Here.
Early home environment, especially the level of cognitive stimulation such as the number of books and educational toys in the home, at age 4, predicted the efficiency of cognitive pruning in the lateral inferior temporal gyrus and another part of the cerebral cortex in the left temporal region at late adolescence (age 16-18). The lateral inferior temporal gyrus is involved in word recognition. A better pruned region will be thinner yet more efficient.
The level of cognitive stimulation at age 8 also had an effect at age 16-18, but less of one.
The mother’s level of intelligence and the degree and quality of her care had no effect on the development of these regions, so we can rule out selection bias and a genetic effect whereby smarter mothers provide a more stimulating environment for their children coincidentally hence a genetic effect masks as an environmental one.
Previous research showed that childhood abuse, neglect and poverty actually stunts the brain.
Early home environment in terms of a cognitively stimulating environment has positive effects on brain development all the way up to near adulthood.
Take that, HBD’ers!
I’ve read of an experiment involving baby monkeys and the effect of early stimulation on brain development. Neglect and lack of play etc. stunted the brain massively. However, they found little difference between moderate stimulation and excessive amounts of stimulation.
The whole experiment was an analogy for class structures and child development and shows bad parenting(lower class) stunts a child’s growth while over parenting(upper class) has little positive benefits. The middle way was the most sensible way. Pretty sound advice I’d say.
Straying a bit off topic here:
Lower IQ minorities have all the tools at their disposal to create a good life. The internet and libraries can give them access to education that can lead to productive work that doesn’t require high IQs. The simple culture surrounding these societies that demonize the ‘whiteness’ of education is why Blacks and Indios lag behind.
Excessive stimulation would probably not be good, a balance between providing a stimulating environment and letting the kid be idle is something I recommend.
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com trims the brain.
Good news! I’m one of the many (at least I hope) believers in HBD that would love to be proven wrong. I hope this gets a lot of attention and holds up to scrutiny.
FWIW, There was an experiment along these lines in 1970s that attempted to provide an enriched environment for children from underprivileged backgrounds.
The results were modest success with measured IQ, but marked success for positive behavior. (avoiding teen pregnancy, graduating high school and college..)
Impact of child care/preschool on reading and math achievement, and cognitive ability, at age 21:
An increase of 1.8 grade levels in reading achievement
An increase of 1.3 grade levels in math achievement
A modest increase in Full-Scale IQ (4.4 points), and in Verbal IQ (4.2 points).
Impact of child care/preschool on life outcomes at age 21:
Completion of a half-year more of education
Much higher percentage enrolled in school at age 21 (42 percent vs. 20 percent)
Much higher percentage attended, or still attending, a 4-year college (36 percent vs. 14 percent)
Much higher percentage engaged in skilled jobs (47 percent vs. 27 percent)
Much lower percentage of teen-aged parents (26 percent vs. 45 percent)
Reduction of criminal activity
Statistically significant outcomes at age 30:
Four times more likely to have graduated from a four-year college (23 percent vs. 6 percent)
More likely to have been employed consistently over the previous two years (74 percent vs. 53 percent)
Five times less likely to have used public assistance in the previous seven years (4 percent vs. 20 percent)
Delayed becoming parents by average of almost two years
http://projects.fpg.unc.edu/~abc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abecedarian_Early_Intervention_Project