Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday November 06 2018, @03:01AM   Printer-friendly
from the poverty-sucks dept.

The poor often behave in less capable ways, which can further perpetuate poverty. We hypothesize that poverty directly impedes cognitive function and present two studies that test this hypothesis. First, we experimentally induced thoughts about finances and found that this reduces cognitive performance among poor but not in well-off participants. Second, we examined the cognitive function of farmers over the planting cycle. We found that the same farmer shows diminished cognitive performance before harvest, when poor, as compared with after harvest, when rich. This cannot be explained by differences in time available, nutrition, or work effort. Nor can it be explained with stress: Although farmers do show more stress before harvest, that does not account for diminished cognitive performance. Instead, it appears that poverty itself reduces cognitive capacity. We suggest that this is because poverty-related concerns consume mental resources, leaving less for other tasks. These data provide a previously unexamined perspective and help explain a spectrum of behaviors among the poor. We discuss some implications for poverty policy.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday November 06 2018, @12:43PM (1 child)

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 06 2018, @12:43PM (#758470)

    There's the classic boot story where you can buy $100 boots annually if you're poor but that costs you $1K/decade but if you're "rich" you buy one $300 pair of boots every decade and only spend $300/decade and that savings is why they're rich to begin with.

    I myself am pretty well off but I can't afford to shop at Walmart for clothes that can only be worn once before the dyes wash out and seams fail and buttons fall off. $10 pants are too expensive for me to keep rebuying every season compared to off the rack $100 pants that last until I'm sick of wearing them.

    Something similar happens with cars, people who buy a beater and spend $750/mon on unpredictable repairs vs people who buy a new car and spend $250/mon on a payment.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 06 2018, @03:00PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 06 2018, @03:00PM (#758507) Journal

    I don't believe there is a pair of boots that will last me a decade. Navy boondockers, maybe, but they're so damned uncomfortable, NO ONE is going to wear them for a year, let alone ten years. Rich people who sit in offices, sit in country clubs, and sit around the pool all the time - yeah, I can see their boots lasting for a decade. But, they didn't pay $300 for durability. They paid $300 for the name on the boots. "No, Sir, Mr. Brown! There are no working class peasants shopping in MY store! Every pair of shoes we sell is unique, and no working man will ever buy them! These boots and shoes are for you rich folk! Oh, Sir - there's a spot on your boot, would you allow me to spit shine it with my tongue?"