Serious Science - serious-science... Neuroscientist Michael Thomas on children’s environment, the influence of poverty on the brain, and ADHD serious-science...
Strange that there is little mention of neurotoxins (heavy metals, ethanol, household chemicals, pesticides, ) etc as well as microbiome and medical injury (medicines in the food and water supply, overuse of antibiotics, etc) that are at higher levels among the poor, worldwide.
Language is probably influenced by socioeconomic status more so because parents have less time to teach their children or less ability. Perhaps also more chaotic households.
6% or not much across different skills. So not much. Whereas just pure IQ genes is 50-75% (he says this in another video here). If we accept - Socio economic status of one's parents is based at least partly on the parents IQs - IQ is hereditary = We'd expect higher IQ children, on average, from higher socio economic parents No need for environment, it to be due to books in the household etc.
@RingsOfSolace Very strong correlation with life outcomes. Not just income but life expectancy, divorce, criminal behaviour... Most widely understood trait in psychology. Do you know lots of 135 IQ people on 24k a year?
@danielwebb8402 no, because I'm not testing people's IQ when I meet them. But as someone who went from being the bottom rung to middle class, I've met plenty of smart and stupid people of all classes that I've interacted with. That's aside from my point that there's serious debate as to whether IQ favors the privileged out of bias, which is something humans are known to do in many aspects of their lives anyway. I'm also kind of concerned about your need to have the answer be genetic, which is exactly the opposite of what current science suggests.
@RingsOfSolace You think current science suggests intelligence is 0% genetic? Or even negatively correlated (the opposite you mention) with your parents' IQ? If one were a sociologist, wanted the answer to be nurture, cherry picked the results. You'd still admit is 49.99999% pure genes. Of the remaining 50% a material chunk is environment.... in the womb. So 65%+ explainable the day you are born. If you want the answer to be low. It's widely known, replicated across studies, across decades, across countries. I get the results don't make everyone feel warm in their tummies. Aren't what the sociologists performing the analysis wish the answers were / if any bias would be to downplay the link. As I said originally. This contributor states 50-75% in a sister video to this one. Because that's the answer. Wanting the answer to be 13% doesn't make it so.
How about a revolutionary assumption that it's actually genetics that define the size of vocabulary and similar characteristics, and these in term strongly effect that individuals placement on the socioeconomic spectrum, as they defined the placement of that individuals parents - and subsequently their probable selection of each other as spouse? Just Occam razoring...
Possibly. It's not Nature vs Nurture. It's Nature and Nurture. I think the most interesting topics intertwining both of them is epigenetics and the Diathesis Stress Model. Epigenetics might explain why certain minority groups like African-Americans and Native Americans can't seem to escape the most impoverished areas of the country because of generations of stress which caused changes in gene expression which are inheritable. The Diathesis Stress Model might explain why at-risk individuals, despite having some pretty bad genes, still manage to flourish because of their healthy environment (e.g. great social support system).
Maybe, intelligence and wit but as far as something like basic human social skills and development go; we cannot chop the whole thing to just genetics because it is a very basic function that humans have been successfully performing for the last millions of years. Everything from how our eyes look to the exaggerated gestures we have are evolutionary poised to make us more social creatures. So it makes no sense that all of a sudden in the last few hundred years we are seeing more and more of these problems. Unless of course there was something intentionally poking around with how our bodies are designed to function. There is much more plausibility with the second line of reasoning than the first. In any case; it is a working hypothesis.
I thought is was genetics until I found out that African Americans are mostly of 75% Yoruba stock, 20% European stock, %5 Native American or other. Yet, the Yoruba come to the west and do fantastic in education and academics, the whites have all done pretty well, and yet, African Americans still struggle. So, I would say culture and epigenetics play an considerable role.
there was a study that tried to see if theses pathways were chromosomal, they did find an effect (I don't remember the effect but I do know that the effect size was quite low), a even more interesting question is asking how could children growing up in volatile low SES households still thrive (even if the percentage is quite low)? If there is no change in the environment, can their inner perception of poverty change their social mobility? ...i think it could, there is a growing new understanding in poverty research that childhood adversity could only alter your adulthood not imapir it. This is kinda also similar to what Alin de bottom says "Your disrupted childhood might give the expertise to be a better parent".
Well the thing is they are all determiners. So yes you are correct but he is as well, thing is how do we know what overpowered though? I'm 13, and neither of my parents were bloody rich yet in preschool I was arguing with the teacher over whether the proper term was snake or serpentine. Just something to think about
Strange that there is little mention of neurotoxins (heavy metals, ethanol, household chemicals, pesticides, ) etc as well as microbiome and medical injury (medicines in the food and water supply, overuse of antibiotics, etc) that are at higher levels among the poor, worldwide.
growing up in a stressful environment releases cortisol into the body which effects development.
Never date one unless you hate yourself.
Please don't forget to subscribe UA-cam channel MEHRAN ALI OFFICIAL
Cortisol also makes you overweight
@@KawaiiCat2 yup. since i started sleeping my sleep apnea weight loss is easier. sleep apnea causes a lot of cortisol
Working twice as hard as the middle class kid and achieving half as much really sucks.
That's because achieving is mainly based on competencies rather than effort
Language is probably influenced by socioeconomic status more so because parents have less time to teach their children or less ability. Perhaps also more chaotic households.
Most valid point
Please don't forget to subscribe UA-cam channel MEHRAN ALI OFFICIAL
I'm a teacher by profession.
genetics loads the gun; nature pulls the trigger.
Valid points
Keep it up!
Please don't forget to subscribe UA-cam channel MEHRAN ALI OFFICIAL
*trollface*
6% or not much across different skills. So not much.
Whereas just pure IQ genes is 50-75% (he says this in another video here).
If we accept
- Socio economic status of one's parents is based at least partly on the parents IQs
- IQ is hereditary
= We'd expect higher IQ children, on average, from higher socio economic parents
No need for environment, it to be due to books in the household etc.
IQ is a useless metric tbh.
@RingsOfSolace
Very strong correlation with life outcomes. Not just income but life expectancy, divorce, criminal behaviour...
Most widely understood trait in psychology.
Do you know lots of 135 IQ people on 24k a year?
@danielwebb8402 no, because I'm not testing people's IQ when I meet them. But as someone who went from being the bottom rung to middle class, I've met plenty of smart and stupid people of all classes that I've interacted with. That's aside from my point that there's serious debate as to whether IQ favors the privileged out of bias, which is something humans are known to do in many aspects of their lives anyway.
I'm also kind of concerned about your need to have the answer be genetic, which is exactly the opposite of what current science suggests.
@RingsOfSolace
You think current science suggests intelligence is 0% genetic? Or even negatively correlated (the opposite you mention) with your parents' IQ?
If one were a sociologist, wanted the answer to be nurture, cherry picked the results. You'd still admit is 49.99999% pure genes. Of the remaining 50% a material chunk is environment.... in the womb. So 65%+ explainable the day you are born. If you want the answer to be low.
It's widely known, replicated across studies, across decades, across countries. I get the results don't make everyone feel warm in their tummies. Aren't what the sociologists performing the analysis wish the answers were / if any bias would be to downplay the link.
As I said originally. This contributor states 50-75% in a sister video to this one. Because that's the answer. Wanting the answer to be 13% doesn't make it so.
6:00
How about a revolutionary assumption that it's actually genetics that define the size of vocabulary and similar characteristics, and these in term strongly effect that individuals placement on the socioeconomic spectrum, as they defined the placement of that individuals parents - and subsequently their probable selection of each other as spouse? Just Occam razoring...
Possibly. It's not Nature vs Nurture. It's Nature and Nurture. I think the most interesting topics intertwining both of them is epigenetics and the Diathesis Stress Model. Epigenetics might explain why certain minority groups like African-Americans and Native Americans can't seem to escape the most impoverished areas of the country because of generations of stress which caused changes in gene expression which are inheritable. The Diathesis Stress Model might explain why at-risk individuals, despite having some pretty bad genes, still manage to flourish because of their healthy environment (e.g. great social support system).
Maybe, intelligence and wit but as far as something like basic human social skills and development go; we cannot chop the whole thing to just genetics because it is a very basic function that humans have been successfully performing for the last millions of years. Everything from how our eyes look to the exaggerated gestures we have are evolutionary poised to make us more social creatures. So it makes no sense that all of a sudden in the last few hundred years we are seeing more and more of these problems. Unless of course there was something intentionally poking around with how our bodies are designed to function. There is much more plausibility with the second line of reasoning than the first. In any case; it is a working hypothesis.
I thought is was genetics until I found out that African Americans are mostly of 75% Yoruba stock, 20% European stock, %5 Native American or other. Yet, the Yoruba come to the west and do fantastic in education and academics, the whites have all done pretty well, and yet, African Americans still struggle. So, I would say culture and epigenetics play an considerable role.
there was a study that tried to see if theses pathways were chromosomal, they did find an effect (I don't remember the effect but I do know that the effect size was quite low), a even more interesting question is asking how could children growing up in volatile low SES households still thrive (even if the percentage is quite low)? If there is no change in the environment, can their inner perception of poverty change their social mobility? ...i think it could, there is a growing new understanding in poverty research that childhood adversity could only alter your adulthood not imapir it. This is kinda also similar to what Alin de bottom says "Your disrupted childhood might give the expertise to be a better parent".
Well the thing is they are all determiners. So yes you are correct but he is as well, thing is how do we know what overpowered though? I'm 13, and neither of my parents were bloody rich yet in preschool I was arguing with the teacher over whether the proper term was snake or serpentine. Just something to think about
What you talking about? The hood won.
This is why I am an atheist.
Jesus still love you😊