Kimberly Noble is a neuroscientist, whose area of research is focused on how the income affect a child’s brain development. She noticed some disparities when it comes to brain development in children due to social and economic factors. The studies she conducted have shown a correlation between poverty and brain development. The children who come from such an environment have a tendency, for example, to perform worse at school, they are less likely to finish high school and continue their education unlike their peers better situated economically. In consequence, poor children have higher chances to be poor and underemployed as adults. Even more, Kimberly Noble discovered that growing up being poor can lead to significant differences in the size, shape and functioning of children’s brain.
Noble’s research about the effect of poverty started more than 15 years ago. The question that needed to be answered was: “How do socioeconomic disparities relate to the brain function”? To obtain the answers she wanted, the technique she used was simple and inexpensive: cognitive skills measures. The reason was that the brain uses certain areas when it comes to processing cognitive skills that are important for academic and life achievement.
Through her research she managed to highlight a few points when it comes to the link between brain development and poverty: the most important one is that there was astounding variability from one child to the next, which means there was a plethora of children from higher-income homes with smaller brain surfaces and children from lower-income homes with larger brain surfaces, the second point is that the link between family income and children's brain structure was strongest at the lowest income levels and it didn't depend on the children's age, sex, race or ethnicity.
The image below presents something called The Wealth Effect: when the socioeconomic status (SES) is higher, children tend to perform better on cognitive skills. The SES factor explains more than a third on the differences in performance on language tasks between children coming from poverty and those with higher-level income, whereas the SES factor demonstrated smaller but still a significant part when it comes to other cognitive measures.
Noble’s research about the effect of poverty started more than 15 years ago. The question that needed to be answered was: “How do socioeconomic disparities relate to the brain function”? To obtain the answers she wanted, the technique she used was simple and inexpensive: cognitive skills measures. The reason was that the brain uses certain areas when it comes to processing cognitive skills that are important for academic and life achievement.
Through her research she managed to highlight a few points when it comes to the link between brain development and poverty: the most important one is that there was astounding variability from one child to the next, which means there was a plethora of children from higher-income homes with smaller brain surfaces and children from lower-income homes with larger brain surfaces, the second point is that the link between family income and children's brain structure was strongest at the lowest income levels and it didn't depend on the children's age, sex, race or ethnicity.
The image below presents something called The Wealth Effect: when the socioeconomic status (SES) is higher, children tend to perform better on cognitive skills. The SES factor explains more than a third on the differences in performance on language tasks between children coming from poverty and those with higher-level income, whereas the SES factor demonstrated smaller but still a significant part when it comes to other cognitive measures.
Here is Kimberly Noble’s Ted talk in which she explains more about the connection between poverty and brain development in children:
Here are my questions for you
- Do you agree with the assumption that income does affect a child’s brain development?
- Do you know someone to whom this theory may apply to?
- Do you think there is a solution to it?
Sources:
The Scientific American, pages 47-49, March 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTra-yePY_A
The Scientific American, pages 47-49, March 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTra-yePY_A
Comments
2. Yes, I have met such people, but I am not absolutely sure that their behaviour is caused by poverty during childhood. For most of them it is hard to understand that welfare comes from hard, or smart work and the economy would collapse if there were no rich people.
3. I don’t think so. We can try to change the attitude of children and make them respect everyone equally, but it is unlikely that we’ll succeed. Maybe it is better to try to minimise social inequalities by lowering taxes and all sorts of obstacles in the way of developing business.
environment and it has an impact on many things around us. I know many people who fit into this theory perfectly, but I don't know what could be the solution. Maybe going on the therapy would help. I think therapy is like going to regular doctor for routine tests once in a while and all of us should do it.
Yes it surely is a factor though I wouldn't say it is the most brain changing one. Many things depends from the experience and especially what people learn from the lessons live gives them.
2. Do you know someone to whom this theory may apply to?
Maybe a few but most propably that they've just made wrong decisions in young years.
3. Do you think there is a solution to it?
Yes, but simply giving people money for nothing only teach laziness. It would be better to give them more money for paid work.
2.I think this theory we can apply to everyone.
3.I don't think so. I could be change when all people will be rich, but if everyone is rich then no one is.
S20108
2. Generally speaking, we can apply it to everyone. Of course, there are exception where kid from poorer family can have better developed brain than the child from the rich family, but it's rare.
3. We can't change the theory but I think we can help kids from less developed regions by giving them chances to educate themselves.
In part, it can be combined. Family income often affects the environment in which they live, which can affect the development of the child's brain. Similarly, when it comes to education, wealthier families can often afford to send a child to a better school. On the other hand, in poor families where hunger can be a problem, the child cannot concentrate in school and they have economic problems on their minds.
2. Do you know someone to whom this theory may apply to?
Yes, I know such people, and unfortunately I think that most of us once met such people in their school or class.
3. Do you think there is a solution to it?
I think this is a very difficult problem to solve. It seems impossible to level out social inequalities in some places around the world.
1. Yes, I do. Money will always be a factor in almost every aspect of our lives. Both too much money and too little money will affect anyones brain development in many ways.
2. Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some people should be less money centered.
3. In a way, yes. I think proper rising and care for children should do at least part of the job
P.S. Carl Gauss was born in pure family of a seasonal worker…
2. I don’t correctly understand what theory? About parent involvement or about income? But I`ll just explain you, what I think.
Digression (example): My mother was a teacher of Russian and literature (you can imagine the income), her mother was a teacher of Russian and literature too, another grandma was a teacher of French. So, from my youth I was reading a lot and was learning by heart poetry. And now when I was thinking about answer on your question, I`ve caught my self on a thought, that after years, I remember some of them.
3. There are no solutions on imagined situations…
The other thing is that these children are lucky that they can concentrate on learning from an early age. Kids from wealthy families doesn't have to care about financial situation and can concentrate on learning and later on continue their studies on universities insted of going to work right after high school.
2. Yes, I know many of them. I'm afraid everyone of us can observe this trend both in work and school.
3. I'm afraid no. Many governments and organizations fight with this problem for years and nothing seems to work out. Maybe the problem is not in finiding solution, but changing the educational system.
Yes
Do you know someone to whom this theory may apply to?
No
Do you think there is a solution to it?
I am afraid there is no solution for it. We should rather look for changes of actual solutions
2. Yes, I knew some kids from poor families. Usually poor families don’t have time to care about children. Usually parents in such families have bad habits. This of course affects children.
3. Education and overall increase in well-being of citizens is a solution.
This question is difficult to answer. Having money, we can provide a lot of extra activities, lessons and develop child's passion. If the child is ambitious alone without financial help will strive to achieve the goal.
2. Do you know someone to whom this theory may apply to?
My friends from the university and I are accomplishing the passion with the financial help of our parents by attending to PJATK.
3. Do you think there is a solution to it?
Yes, it would be great if every child had an equal opportunity for starting education. Unfortunately the reality is more brutal.
I think the income effect's everyone. So, children aren't an exemption. Amount of money will always influence the brain, the question is at which point it will start to make a bad impact on a brain.
2. Do you know someone to whom this theory may apply to?
I can say, that I have friends whose parents have different income. But it differently influenced the childer. When parents have a small income they have some bad habits, which could also be transferred to kids, but it could be another way round and child could understand that this habit is bad and tries to avoid it.
3. Do you think there is a solution to it?
I think the best solution is education. There should be some steps to increasing the overall level of education. I think the current education system should be changed to make some improvements.