So then I guess, for the good of the children, we should remove children from homes earning less than the poverty levels?
Just being facitious... But actually one could make the case that if poverty really is damaging to a child's welfare and development, then the best interest of the child requires a removal of the child from the situation.
I wonder instead if this isn't a case of corelation, not causation. As a psychology student myself, (18 semester hours... just enough to be dangerous) the question of corelation vs. causation always pops into my head when I come across studies like this. Is there a higher level of arrested development because of the poverty, or is poverty a result of the habits of people who have the genetic disposition that leads to arrested mental development? In today's political climate, it is impossible to discuss this from a corelation standpoint without being accused of racism. So we are left with causation as the only way to interpret the data.
That's why I hate psychology... Not much "science" involved...
"Is there a higher level of arrested development because of the poverty, or is poverty a result of the habits of people who have the genetic disposition that leads to arrested mental development? In today's political climate, it is impossible to discuss this from a corelation standpoint without being accused of racism. So we are left with causation as the only way to interpret the data."
so is this some sort of neo-social darwinist position you're trying to argue? and why are you so certain there would be accusations of racism? are you implying that most poor people are of a race other than white?
But when a race has a higher percentage of it's popultation below the poverty line than another race and a scientist uses data like this to suggest correlation, he or she opens themselves up to charges of racism.
Poverty is a complex issue. But to cite statistics on a study linking poverty and neurological damage as proof of mental deficiencies being caused by the poverty, instead of exploring the possibility that there are other causes (not just genetic, but genetic for instance,) that account for both the poverty and the neuroloical damage, I think is "junk science." There is a lot of this type of causation assumption within the psychological community. If two things are linked statistically, then one MUST be the cause of the other. All I am suggesting is that their may be another cause (possibly genetic, possibly environment, possibly nurture, possibly something else) that can cause both. But if you raise the idea of correlation on the date, people think you to be a "neo-social darwinist" or a racist. That's why you just can't discuss it in today's climate. So lets just accept that poverty "causes" neurological damage and go on with our lives, even if it may not be true.
...Or we can accept that our job is to enter into the lives of those who are less fortunate as we live 'Kingdom' lives; and studies like these can cause us to understand the words of Christ concerning the poor even more.
Could we possibly learn from this study? Or, due to our vast psychological training, try to refute well-trained scientists because it doesn't align with our political leanings.
Oh and by the way... this article is talking about nurture.
The study says that the stress hormone does the most damage between the ages of "six months and three years."
Now, are we to believe that children are experiencing stress because of the lack of money? I'm not buying that one. Kids that young don't care about how much stuff they have compared to other people.
Could it be that statistically those whose income is below the poverty line tend to behave much more harshly towards their children which then raises the level of stress hormones in the kids? Perhaps the best way to combat this finding is require parenting classes of anyone who applies for government assistance...
Feel free to go ahead now and tell me how insensitive I am...
Sorry, I am the one that threw this article out there to begin with. :o)
I guess it is hard to tell if you are being sarcastic or not when you are talking about the stresses that are in children's lives who live in a family stuck in the cycle of poverty. Particularly when you write, "...I'm not buying that one..."
You go on to state what the article, in my opinion, is implying - that children feel stress because the adults and older kids around them are feeling the stress that poverty brings... How will mom or dad get to work because the car is broke down again? Why are the adults always arguing with each other about finances? Why can't an older sibling participate in after school activities? Etc.
Obviously children that young don't care about the things that that they have vs. other's fortune.
Perhaps you are right... maybe there needs to be more intervention on behalf of the powers that be?
Of course - THE CHURCH (universal) should also be doing something to help!
about my social darwinism comment. i was just saying that from what you wrote i gathered that you were implying that people were genetically predisposed toward arrested devolopment which causes that "bad habits" that cause poverty. this is essentially saying that people are poor because of bad genes. is that not a variation of social darwinism?
i didn't mean to imply that you were racist, but when you said, "it is impossible to discuss this from a corelation standpoint without being accused of racism" i couldn't help but think, "why? the majority of poor people are white."
finally, you said, "Could it be that statistically those whose income is below the poverty line tend to behave much more harshly towards their children which then raises the level of stress hormones in the kids? Perhaps the best way to combat this finding is require parenting classes of anyone who applies for government assistance..."
i would say that's almost exactly what the article was saying as opposed to saying, "children are stressed over a lack of money." poverty creates the environment that causes the unhealthy level of stress hormones and probably does affect the way the parents treat the children. i also agree with your parenting classes for people on government assistance, in fact the article ended with this: "Parents attended weekly coaching sessions to improve their family communications skills and show them how to control their children’s bad behaviour. At the end of the programme, participating parents reported big reductions in family stress compared with a control group that did not take part. Brain scans of the children suggested neural improvements, too."
Given all that is written in the articla and what we have said here, wouldn't a more accurate title for the post be "Bad Parenting Causes Neurological Damage"?
no, because the study looked at poor/very poor children versus middle-class/rich children, and concluded that poverty (i would say the overall environment that poverty creates) is the root of the arrested development. i think i'm going to be writing a post soon on poverty, as this is a topic that i love to discuss and is worth discussing.
ever thought of visiting mike sometime in the future? you could come to our house church. :)
lol... And get ganged up on? I can see it already... The big mean conservative shows up and gets a 45 minute lesson on why Jesus was a liberal... :)
Just kidding. I don't know if I could talk my wife into crossing the state line into Michigan. She is a huge Ohio State fan and her family would probably disown her for getting anywhere near there...
Maybe my small group could take on your house church in a football game... Loser converts to the other team's socio/political viewpoint... Whadda ya say?
14 comments:
So then I guess, for the good of the children, we should remove children from homes earning less than the poverty levels?
Just being facitious... But actually one could make the case that if poverty really is damaging to a child's welfare and development, then the best interest of the child requires a removal of the child from the situation.
I wonder instead if this isn't a case of corelation, not causation. As a psychology student myself, (18 semester hours... just enough to be dangerous) the question of corelation vs. causation always pops into my head when I come across studies like this. Is there a higher level of arrested development because of the poverty, or is poverty a result of the habits of people who have the genetic disposition that leads to arrested mental development? In today's political climate, it is impossible to discuss this from a corelation standpoint without being accused of racism. So we are left with causation as the only way to interpret the data.
That's why I hate psychology... Not much "science" involved...
"Is there a higher level of arrested development because of the poverty, or is poverty a result of the habits of people who have the genetic disposition that leads to arrested mental development? In today's political climate, it is impossible to discuss this from a corelation standpoint without being accused of racism. So we are left with causation as the only way to interpret the data."
so is this some sort of neo-social darwinist position you're trying to argue? and why are you so certain there would be accusations of racism? are you implying that most poor people are of a race other than white?
No... and thanks for proving my point.
But when a race has a higher percentage of it's popultation below the poverty line than another race and a scientist uses data like this to suggest correlation, he or she opens themselves up to charges of racism.
Poverty is a complex issue. But to cite statistics on a study linking poverty and neurological damage as proof of mental deficiencies being caused by the poverty, instead of exploring the possibility that there are other causes (not just genetic, but genetic for instance,) that account for both the poverty and the neuroloical damage, I think is "junk science." There is a lot of this type of causation assumption within the psychological community. If two things are linked statistically, then one MUST be the cause of the other. All I am suggesting is that their may be another cause (possibly genetic, possibly environment, possibly nurture, possibly something else) that can cause both. But if you raise the idea of correlation on the date, people think you to be a "neo-social darwinist" or a racist. That's why you just can't discuss it in today's climate. So lets just accept that poverty "causes" neurological damage and go on with our lives, even if it may not be true.
...Or we can accept that our job is to enter into the lives of those who are less fortunate as we live 'Kingdom' lives; and studies like these can cause us to understand the words of Christ concerning the poor even more.
Could we possibly learn from this study? Or, due to our vast psychological training, try to refute well-trained scientists because it doesn't align with our political leanings.
Oh and by the way... this article is talking about nurture.
One further thought...
The study says that the stress hormone does the most damage between the ages of "six months and three years."
Now, are we to believe that children are experiencing stress because of the lack of money? I'm not buying that one. Kids that young don't care about how much stuff they have compared to other people.
Could it be that statistically those whose income is below the poverty line tend to behave much more harshly towards their children which then raises the level of stress hormones in the kids? Perhaps the best way to combat this finding is require parenting classes of anyone who applies for government assistance...
Feel free to go ahead now and tell me how insensitive I am...
Heath...
Sorry, I am the one that threw this article out there to begin with. :o)
I guess it is hard to tell if you are being sarcastic or not when you are talking about the stresses that are in children's lives who live in a family stuck in the cycle of poverty. Particularly when you write, "...I'm not buying that one..."
You go on to state what the article, in my opinion, is implying - that children feel stress because the adults and older kids around them are feeling the stress that poverty brings... How will mom or dad get to work because the car is broke down again? Why are the adults always arguing with each other about finances? Why can't an older sibling participate in after school activities? Etc.
Obviously children that young don't care about the things that that they have vs. other's fortune.
Perhaps you are right... maybe there needs to be more intervention on behalf of the powers that be?
Of course - THE CHURCH (universal) should also be doing something to help!
I agree completely that the Church needs to be involved. Just didn't want that to get lost in the discussion...
uh... whoa, heath meet ryan; ryan meet heath.
about my social darwinism comment. i was just saying that from what you wrote i gathered that you were implying that people were genetically predisposed toward arrested devolopment which causes that "bad habits" that cause poverty. this is essentially saying that people are poor because of bad genes. is that not a variation of social darwinism?
i didn't mean to imply that you were racist, but when you said, "it is impossible to discuss this from a corelation standpoint without being accused of racism" i couldn't help but think, "why? the majority of poor people are white."
finally, you said, "Could it be that statistically those whose income is below the poverty line tend to behave much more harshly towards their children which then raises the level of stress hormones in the kids? Perhaps the best way to combat this finding is require parenting classes of anyone who applies for government assistance..."
i would say that's almost exactly what the article was saying as opposed to saying, "children are stressed over a lack of money." poverty creates the environment that causes the unhealthy level of stress hormones and probably does affect the way the parents treat the children. i also agree with your parenting classes for people on government assistance, in fact the article ended with this: "Parents attended weekly coaching sessions to improve their family communications skills and show them how to control their children’s bad behaviour. At the end of the programme, participating parents reported big reductions in family stress compared with a control group that did not take part. Brain scans of the children suggested neural improvements, too."
thanks to both of you for the great discussion.
one more observation.
Given all that is written in the articla and what we have said here, wouldn't a more accurate title for the post be "Bad Parenting Causes Neurological Damage"?
no, because the study looked at poor/very poor children versus middle-class/rich children, and concluded that poverty (i would say the overall environment that poverty creates) is the root of the arrested development. i think i'm going to be writing a post soon on poverty, as this is a topic that i love to discuss and is worth discussing.
ever thought of visiting mike sometime in the future? you could come to our house church. :)
lol... And get ganged up on? I can see it already... The big mean conservative shows up and gets a 45 minute lesson on why Jesus was a liberal... :)
Just kidding. I don't know if I could talk my wife into crossing the state line into Michigan. She is a huge Ohio State fan and her family would probably disown her for getting anywhere near there...
Maybe my small group could take on your house church in a football game... Loser converts to the other team's socio/political viewpoint... Whadda ya say?
joe's a libertarian so he'd probably lean your way when it comes to politics. and as long as it's not tackle football; i've seen pictures of you...
hey now... low blow! Don't pick on the fat kid! :)
Post a Comment