Primary Discussion Response:


Unit 3 will introduce you to the key aspects of social class and stratification and ask you to explore the implications of social class on both a local and global scale.


Choose one of the following TED talks to review and discuss below:

Anna Rosling Ronnlund: See how the rest of the world lives, organized by income

Kimberly Noble: How does income affect childhood brain development?


Consider times when you have seen, felt or experienced aspects of social class in your own life. Were these experiences positive or negative? Why? How did these experiences impact the way you see yourself and those around you? How did these experiences impact the way you understand your place in society?


Using the video that you watched, post an initial response within the Discussion Board area that answers the following questions:

What is the key piece of information about social class and stratification you took away from this presentation? How does that information broaden your perspective on social class and stratification?

How might you use this key piece of information to broaden others perspective on social class and stratification on a global scale? Please be specific about who you would share the takeaway with and why.


Income Effect on Childhood Brain Development

Student Name

Institution Affiliation




Income Effect on Childhood Brain Development

An individual’s social class or stratification does not make a person more significant than others. Every human being comes to this world by birth and leaves in death. Arguably, there are four types of social classes or stratifications: upper, upper-middle, middle, working, and lower class. Social class and stratification significantly determine life opportunities, shape life-adjustment patterns, define social responsibilities and privileges, and dictates conventional morality. Therefore, it is essential to consider their role in scientific researches. Kimberly Noble, a neuroscientist, shares a talk on a study conducted to determine income’s effect on childhood brain development. This paper provides an initial response regarding Kimberly’s talk.

Key Information

While income is not the only contributing factor to determine a child’s brain development, it is a most vital aspect to consider among the majors. Social classes and stratifications are often shaped by social status, political status, wealth and income, religion, gender, and ethnicity. Conferring to Kimberly’s talk, most children from disadvantaged families were found to have disproportionate or smaller brain structures. The link between income and a child’s brain development is most vital at the low-income family levels. Interestingly, income impact on children’s brain development was not affected by socials determinants like ethnicity, age, and race. Brain structure development depended entirely on the family’s social class and stratification.

Information Effect on Social Class and Stratification Perspective

At some point, Kimberly mentions that findings from their study illustrated a significant income effect on brain development. This one factor indicated a close association with the cortical surface area across the entire brain surface. Accordingly, Kimberly demonstrates that higher family income was associated with a larger cortical surface area. The brain regions affected by family income are linked to essential cognitive set skills like language, self-control, and increased concentration. For children, these skills are most vital for growth and development. However, a majority of children from low-income families struggle with these skills. On balance, this information broadens my understanding of social class and stratification, given the tremendous results. It means that leading a well up financial and social life builds an enabling future for children.

Broadening Social Class and Stratification Perspective on Global Scale

On a global scale, the information present in Kimberly’s presentation can be of great significance in changing societies, states, and nations. Subsequently, if the income effect on children’s brain development is scientifically proven, this can inevitably result in meaningful policy changes intended to provide an enabling environment for all children equally. Social and financial disparities are indeed the cause of small cortical surface area development, as shown in the presentation. Markedly, during the research, great variability between participants was observed. There were children from higher-income families with smaller cortical surface areas, while other children from low-income families had larger cortical surface areas. Be that as it may, other factors such as exposure, nutrition, and maternal-child interaction, which are more prevalent among the upper and middle social classes, still support the theory that children from advantaged families have better brain development.

Specific Audience

Specifically, I would target the upper and middle class as the audience for this takeaway. Suppose Kimberly argues that giving some extra cash to disadvantaged families improved children’s brain development. In that case, I believe it would be more effective to come up with ways to raise these families’ income. Since the upper and middle classes are not financially and socially disadvantaged as the lower class, policies can be formulated to support impoverished families in acquiring a high social and financial status.


On balance, social class and stratification affect children’s brain development and overall child growth and development. An underdeveloped brain can possibly results in an individual leading a poor life. Although experiences shape brain development and the brain is not destiny, policy changes can be introduced along the experience path. This is because cortical surface area development begins earlier on before a child starts learning. Amenably, it takes a village to raise a child.