There have been studies on adopted Romanian babies who had lived in absolutely deplorable conditions in state run orphanages from birth. If I recall correctly, babies adopted before age 3 turned out fine. After age 3, there was a high incidence of neurological problems, even extending to changes in brain morphology. This reinforced the finding that the brain generates circuitry willy-nilly during the first three years of life, a process that is almost certainly just a function of genetic programming, at least within plausible ranges of environmental conditions and nutrition in a 1st world country. After age 3, the brain starts paring back its circuitry in response to environmental stimulus, and that is the point at which specific environments can be expected to make a difference.
That is an example of something we think we have learned, but we are talking close to extreme privation, far outside normal conditions, even for typical kids in poverty in America. Consider that if this is in fact true, reading to babies, co-sleeping, “Baby Mozart,” blocks and mobiles for infants would mean next to nothing long term.
The basic truth remains that we have no idea on which environmental conditions are beneficial in the long run and which are detrimental, apart from the obvious nutritional ones. (Well, we do know that lying still most of the day next to dozens of other orphans in a Romanian orphanage is not ideal once you turn 3 years old or so!) Personally, I think that evolution has equipped us with many tools to combat the normal range of privation typically encountered over our history as a species.
@TatinG, that is the point - there are a number of protective effects which actually do mitigate the epigenetic effects, The shared experience of wartime trauma is one such (yes, the studies have all been done). Other factors which have been studied and found to have a major effect is the present of ONE trusted adult, inside the family or out, who has your back - could be a relative, a teacher, a neighbour, but they need to be around long term for the child to rely on. The more the trauma impacts or stems from specifically the child’s family or close community, the stronger the damage appears to be, and the weaker the influence of the protective factors that may be around,
By the way, those of us who have parents who grew up in war torn Europe can tell you that yes, this generation IS collectively traumatised, but it shows differently. Hoarding, catastrophizing, workaholism, am exaggerated need for self reliance and control…it’s noticeable and real, but it did happen to make for economically successful adults, if maybe not very happy and relaxes ones.
I don’t see how making them all into “victims” solves anything either. I grew up in poverty, but my parents were not “victims” of poverty. They made their own beds. Maybe one of the reasons I succeeded in “getting out” was that I had no compunction about condemning what they did (or didn’t do) and no compunction about walking away and doing something else.
Regarding WWII. I grew up in Israel, among Holocaust survivors and refugees. They survived, and may have prospered, but they bore the scars, and passed them on to their children. Claiming that because they settled down, had kids, and made money, so therefore their trauma did not affect them, is exactly the same as saying that because some people who have lost limbs manage to have a good life, therefore, losing a limb has no affect.
My mother in law is a foot shorter than her two siblings because she grew up as a Jewish refugee, fleeing the Nazis deep into Russia. her grades were never as good either. Neither her nor my father-in-law ever fully recovered from the twin traumas of being Jewish refugees, and then losing everything again, as the kids of high-ranking Jewish officers during Stalin’s purges.
I have friends whose parents went through the camps who suffer from all sorts of illnesses, as generation later. The Holocaust affected the life, health, and mentality of many kids of my generation, some who were children of survivors, others who were grandchildren. The mental hospitals in Israel were filled with Holocaust survivors and their kids.
@TatinG There have been plenty of studies on the continued trauma and inherited trauma of kids who lived through WWII. All have demonstrated that the trauma not only affects the rest of their lives, but it also affects their kids’ lives, and their grandkids’ lives. Google is your friend.
It’s not a matter of “making them into victims;” it’s a matter of figuring out actual (often structural) causation in order to mitigate/fix/eliminate the causes as much as we can as a society.
I mean, acknowledging that cancer often has environmental roots doesn’t mean we’re settling on calling people with cancer “victims,” though they might be; it SHOULD mean we strive as a community to make changes that cure these environmental ills and eliminate disease as much as possible.
Victim: “a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.”
People living in poverty ARE victims of the system. Very few people voluntarily live in poverty and living in poverty produces tangible physical, mental, etc harm.
I’m not making anyone into a victim. I’m calling it what it is.
Book suggestion: Toxic Communities: Environmental Racism, Industrial Pollution, and Residential Mobility by Dorceta Taylor. Great explanation of how nothing about poverty and the toxic communities many impoverished people live in is accidental. It’s by design and it is systemic and multigenerational.
Case in point: Flint STILL does not have clean drinking water. Bottled water distributions ended a long time ago.
In order to separate
out the effects of DNA from nurture, the study would have to evaluate children of trauma survivors who were raised by others. For example, being raised by people who suffered trauma would have effects that being raised by non traumatized people would not.
The reality is that it is not so easy to move if you don’t have money. Transportation issues, security deposits, higher rent … all pretty much impossible without money.
Moving is also less difficult, less costly, and less risky if there is support or connection at the destination. This may be a friend or relative (whose familiarity with the area can help with finding a job and a place to live, and may be willing to have the person temporarily stay, etc.), or employer who has already hired the person.
But a poor person who has no such support or connection and no way of knowing whether his/her skills will get him/her a job at the destination quickly may be more hesitant to move than one who does have such support or connection.
The single biggest cause of “poverty” is low intelligence. Sure, there are many other factors, including some behavioral characteristics such as time preference and conscientiousness. And there are no doubt random components for any individual as he goes through life (both positive and negative). But low intelligence is going to be the single biggest factor in aggregate, and likely the only systematic one.
The author of the piece is right that a traditional “meritocracy” does not exist. That’s because people are not equal in their starting endowments. Largely through the accidents of birth (including our parents’ choices over which we had no control), the starting line is staggered, and the reality is that some will never really get to run the race - and through no “fault” of their own. We should all have some humility in the face of this fact. Of course, these accidents of birth are no one else’s fault either. They are just a feature of our biology.
If you want to address poverty like a disease, start with trying to figure out how to raise intelligence. Unfortunately, as a society we are still at the stage where we cannot even seriously acknowledge the issue. This is a difficult problem to address, and because of high heritability, an intergenerational one.
This sounds like it’s spoken from someone who’s very wealthy and attributes it to his/her superior intelligence.
We’re talking about poverty. Not the ability to found Apple. Nobody (possible exception for developmentally disabled) is too unintelligent to work a steady, low-skill job like janitorial work, dishwasher, taxi driver, or sanitation worker. The problem is with the barriers to getting and keeping the job, like availability of child care and transportation.