Page 1 of 1
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:41 am
by thibodeaux
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013....general
By the time a poor child is 1 year old, she has most likely already fallen behind middle-class children in her ability to talk, understand and learn. The gap between poor children and wealthier ones widens each year, and by high school it has become a chasm. American attempts to close this gap in schools have largely failed, and a consensus is starting to build that these attempts must start long before school — before preschool, perhaps even before birth.
Yeah...like 9 months before.
Hart and Risley later wrote that children’s level of language development starts to level off when it matches that of their parents — so a language deficit is passed down through generations.
Huh...so it's almost as if....but no:
And they argued that the disparities in word usage correlated so closely with academic success that kids born to families on welfare do worse than professional-class children entirely because their parents talk to them less. In other words, if everyone talked to their young children the same amount, there would be no racial or socioeconomic gap at all. (Some other researchers say that while word count is extremely important, it can’t be the only factor.)
But that wouldn't make a very interesting article, would it?
While we do know that richer, more educated parents talk much more to their children than poorer and less educated ones, we don’t know exactly why. A persuasive answer comes from Meredith Rowe, now an assistant professor at the University of Maryland. She found that poor women were simply unaware that it was important to talk more to their babies — no one had told them about this piece of child development research. Poorer mothers tend to depend on friends and relatives for parenting advice, who may not be up on the latest data. Middle-class mothers, on the other hand, get at least some of their parenting information from books, the Internet and pediatricians. Talking to baby has become part of middle-class culture; it seems like instinct, but it’s not.
Which explains why there was no IQ gap BEFORE this research happened.
Edited By thibodeaux on 1365766997
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:14 am
by GORDON
What's the old bit of painful wisdom... generally people aren't stupid because they are poor, they are poor because they are stupid?
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:30 am
by TheCatt
Which explains why there was no IQ gap BEFORE this research happened.
Win.
Seriously, that article is so full of stupid. Hey poor people: turn of the damned tv, and talk to your kids. The end. Don't throw my money at more preschool.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:53 am
by thibodeaux
GORDON wrote:What's the old bit of painful wisdom... generally people aren't stupid because they are poor, they are poor because they are stupid?
I think there has always been some of that, but it is more obvious in our age because the economic returns to intelligence are so much greater.
If 90% of people are farmers, sure, a smart farmer is probably more successful than a dumb farmer, but how much more?
Whereas nowadays, if you're smart, and also have other qualities such as showing to work on time and getting stuff done (which it turns out also correlate with smart), you can get a decent job in IT. But if not...
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:05 am
by TPRJones
thibodeaux wrote:But if not...
...then you get a job writing opinion pieces for the New York Times.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:29 am
by GORDON
thibodeaux wrote:GORDON wrote:What's the old bit of painful wisdom... generally people aren't stupid because they are poor, they are poor because they are stupid?
I think there has always been some of that, but it is more obvious in our age because the economic returns to intelligence are so much greater.
If 90% of people are farmers, sure, a smart farmer is probably more successful than a dumb farmer, but how much more?
Whereas nowadays, if you're smart, and also have other qualities such as showing to work on time and getting stuff done (which it turns out also correlate with smart), you can get a decent job in IT. But if not...
I use "stupid" as a catch-all.
IN MY OPINION, success in life is 50% self-discipline. The quality or condition of, as you put it, being able to get to work on time.
In my experience, I didn't learn self-discipline until I had discipline inflicted upon me... in the Marines. Others discipline you, but, obviously, self-discipline comes from within. I couldn't learn it until I was taught it.
Someone from history said, "(Some large percentage) of success is just showing up." I always took that to mean self-discipline.
The other 48% of success is having a good brain.
1% would be dishonesty and I include, "It's who you know, not how much you know" in that, and the other 1% would be luck (the harder you work, the better your luck).
I state all that as a given, at least in my mind, so considering America is the land of children being forced to receive an education by law, of being unable to starve or freeze to death via welfare (poor parenting decisions can change that, obviously), and having so many educational financial aid options that one can always afford to attend any college that will have them, it is hard for me to feel a lot of sympathy for people who absolutely refuse to help themselves.*
*disclaimer - Generalizing, there are always exceptions. For example, I know of middle class parents whose children were not eligible for financial aid, and they refused to pay for their children's' college educations. It is just too bad that these parents didn't know to instill self-discipline into their kids so that would not be a hindered by their lack of assistance. Again, parents can fuck anything up for their kids.... but even with the worst upbringing, there are always options.
+++++
And I kind of lost the point I was trying to make.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:49 am
by Malcolm
Counterpoint to G.
Edited By Malcolm on 1365778187
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:10 am
by TheCatt
I dunno.... i think for most people it's >50% self-discipline. Not quite the 1% inspiration / 99% perspiration, but more like that... 80/20
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:12 am
by GORDON
I remember seeing that movie about 30 years ago. As I recall, Chauncey falls into the "1% luck" category, which I covered.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:19 am
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:
I remember seeing that movie about 30 years ago. As I recall, Chauncey falls into the "1% luck" category, which I covered.
I'm thinking that number is higher than 1%.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:20 am
by Malcolm
TheCatt wrote:I dunno.... i think for most people it's >50% self-discipline. Not quite the 1% inspiration / 99% perspiration, but more like that... 80/20
What's this the ratio for again? Success? What the hell is that?
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:10 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:GORDON wrote:
I remember seeing that movie about 30 years ago. As I recall, Chauncey falls into the "1% luck" category, which I covered.
I'm thinking that number is higher than 1%.
Most people just aren't lucky. I think 1% might be high.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:19 pm
by TheCatt
Malcolm wrote:TheCatt wrote:I dunno.... i think for most people it's >50% self-discipline. Not quite the 1% inspiration / 99% perspiration, but more like that... 80/20
What's this the ratio for again? Success? What the hell is that?
Varies by person, I would say.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:27 pm
by Malcolm
Person to person, era to era, age to age, etc.
"Eighty percent of success is showing up."
- Woody Allen
He forgot to add, "with your wife slash adopted daughter." I also call bullshit on that statement. Success is a relative thing.
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:00 pm
by thibodeaux
TPRJones wrote:thibodeaux wrote:But if not...
...then you get a job writing opinion pieces for the New York Times.
Burn!