The Impenetrable Veil

A friend of the blog passed along this piece from the Washington Post. Its title:

New brain science shows poor kids have smaller brains than affluent kids

I shouldn’t have to explain why this represents a troubling departure from that publication’s typically scrupulous agitprop. What socially constructed variable might “poor” and “affluent” be obvious proxies for? That’s a question we certainly don’t want readers asking. And that is why one does not blithely present the hoi polloi with facts from which they may draw infelicitous conclusions. Rather, our obligation as journalists is to present first the proper conclusion. That supported by a peppering of truths, opinions, and innuendo. For example, the title above is completely inappropriate for public consumption. I realize people are idiots, but even a dog can pick up a stick if you drop it in front of its snout. Instead the proper title is:

New brain science reveals desperate need for more immigrants

Do you see why that is far more effective? Now we simply populate the text with fragments from the study, followed by a MSNBC contributor’s assertions of why this makes more immigration imperative. A conscientious writer doesn’t simply leave facts lying around unattended–that can be dangerous. Always remember: Narrative safety first.

So with that gentle rebuke dispensed, let’s examine what sounds like a fascinating article by highlighting key points and excerpts.

Poor children have smaller brains than affluent children

Neuroscientists found that the surface area of the cerebral cortex was linked to family income.

That’s breakthrough science. So the size of a person’s brain, and subsequent cognitive capacity, are definitively linked to family income. Which leads me to conclude that we should consider a mass wealth transfer from “affluent” to “poor” people, so as to inflate American ghettos with erudition. I wonder if this is the conclusion the authors intended? I also wonder if they tested for other correlations with brain size. Such as the strongly negative one related to the faculty for dunking basketballs. In fact without even deploying the whole of its modest surface area, my own brain can hypothesize several variables just as likely to be correlated as family income. Though of course I am consumed with Hate and so not inclined to the sort of forthright scholarship that we will continue to discuss.

The research comes at a time when a majority of U.S. public school students come from low-income families and the academic achievement gap between poor and more-affluent children is growing. Policymakers are increasingly concerned about ways to reduce the gap, which is apparent as early as kindergarten.

Let’s go ahead and solve this conundrum for our befuddled policymakers. The Gap can be most quickly reduced by inhibiting the cognitive development of “affluent” children. Deny them nutrition, apply systematic head strikes, or simply process them through common core propaganda mills. The point is that if the Gap is a matter of critical importance–and we are well advised it is–then lowering the intellectual potency of one group is far lighter lifting than raising that of the proxy poor. I wonder how many Ivy League liberals would be willing to wager their children on the bet.

The thing that really stands out is how powerful the economic influences are on something as fundamental as brain structure,” Gabrieli said. “It’s just very striking.”

Shaquille O’ Neal’s five children must be very bright indeed. Though the thing that really stands out to me is how powerful the influences are to never publicly observe the less contrived correlations to intelligence. It’s just very striking.

The new research does not explain possible reasons for the brain differences.

The answers lie beyond the liberal event horizon.

Noble and Sowell have two theories about why poor children have smaller brains. One is that poor families lack access to material goods that aid healthy development, such as good nutrition and higher-quality health care. The other is that poor families tend to live more chaotic lives, and that stress could inhibit healthy brain development.

Right. It has to be one of those two. Maybe if we tried some exotic solutions such as “EBT cards” and “Medicaid” poor children would grow larger brains.

I vaguely wonder if intelligent liberals feel sheepish about offering such transparent flimflam. It would seem so hollow to take pride in your work, and the intelligence required to perform it, only to trot out such frayed bromides under compulsion. No matter the study’s results, their conclusions were never in doubt.

But James Thompson, a psychologist at University College London, has a third theory.

My bigot klaxon is sounding.

“People who have less ability and marry people with less ability have children who, on balance, on average, have less ability,” he said. Thompson noted that there is a genetic component to intelligence that Noble and Sowell failed to consider.

Who is this Spaceboy? Look, these are sober Ivy League neuroscientists. You can’t seriously expect them to pursue every flaky avant-garde theory and cosmic supposition. Really, a genetic component to intelligence? I don’t know whether he mined that from Dr. Who or Birth of a Nation.

“It makes my jaw drop that we’ve known for years intelligence is inheritable and scientists are beginning to track down exactly how it happens,” Thompson said. “The well-known genetic hypothesis has not even had a chance to enter the door in this discussion.”

I’m trying to think of why this might be. Any ideas Dr. Richwine? How about you, Dr. Watson?

Mike Feinberg, a co-founder of the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP), a network of 162 charter schools in 20 states and the District of Columbia that educates 59,000 students, 85 percent of whom have low family income, said all children are capable of learning regardless of their backgrounds or economic situation.

Thanks Mike, Exxon thinks oil is important too. Though boll weevils are also capable of learning regardless of background or economic situation. But learning what is the question. And when I want a candid response to that, I won’t ask a guy who has millions of dollars invested in one answer.

The Obama administration has increasingly promoted the idea that the country should provide early childhood education for low-income 3- and 4-year-olds to give them a boost before they get to kindergarten. Last week, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said if he had one more federal dollar to spend on education, he would funnel it to early childhood.

If I had one more federal dollar I’d funnel it into test-firing Arne Duncan out of a rail gun. Though this is why there are such things as science skeptics and climate change deniers. The only scientific aspect of these researchers is their methodical evasion of obvious conclusions. They do not penetrate the veil. They drape themselves in it. They wrap a white coat around the iron PC fist…or they become unemployed for lack of effort.

Either way if you want a pleasantly unvarnished perspective on brain surfaces, your research starts here.


11 thoughts on “The Impenetrable Veil

    • From the study you quoted above:

      “When Frohlich and colleagues analyzed the test scores, they saw that the scores for three of the four main kinds of cognitive tests were very similar between the two groups of participants. But the scores for perceptual reasoning were much lower among people who underwent tDCS. Perceptual reasoning tests fluid intelligence, which is defined as the ability to think logically and apply innovative problem solving to new problems.”

      Sooo, this treatment was proven to lower perceptual reasoning and reduce the participant’s ability to think logically. This in turn yielded unexpected benefits, such as “decreased bias attitudes”, “counteracted stereotype activation” and “reduced prejudice toward out groups”……..Hello, hello, is this thing on? If one simply introduces enough trauma to the brain, and subsequently causes intermediate cognitive impairment, one might also acquire the added bonus of accepting equality.

      I could see this evolving further still. Once the “stereotype deactivation” train has been boarded, passengers will find it increasing likely they be further enlightened through the innovative use of other revolutionary thought-inhibiting techniques, most notably, the knock out game. I’m told this therapy often results in the participant’s furthered reduction of biases. For instance, the racist insistence on safely harboring one’s teeth within the confines of one’s mouth and remaining drool-free in public have noticeably passed.

  1. If we forbid people in the human sciences from mentioning genetics, shouldn’t we level the playing field by not allowing physicists to mention gravity? Those rocket scientists are getting off too lightly.

  2. Is it worthwhile to clarify the definitions of Family, Income, and Family Income?

    I’m obviously not a brain scientist, but are the separate housing vouchers for the five separate fathers of a single mother’s five children part of a single family’s income?

  3. How about this? Rather than “leveling the playing field” by being beaten into a state of similar ignorance. I’d propose reparations be paid to the small-brain-poor in the form of a transferable super DNA. This matter to be artificially inseminated within their finest brood stock who’ve been thus far denied the seed of privilege.

    • Or just make it illegal for a lower IQ female to refuse intercourse with a smart man. Free pussy for all nerds, heh.

      • It’s innovative ideas such as those QED that ensure me the “leveling of the playing field” is clearly within our reach. We just have to be willing to go that extra mile to help these people. Should we also consider fostering legislation establishing prohibitions on low IQ males engaging in copulation entirely?

  4. I remember as a boy when my father was starting out in his career I was quite the idiot. Every time he got a raise, I got smarter – right up until the day he was laid off, at which time I went back to being a dolt. I was that close to going to Harvard and being President of the Law Review.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s