It's just a logical correlation.
 
We're not talking about 3d world, distended stomach impoverishment. Of course I would expect them not to perform as well as the well nourished 1st world rugrats. But making that "correlation" in our society blaming "poverty" absolves people of the bad decisions they make with their own and their childrens lives. Placing the blame on an artificially defined condition of "poorness" and the implied extrappolation by liberals, like all of you, who blame the rich for the existence of the striferidden turn this "fact" into a political and social agenda.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']We're not talking about 3d world, distended stomach impoverishment. Of course I would expect them not to perform as well as the well nourished 1st world rugrats. But making that "correlation" in our society blaming "poverty" absolves people of the bad decisions they make with their own and their childrens lives. Placing the blame on an artificially defined condition of "poorness" and the implied extrappolation by liberals, like all of you, who blame the rich for the existence of the striferidden turn this "fact" into a political and social agenda.[/quote]


guess you've never lived in mississippi, or nevada, or eastern oregon/washington, or western texas...


but play that silver spoon ho-down, after all, you deserve your socio economic status... right?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']We're not talking about 3d world, distended stomach impoverishment. Of course I would expect them not to perform as well as the well nourished 1st world rugrats. But making that "correlation" in our society blaming "poverty" absolves people of the bad decisions they make with their own and their childrens lives. Placing the blame on an artificially defined condition of "poorness" and the implied extrappolation by liberals, like all of you, who blame the rich for the existence of the striferidden turn this "fact" into a political and social agenda.[/QUOTE]

I take it you didn't click on the links I provided. Not too surprising.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I take it you didn't click on the links I provided. Not too surprising.[/quote]

hey now, he doesn't have to click anything he doesn't want to.
 
***BREAKING NEWS STORY***

THIS JUST IN! Public schools in poor neighborhoods have worse resources than public schools in wealthy neighborhoods! Retail stores in wealthy neighborhoods stock more expensive/healthier items than those in poor neighborhoods! Malt liquor is more readily available in poorer neighborhood stores! Homes are less likely to be new, or rehabilitated! They are more likely to have lead paint that has been painted over! Homes in poor neighborhoods are more likely to have old and rusted pipes! Homes in poor neighborhoods are more likely to have insects and rodent problems!

***END NEWSFLASH***

Boy, bmugs is right on the cusp of cutting edge news, ain't he?
 
read about a little town of East St. Louis, especially in a chapter of a book called Savage Inequalities. The children there are living in such horrible conditions it makes me sick just thinking about it, and question how can this be in America
 
This whole studies where they say that being poor will make you stupid is a lie.

The thing is when people have they can do more.

If your a person who has art on the brain you are going to need art materials.

If you need to work out you will have to join a GYM or buy weight equipment. You also need some kind of coaching. All of this will cost money unless your gaurdian takes care of that.

You need good clothing so that when you go outside people will not judge you.

You need money for women since women likes to go places and shop. Also women like gifts. again women needs money alot. This whole world revolves around women.

You need gas for car and unles you make a water car by recycling your gas engine then you will need gas.

You need money to get good looking girls in the bed since good looking girls is under age and is easy to please with money.

You need money to get goody two shoes college girls in bed since they go after men with apartments and jobs.

You need money for electricity and to build solar pannels along with wind power.

You need money to invest in stock markets.

The point is unless you are natural strong, live in house that is paid off and belongs to the family and has solar power, and use a water car then you will need money.

People who live on the edge buyin shit food, and lives in shit apartments, and don't know how to do anything since everybody around them is a follower will have a friggin hard time in life.

People who live poor ( and not black people since they do not know the meaning of poor uincluding spanish ) will have less access to education opertunities or will pass them up. Also livinbg in a poor state where you are limited to your actions will affect you and everybody else around you.

Agian this whole studies where they say that being poor will make you stupid is a lie. The only reason they are going to be stupid is the fact they buy too much crappy things that will never gain value.

If Donald trump brought the most cheapest car even used that car will instantly gain in value but if I brought that sma ecar it would lose value.
Why? I never did anything that the world ever cared about. The same for every name in this world.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']***BREAKING NEWS STORY***

THIS JUST IN! Public schools in poor neighborhoods have worse resources than public schools in wealthy neighborhoods! Retail stores in wealthy neighborhoods stock more expensive/healthier items than those in poor neighborhoods! Malt liquor is more readily available in poorer neighborhood stores! Homes are less likely to be new, or rehabilitated! They are more likely to have lead paint that has been painted over! Homes in poor neighborhoods are more likely to have old and rusted pipes! Homes in poor neighborhoods are more likely to have insects and rodent problems!

***END NEWSFLASH***

Boy, bmugs is right on the cusp of cutting edge news, ain't he?[/QUOTE]

Public schools in every state receive federal dollars per student. Most, if not all, receive their equalized share of state funding per student. The claim that poor neighborhood schools have poorer resources, or less money, is false as they receive a subsidized value for each student even if the tax base in that poor area doesn't pay for it.

More expensive items are not necessarily healthier. And Malt liquor being more readily available in poor neighborhoods is bogus as well. "Malt liquor" is also availible in "rich" neighborhoods as well as a plethora of fine wines, beers, and "upscale" liquor. Does that mean rich people should be alcoholics becuase it's so readily available? Of course not. You are blaming poverty, and from that premise blaming the rich for causing poverty when you should be blaming bad choices of individuals. Not all poor people are stupid and unhealthy, and not all rich are smart and fit, how do you explain these anomalies?

The fact that malt liquor is "available" isn't an excuse for buying it instead of orange juice for one's children. Nice try. "Oh damn, jimmy, they ain't no mo milk at 'dis sto', we better git some malt liquor instead!"

Poor neihborhoods are more likely to have rusty pipes and lead paint. Let's see some numbers of that "likelihood". Rodent problems happen in any and all income brackets. Many people don't even know they are living in infested housing, whether they're rats, roaches, ants, or mold for years, and most don't end up mentally deficient becuase of it. Knowing that fact, what your excuse for mental deficiency? Was your family from the wrong side of the tracks, or was your mom unattentive and allowed you to suck on the windowsill for too long ?
 
Teachers tend to call on cute, well-off kids. (The teacher also tends to call on students who share whatever gender they, themselves, are.)

It's not stretching to think that poor students don't recieve good educations based on their school's performance.

In this post, I'm mostly speaking of when poor students are mixed in with middle-class students, and a few upper-class students sprinkled in, here and there -- probably your typical public school.

Also, when you teach for "the masses", you leave a ton of students in the dust, as is -- and most teachers have the mindset of it not being their fault if a kid doesn't get something... when it sure as fuck is. Anyway, this type of education leaves students in the dust, more ways than one.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Poor neihborhoods are more likely to have rusty pipes and lead paint. Let's see some numbers of that "likelihood". Rodent problems happen in any and all income brackets. Many people don't even know they are living in infested housing, whether they're rats, roaches, ants, or mold for years, and most don't end up mentally deficient becuase of it. Knowing that fact, what your excuse for mental deficiency? Was your family from the wrong side of the tracks, or was your mom unattentive and allowed you to suck on the windowsill for too long ?[/QUOTE]

CLICK

THE

GODDAMNED

LINKS

I

PROVIDED

IN

MY

FIRST

fuckING

POST.

thank you.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']CLICK

THE

GODDAMNED

LINKS

I

PROVIDED

IN

MY

FIRST

fuckING

POST.

thank you.[/QUOTE]

To be fair myke, the first link you posted requires a subscription to JAMA for the full article and for the second link, you're asking people from a videogame site to digest the formal policy statement of lead intoxication of the American Academy of Pediatics geared for medical professionals. A bit of overkill if you ask me.
 
[quote name='dopa345']To be fair myke, the first link you posted requires a subscription to JAMA for the full article and for the second link, you're asking people from a videogame site to digest the formal policy statement of lead intoxication of the American Academy of Pediatics geared for medical professionals. A bit of overkill if you ask me.[/QUOTE]

Oh. Sorry, I linked the first article from work. I usually forget about subscriptions for articles unless I click through EBSCO or something similar first.

As for the Pediatrics article, if you wanna hang out at the adult table, be prepared to have adult conversation. I've no formal medical training, but I can still understand the article (a strong background in research methodology, however, does help) for the most part. Truth be told, it's nice to see something with cogent policy suggestions (something that sociologists should *RARELY* do :lol: ).

Now, having said that, I probably can't delve very far into the medical literature; I refuse to completely disregard something, however, because I can't understand it. It's my responsibility to ensure that I do. Otherwise, I'm as bad as Joe Lieberman, who has decried video games as violent for years, and just THIS year passed the CAMRA Act, which provides research funding to see if what he's been saying for years about games is correct).
 
Unfortunately, I found nothing noting incidence levels of the population reletive to their financial status.

What your argument about lead levels doesn't consider is that before the 1970's, lead paint and leaded gasoline were omnipresent and would have affected everyone, rich and poor. I guess back then being poor just affected your social status and not your mental status.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh. Sorry, I linked the first article from work. I usually forget about subscriptions for articles unless I click through EBSCO or something similar first.

As for the Pediatrics article, if you wanna hang out at the adult table, be prepared to have adult conversation. I've no formal medical training, but I can still understand the article (a strong background in research methodology, however, does help) for the most part. Truth be told, it's nice to see something with cogent policy suggestions (something that sociologists should *RARELY* do :lol: ).

Now, having said that, I probably can't delve very far into the medical literature; I refuse to completely disregard something, however, because I can't understand it. It's my responsibility to ensure that I do. Otherwise, I'm as bad as Joe Lieberman, who has decried video games as violent for years, and just THIS year passed the CAMRA Act, which provides research funding to see if what he's been saying for years about games is correct).[/QUOTE]

Well, lucky for you, I happen to have medical training :) .

Look, it's not exactly rocket science to deduce that people in poverty are at a disadvantage. Obviously if you have less money, you live in poorer communities, have to live in homes that are out-of-date and more likely to have exposure to environmental toxins, have less access to higher education and health care which obviously is detrimental for success later in life. I think the assertion that poverty, by itself, is an independent risk factor for undevelopment of the brain is a bit of a stretch; all the above other factors already mentioned can account for that.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Well, lucky for you, I happen to have medical training :) .

Look, it's not exactly rocket science to deduce that people in poverty are at a disadvantage. Obviously if you have less money, you live in poorer communities, have to live in homes that are out-of-date and more likely to have exposure to environmental toxins, have less access to higher education and health care which obviously is detrimental for success later in life. I think the assertion that poverty, by itself, is an independent risk factor for undevelopment of the brain is a bit of a stretch; all the above other factors already mentioned can account for that.[/quote]

it may not be rocket science, but it's beyond Bmugs... come on, you gotta give a little with the horatio alger rags to riches types.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Well, lucky for you, I happen to have medical training :) .

Look, it's not exactly rocket science to deduce that people in poverty are at a disadvantage. Obviously if you have less money, you live in poorer communities, have to live in homes that are out-of-date and more likely to have exposure to environmental toxins, have less access to higher education and health care which obviously is detrimental for success later in life. I think the assertion that poverty, by itself, is an independent risk factor for undevelopment of the brain is a bit of a stretch; all the above other factors already mentioned can account for that.[/QUOTE]

Tell that to the homeboy who thinks it's all poor decision making at the individual level.

What I would argue would be really nitpicky at any rate; I more or less agree with your assertions but, is it poverty (since it would be first in the causal time order), or would poverty represent a spurious relationship between poverty and poor health/brain development that ends up disguising the poor structural conditions of the underclass?
 
well, the goal then is to define poverty - as it is used differently in different settings.

poverty in a sense which indicates living in shitty houses and being constantly exposed to dangers and emotional stresses (crime, drugs etc.) is something that i think can be directly correlated with psychological health.
 
It's not because they are poor. It's a mitigating factor, sure, but it's not the reason. Schools in poor/bad areas tend to have less. I dunno, it may just be because they have to spend that federal money they receive on security, replacing computers that get stolen or correcting vandalization. Just because every school gets money, by no means do they receive the same amount or can they spend it on the same things. To assume so would be a great injustice to the children who attend said schools, because you would be assuming they aren't smart enough when they don't get the same equipment, quality of teacher, anything you could possibly name they are at a disadvantage.

However, ambition and drive are the keys. You could be dirt ass poor and eating bread and water every day. But if you have a family who gives two shits and the motivation to do something with your life, you do have a decent shot at making something with your life, something that has nothing to do with how smart you are. Hell, look at the Billionaire's club and see how many never graduated high school. Some of the best financial guys out there can't sit still for 30 minutes.

But I got off on a tangent. Money =/= IQ.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Public schools in every state receive federal dollars per student. Most, if not all, receive their equalized share of state funding per student. The claim that poor neighborhood schools have poorer resources, or less money, is false as they receive a subsidized value for each student even if the tax base in that poor area doesn't pay for it.[/quote]

To some extent that's true; the state and federal governments do provide funding. But there are local funding sources as well. For example, take my local area:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/13/AR2006051300076.html

Of course, this leaves aside issues such as does more money equal better schools, or how much financial help to schools and students parents provide (obviously the richer the parents the more they can afford). But I think my main point is that school funding is not equal, and combined with a tradition of mediocrity and lack of security, poorer schools are just not up to snuff in most cases in this country, and everyone should realize that. Which is one reason why we need a drastic change in our educational system, but that's getting a little bit too off topic.

I do agree with many of your general premises, such as even with disadvantages people are still responsible for their own choices. My paternal grandparents both died of cancer from smoking, yet my father never smoked. He took responsibility for his own life choices and improved his lot (and thus improved the chances of his children, thankfully). Surely everyone realizes poor kids are less likely to be as stimulated mentally as richer kids, because clearly most poor people are poor for a reason, and they tend to pass those habits on through poor or even nonexistent parenting and example.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Public schools in every state receive federal dollars per student. Most, if not all, receive their equalized share of state funding per student. The claim that poor neighborhood schools have poorer resources, or less money, is false as they receive a subsidized value for each student even if the tax base in that poor area doesn't pay for it.
[/QUOTE]


you forget that property taxes go to schools as well at least in my area so even if a rich area pays equal or lesser percentage the schools district is still getting much more funding.

So your point is false
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']you forget that property taxes go to schools as well at least in my area so even if a rich area pays equal or lesser percentage the schools district is still getting much more funding.

So your point is false[/QUOTE]

Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. When you start paying property taxes, you may have license for boldness. Until then, I'll just say that while every state and it's educational funding system differs slightly. In Michigan, property tax millages can only be allotted for specifc areas of school funding. Those include building maintence, property acquisition, and a few others. They are not used for teacher or administrator salaries, school supplies, or utilities, etc.

However, equity in student grants from local and federal governments is skewed, and reflects an opposite distribution. In the city of Detroit, they are granted almost $10,000 per student. My city of Brighton receives $6700 per student, yet our overall performance averages are greatly superior to theirs.

What does this mean? I think it means familial and social relationships are more important factors in determining performance and/or brain function, not economic status.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. When you start paying property taxes, you may have license for boldness. Until then, I'll just say that while every state and it's educational funding system differs slightly.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='bmulligan']Public schools in every state receive federal dollars per student. Most, if not all, receive their equalized share of state funding per student. The claim that poor neighborhood schools have poorer resources, or less money, is false as they receive a subsidized value for each student even if the tax base in that poor area doesn't pay for it.[/QUOTE]

Which is it, darling?
 
Like I mentioned I went to the biggest school in my city and they probably have the most funding. They school even gave away trips to Japan and Hawaii.
Also the school paid more to teachers. If anybody is intrested in getting a higher pay in a NYC school I suggest you go there.
 
Why is it that when poverty and intellectual failure correlate, people feel the need to place the blame on poverty?
 
[quote name='RegalSin2020']Like I mentioned I went to the biggest school in my city and they probably have the most funding. They school even gave away trips to Japan and Hawaii.
Also the school paid more to teachers. If anybody is intrested in getting a higher pay in a NYC school I suggest you go there.[/QUOTE]
It's pretty clear that the higher funding isn't benefiting the students.
 
[quote name='nwaugh']Why is it that when poverty and intellectual failure correlate, people feel the need to place the blame on poverty?[/QUOTE]

Causal order, darling. Being poor is, basically, something people are born into. Academic failure, OTOH, is something achieved. You can't, then, blame poverty on intellectual failure based on the simple fact that you can't blame something that came first on something that was identified after the fact.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Causal order, darling. Being poor is, basically, something people are born into. Academic failure, OTOH, is something achieved. You can't, then, blame poverty on intellectual failure based on the simple fact that you can't blame something that came first on something that was identified after the fact.[/QUOTE]
I figured you might try that. In this case, causal order is being inferred, not proven. I don't think anyone can successfully argue that current financial success doesn't provide stepping stones for future financial success. After all, how can the poor pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they don't have any boots? That said, many are born into ignorance by virtue of poor genetic stock. Nurture be damned; nature has a great deal to say about how much intellectual potential someone has. If the potential simply isn't there, there just isn't much that can be done to pull the person out of poverty.

To be clear, I'm not referring to race, nationality, or gender when I say "poor genetic stock." There are morons and geniuses in all walks of life. Simply put, all men are simply not created equal. If someone can be blessed with some higher-order mental skill like a truly photographic memory, then the converse must be true. Idiots often fail at life, and since modern society has provided many methods to prevent idiocy from being fatal, said idiots produce offspring that are equipped to fail.
 
[quote name='nwaugh']I figured you might try that. In this case, causal order is being inferred, not proven. I don't think anyone can successfully argue that current financial success doesn't provide stepping stones for future financial success. After all, how can the poor pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they don't have any boots? That said, many are born into ignorance by virtue of poor genetic stock. Nurture be damned; nature has a great deal to say about how much intellectual potential someone has. If the potential simply isn't there, there just isn't much that can be done to pull the person out of poverty.[/QUOTE]

Of course it's being inferred; nobody's creating path models here. Given the choice between two options or directions, however, the choice is clear; moreover, given data about people's likelihood of moving out of poverty, it's a real one.

I think your response to that would only be valid if you want to point out that, because it's not a proven cause, it's biggesty weakness is that it's possibly spurious (that is, poverty as a concept is masking whatever the true cause(s) might be).

I'm curious to see some supporting data for the "people are born into poor genetic stock" argument, however.
 
Do you guys ever get sick of chasing eachothers asses around the intarwebs in the unending battle to see who has the biggest epeen?
 
[quote name='sheepboy_1923']This is news? I thought it was covered in all Developmental Psych textbooks. In fact, I think it was in my Intro to Psych book. Children growing up in impoverished conditions usually have poor nutrition, sleep habits, healthcare access, etc. Of course that's going to effect your brain's development.

It's not some political statement. It's just a logical correlation.[/QUOTE]

On the surface its common sense. But if you look at it in a different angle, you are not taking other factors into consideration. Some people living in impoverished conditions have a stronger desire to succeed to move up the social ladder. Geniuses are not born, they crave for something more that's lacking in their life. Some dramatic experiences gives geniuses the fuel to exceed their own limitations. This study has many flaws with one I indicated earlier. Restating what is already stated in earlier studies does not prove anything but a lack of thinking outside the box.
 
[quote name='beguile']On the surface its common sense. But if you look at it in a different angle, you are not taking other factors into consideration. Some people living in impoverished conditions have a stronger desire to succeed to move up the social ladder. Geniuses are not born, they crave for something more that's lacking in their life. Some dramatic experiences gives geniuses the fuel to exceed their own limitations. This study has many flaws with one I indicated earlier. Restating what is already stated in earlier studies does not prove anything but a lack of thinking outside the box.[/QUOTE]

Well, cite the literature that shows impoverished people are more driven than middle or upper-class folks.

C'mon, out with it already!
 
The fact that we give people incentives to be poor by paying them, their rent, their food, and their education only reinforces a social epidemic of laziness, not drive.
 
Looking past whether poor folks are any lazier, stupider, or more inept than rich folks (as a pre-existing condition caused by their respective financial situations)--

Wouldn't it stand to reason that one of the biggest factors would surely be the role models you have in your life?

I don't mean that in the cheesy, after-school-special kind of "role model" way.

Rather in the way we learn to live as human beings being heavily influenced by the examples our parents, other family, and close friends set for us? Ways that we handle stress, conflicts, learning, bad breaks, good breaks, work habits, play habits, moral decision making, financial habits, study habits, relationships with others, relationships with opposite sex, relationships to authority figures, respect for laws, respect for rights/wrongs, etc etc.

More often than not, poor folks are born into that poor financial situation-- and that situation exists because their parent(s) aren't particulary adept at handling many of those everyday life things in the best ways. And as they raise their children, they often pass along many of those traits to their children.

Of course it's even more of a problem in a society that subsidizes deleterious behaviors and allows people to escape the consequences of their actions, which causes those weak traits to be kept alive and passed on to the next generation.

That would seem to be a much larger philosophical question than just whether poor / rich people have this, that or anything else "better" compared to the other.
 
[quote name='penmyst']Looking past whether poor folks are any lazier, stupider, or more inept than rich folks (as a pre-existing condition caused by their respective financial situations)--

Wouldn't it stand to reason that one of the biggest factors would surely be the role models you have in your life?

I don't mean that in the cheesy, after-school-special kind of "role model" way.

Rather in the way we learn to live as human beings being heavily influenced by the examples our parents, other family, and close friends set for us? Ways that we handle stress, conflicts, learning, bad breaks, good breaks, work habits, play habits, moral decision making, financial habits, study habits, relationships with others, relationships with opposite sex, relationships to authority figures, respect for laws, respect for rights/wrongs, etc etc.

More often than not, poor folks are born into that poor financial situation-- and that situation exists because their parent(s) aren't particulary adept at handling many of those everyday life things in the best ways. And as they raise their children, they often pass along many of those traits to their children.

Of course it's even more of a problem in a society that subsidizes deleterious behaviors and allows people to escape the consequences of their actions, which causes those weak traits to be kept alive and passed on to the next generation.

That would seem to be a much larger philosophical question than just whether poor / rich people have this, that or anything else "better" compared to the other.[/QUOTE]

You're on to something. Something that would, however, suggest that the idea of equal opportunity for all and individually-driven likelhood of acheiving the American Dream are impossible to reconcile with.

I'm curious what "subsidizing deleterious behaviors" and "escap[ing] the consequences of their actions" is drawn from, however.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, cite the literature that shows impoverished people are more driven than middle or upper-class folks.

C'mon, out with it already![/QUOTE]

Instead of citing the literature, why won't you pay attention in your literature class? Being closed minded will limit your thinking process. I'm not going to cite the literature, but I will tell you where to look at. Which one of the previous president of the United States grew up poor and eventually became president? Being poor, he understood the hardships in life and from that, he was driven to succeed. Read your biographies about geniuses and study them.

Here's example that you can relate to easily! P.Diddy's family was poor and his father was a drug dealer who was killed but left P.Diddy a fortune to go to college. P.Diddy worked underneath a CEO of a music company for "free" so he can learn the skills of the trade. He dropped out of school and eventually lost his job due to his cockiness. Eventually he was able to persuade someone to lend him $1 million dollars to start Bad Boy Inc. He became successful because he had self driven "desire" to succeed. Now ask yourself if you have to focusing too much on porn and not paying attention to what's around you.
 
[quote name='beguile']Instead of citing the literature, why won't you pay attention in your literature class? Being closed minded will limit your thinking process. I'm not going to cite the literature, but I will tell you where to look at. Which one of the previous president of the United States grew up poor and eventually became president? Being poor, he understood the hardships in life and from that, he was driven to succeed. Read your biographies about geniuses and study them.

Here's example that you can relate to easily! P.Diddy's family was poor and his father was a drug dealer who was killed but left P.Diddy a fortune to go to college. P.Diddy worked underneath a CEO of a music company for "free" so he can learn the skills of the trade. He dropped out of school and eventually lost his job due to his cockiness. Eventually he was able to persuade someone to lend him $1 million dollars to start Bad Boy Inc. He became successful because he had self driven "desire" to succeed. Now ask yourself if you have to focusing too much on porn and not paying attention to what's around you.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, we didn't read Horatio Alger in my lit class.

Thanks for the anecdotes. They're like the building blocks of real data, but without all that pesky structure or patterning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top