The assumption was made in the paper, which I bothered to read, that the physiological stress caused by poverty create intellectual problems later on. The sample consisted of rural white children.

I merely pointed out that there were sufficient exceptions to this, particularly through most of human history when poverty was the norm, that maybe the premise has some faults.

If I were to get more technical about it, I could point out that the many biological factors that they measured, aside from blood pressure and body mass ratio, are almost equivalent, particularly in older children. Leave those two out, which probably have more to do with nutrition, and the paper's premise basically disappears. The measurement of "working memory" was done by having people play "Simon." And on this we draw the entire universe of larger conclusions that everybody is looking for.

But hey, it's easier to spew than it is to think, isn't it?