So, apparently there can be a snowball effect here...

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-poverty-iq-20130831,0,2261441.story

Whether you're a New Jersey mall rat or a farmer in India, being poor can sap your smarts. In fact, the mental energy required to make do with scarce resources taxes the brain so much that it can perpetuate the cycle of poverty, new research shows.

That is one i'm definitely going to have to read the journal article on... it will be interesting to see how they controlled factors. (if they did at all).

Based on the article it just seems like another case of science journalism being... stupid.

I mean, essentially what it's saying is "stressed out people find it harder to concentrate".   Which spaital reasoning needs more then most other kinds of reasoning.

I'd guess basically none of the claims in the article are made in the actual scientific journal article.

Just like the whole climate change debate causes people to have to rethink their political views, the idea that poverty may cause people to get trapped and not be able to do well, rather than a consequence of bad behavior with no impact (thus the poor deserve to be poor, because they are loser), I can individuals wouldn't want to think this so, because it means you CAN do welfare and it help people.

Anyhow, maybe you don't consider the journal Science an actual scientific Journal:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/29/poverty-mental-capacity-complex-tasks

Poor people spend so much mental energy on the immediate problems of paying bills and cutting costs that they are left with less capacity to deal with other complex but important tasks, including education, training or managing their time, suggests research published on Thursday.

The cognitive deficit of being preoccupied with money problems was equivalent to a loss of 13 IQ points, losing an entire night's sleep or being a chronic alcoholic, according to the study. The authors say this could explain why poorer people are more likely to make mistakes or bad decisions that exacerbate their financial difficulties.

....

Anandi Mani, a research fellow at the Centre for Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy at the University of Warwick, one of the four authors of the study, said the findings also suggest how small interventions or "nudges" at appropriate moments to help poor people access services and resources could help them break out of the povertytrap. Writing in the journal Science, Mani said previous research has found that poor people use less preventive health care, do not stick to drug regimens, are tardier and less likely to keep appointments, are less productive workers, less attentive parents, and worse managers of their finances. "The question we therefore wanted to address is, is that a cause of poverty or a consequence of poverty?"

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6149/976

explains a lot

Here is another article that argues that poverty taxes the ability to practice willpower also:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/jul/22/poverty-willpower-oliver-burkeman

But you have individuals argue that the solution to poverty is to make things harder. LIke, to prevent permanent unemployment, get rid of unemployment insurance:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/16/time-to-stop-funding-unemployment-benefits/

In that, to see that making financial hardship harder impacts ability to be a constructive worker in a negative way, will undermine the desire to end up practicing austerity and seeing it as something good.

By "science journal silliness"   I mean that what is reprorted by the media is pretty much never what's actually in the science abstracts and in their official papers.  It's just things done to get hits.

Also you missed the part in your article where they actually suggest welfare makes it worse somehow...

Though no, the Journal Science is an actual scientific journal.  It's not like,  a specialists journal or anything though, and it's been known to veer off into editorilizing rather then science at times.

Looking up the article though. 

The abstract is weird, because again... that's not what they're actually testing.  They're looking at spatial reasoning... then an IQ test... neither of which are really exactly "decision making" choices.

Again all the expeirments show on the face is... "when distracted people do worse on tests."

Which, anybody could of told you.  If you need money and are distracted you are going to do less well on an IQ test, spatial test or really any other test that requires thinkign and conversation... that's supposed to be a surprise and radically change how people think?

All the journal seems to say is "Rich people can't be distracted by monetary concerns as eaisly."

In general, after reading the article... yeah it has basically the exact flaws I was expecting. It's actually pretty audacious they gave it the wording they did. I'd guess this was admitted more on the "editorial" side since it's not actually showing so much what it they suggest it's showing.

Since they're comparing results on an IQ test with actual real life decision making.  (When iq tests aren't really a great measure of anything.)

As if not being able to think clearly under stress and make word associations with similes is going to be the same thing as not deciding to save money or pay a bill or something like that.

Had they wanted to run that kind of experiment they could of did a much more accurate study.

That stress = harder to think... should be basic psych 101.  The way they tried to get around such a thing is to suggest that stress has no mental aspects.  Only physical ones....

and that was it really. 

So for example, say your stressed out for a different reason, you are afraid somebody is going to jump you after the test because somebody said they were going to jump you.

The thoughts of said person in your head jumping you?   That doesn't count as stress at all! 

After getting my girlfriends opinion she more or less just boils down the whole thing to them being psychologists blinded by positivistism.

I thought that was common sense, work harder to make rent and get food, less time to study / look for better jobs, and no safety net to re-orientate.

And stress affecting mental abilities, umm yeah, my IQ probably dropped more then 13 points dealing with difficult births and a 2 year long sick infant.

Anyway proves that the lazy stress free poor people are the smart ones!

tagged for later

I'm just talking about the science... the science in that article was... honestly pretty crappy after reading the whole thing.

In general i'm in favor of "permanent" welfare, with minor strings, that aren't adminstrative.  For example, you have to work somewhere 20 hours a week or something.   That should be plenty of motivation.

As for it being time to stop funding extended unemployment...  that's actually true.   The way unemployment works actually should totally piss you off right now... it essentially is welfare that priortizes the middle class and rich over the poor.

Unemployment is essnetially an insurance that you pay for that covers you for around 1 and a half, to two years.  The extensions have allowed people to get unemployment benefits for years past that.

After 2 years, you should be kicked off unemployment, and be slowley adjusted downwards towards "regular" welfare. 

I mean think about it this way.   7-8 years ago I worked in a factory where I made ~20 an hour as ppart of the UAW.  Today I make 8.50.

After my 2 years of unemployment i've paid for would be up in both situations... in one situation i'm getting $20 an "hour" worth. (well 80% I want to say),  In the other i'm getting 80% of 8.50.

Same person, only difference is, I used to have more money, therefore i deserve more money?