The Neuroscience of Child Development
Your brain wasn't born ready -- it was built by experience
The human brain is not born ready. It arrives in the world with a rough blueprint -- a basic architecture of neurons and regions -- but the intricate wiring that makes us who we are is constructed through years of experience, interaction, and environment. No other organ in the body undergoes such dramatic, prolonged development after birth.
From the prenatal explosion of neuron creation to the slow, deliberate myelination of the prefrontal cortex that continues well into the mid-twenties, the brain's development is a decades-long construction project. And unlike building a house, where the blueprint is followed precisely, the brain's final form is shaped profoundly by the experiences it encounters along the way. Every conversation, every touch, every moment of play or stress physically reshapes the developing brain.
This module explores the neuroscience behind this extraordinary process -- from the creation and connection of neurons to the pruning that makes the brain efficient, and the myelination that makes it fast. Understanding how the brain is built helps us understand why early experiences matter so much, why teenagers behave the way they do, and how we can best support healthy development at every stage.
Four overlapping waves of neural development from conception to adulthood
Swipe to explore full diagram
700 to 1,000 new connections every second in the infant brain
From birth through early childhood, the brain embarks on an astonishing building spree. Neurons reach out to each other, forming connections called synapses at a breathtaking rate -- 700 to 1,000 new connections every single second. This process, called synaptogenesis, is one of the most extraordinary feats of biological construction in the natural world.
The result is a brain of almost unfathomable density. By the time a child reaches age two or three, their brain contains roughly twice as many synaptic connections as an adult brain. This is not a deficiency in the adult brain -- it is a feature of the developing one. The young brain overproduces connections wildly, creating a vast network of possibilities. Which connections survive and which are eliminated depends on one thing above all else: experience.
A two-year-old's brain has approximately TWICE as many synapses as an adult brain. It's the most richly connected it will ever be. This massive overproduction is not wasteful -- it's the raw material from which a refined, efficient brain will be sculpted by experience.
Swipe to explore full diagram
How the brain becomes more efficient by eliminating what it doesn't need
If synaptogenesis is the brain's building spree, synaptic pruning is its renovation. Beginning around age two and accelerating through adolescence, the brain systematically eliminates approximately 50% of its synaptic connections. This is not damage, not loss, not decline. It is optimization.
The principle is straightforward: connections that are frequently used are strengthened and preserved. Connections that are rarely activated are pruned away. Think of it as a network engineer analyzing traffic patterns and shutting down underused routes to make the busy ones faster. Every time a child practices a skill, engages in conversation, or explores their environment, they are voting for certain neural pathways to survive. Every experience says to the brain: "Keep this connection. I need it."
This is why early enrichment matters -- not because children need to be drilled with flashcards, but because the brain is literally waiting for the environment to tell it which connections are worth keeping. A child raised with rich language input will preserve and strengthen language circuits. A child raised with music will maintain auditory and motor pathways for musical production. The brain adapts itself to the specific world it inhabits.
The process also explains why it becomes harder to learn certain skills later in life. Once pruning has eliminated the unused pathways, rebuilding them requires more effort than maintaining them would have. The windows of opportunity don't slam shut, but they do narrow.
Think of a sculptor starting with a massive block of marble. The masterpiece isn't created by ADDING material but by REMOVING everything that isn't the statue. Similarly, the brain becomes more specialized by removing unused connections. Michelangelo famously said he simply freed the angel from the marble -- the developing brain works the same way, carving a unique mind from a block of infinite neural possibilities.
The fatty coating that makes neural signals lightning-fast
While synaptogenesis builds the connections and pruning refines them, a third process makes the entire system fast: myelination. Myelin is a fatty white substance that wraps around nerve fibers like insulation around an electrical wire. Without myelin, neural signals travel slowly and inefficiently, like a phone call with terrible static. With myelin, signals travel up to 100 times faster and with far greater precision.
Myelination doesn't happen all at once. It follows a remarkably predictable developmental sequence, starting with the brain regions needed earliest and finishing with those needed last:
FIRST to myelinate -- Vision, hearing, touch, and movement. Completed largely within the first year of life. This is why infants rapidly improve their ability to see, hear, and coordinate movement.
Ongoing through age 13 -- Broca's area (speech production) and Wernicke's area (comprehension) continue myelinating through childhood and early adolescence, which is why language skills keep refining for years.
LAST to complete -- until ~age 25 -- The seat of planning, impulse control, reasoning, and judgment. Its late myelination has profound implications for understanding adolescent behavior and decision-making.
The Prefrontal Cortex Is Not Fully Mature Until Age 25. The last brain region to complete myelination is responsible for planning, impulse control, reasoning, and judgment. This has PROFOUND implications for understanding adolescent behavior and for legal, educational, and parenting policy. When a teenager makes a reckless decision, it is not because they are stupid or defiant -- it is because the hardware for good judgment is literally still under construction.
Why teenagers can be brilliant and reckless at the same time
The single most important insight from adolescent neuroscience is this: the teenage brain is not a broken adult brain. It is a brain in transition, and the timing of that transition creates a fundamental mismatch between two systems -- one that drives emotion and reward-seeking, and one that applies the brakes through planning and impulse control.
Swipe to explore full diagram
This "dual-systems model" explains much of what parents and teachers observe in teenagers. The limbic system -- the brain's emotional and reward center -- is fully mature by mid-adolescence. It drives the search for excitement, social approval, and intense experiences. But the prefrontal cortex -- the brain's CEO, responsible for weighing consequences and applying the brakes -- won't finish developing for another decade.
The result is a brain with a fully functional gas pedal and brakes that are still being installed. Teenagers aren't choosing to be reckless; their biology creates a genuine imbalance between the drive for reward and the capacity for restraint. This doesn't excuse harmful behavior, but it does reframe it. The appropriate response is not punishment alone but scaffolding -- providing external structure while the internal structure is still under construction.
The dual-systems model becomes especially dramatic in social contexts. Laurence Steinberg's groundbreaking research (2008) demonstrated that the mere presence of peers fundamentally alters adolescent brain function in ways it does not for adults. When teenagers know their friends are watching, the ventral striatum -- a key reward-processing region -- lights up with significantly greater activation, amplifying the appeal of risky choices.
Jason Chein and colleagues (2011) extended these findings using a driving simulation task. The results were striking: when peers were watching, adolescents took twice as many risks as when they drove alone. Adults, by contrast, showed zero change in risk-taking regardless of who was watching. Brain imaging revealed that the presence of peers selectively activated the reward circuitry of the adolescent brain while leaving the prefrontal control regions unaffected -- essentially turning up the volume on the gas pedal without touching the brakes.
This research has profound implications for policy and parenting. Graduated driver licensing programs, which restrict the number of peer passengers for new teen drivers, are directly supported by this neuroscience. The teenage brain is not defective -- it is exquisitely sensitive to social context, wired to learn from and be influenced by the peer group. Understanding this helps adults design environments that channel peer influence constructively rather than simply forbidding social interaction.
How toxic stress reshapes the developing brain -- and what protects against it
Not all stress is created equal. Neuroscience has revealed that the type, duration, and context of stress experienced in childhood can have dramatically different effects on brain architecture. Researchers distinguish between three categories:
Brief, mild stress with adult support. A child's first day at school or a vaccination. The stress response activates briefly and returns to baseline. This is healthy and growth-promoting -- it builds resilience.
More severe but time-limited, with adequate adult support. The death of a family member, a serious illness, or a natural disaster. Buffered by responsive relationships, the brain's stress system recovers without lasting damage.
Prolonged, severe, and unrelenting -- without adequate adult support. Chronic abuse, neglect, household violence, or caregiver substance abuse. The stress response is activated constantly, flooding the brain with cortisol and physically altering brain architecture.
The landmark ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) study, originally conducted by Felitti and Anda in 1998, demonstrated that the number of adverse experiences in childhood -- including abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction -- predicted a startling range of negative health outcomes decades later: heart disease, depression, addiction, early death. The mechanism, we now understand, is partly neural: toxic stress physically reshapes the developing brain, particularly the stress-response systems and the prefrontal cortex.
ACEs Dose-Response: More Adversity = More Risk
Percentage experiencing significant health/behavioral outcomes. Each additional ACE increases risk substantially (Felitti et al., 1998).
But the research also carries a profoundly hopeful message. The single most powerful protective factor against the damaging effects of toxic stress is not a program, a curriculum, or a therapy. It is a relationship.
The single most common finding in resilience research: at least ONE stable, committed relationship with a supportive adult. Not a perfect parent. Not a professional therapist. Just one reliable, caring person who shows up consistently. This single relationship can buffer a child's brain against the worst effects of adversity. It is both the simplest and most powerful intervention science has ever identified.
An important dimension of brain vulnerability involves sex-based differences in developmental timing. Longitudinal neuroimaging studies by Lenroot and colleagues (2007) and Jay Giedd's landmark NIMH project (2012) revealed that the prefrontal cortex reaches peak thickness approximately 1 to 2 years earlier in females than in males. This means that the brain region responsible for impulse control, planning, and emotional regulation comes online sooner in girls, on average, than in boys.
This developmental difference has measurable behavioral consequences. Boys, whose prefrontal cortex matures later, show higher rates of externalizing problems -- aggression, hyperactivity, and risk-taking behavior -- during childhood and adolescence. Girls, meanwhile, show higher rates of internalizing problems -- anxiety, depression, and rumination -- partly because their more mature prefrontal cortex may predispose them to overthinking and emotional self-focus. Neither pattern is inherently better or worse; they represent different vulnerabilities tied to different developmental timelines.
"Boys have boy brains and girls have girl brains."
Daphna Joel's groundbreaking 2015 study examined over 1,400 brain scans and found that virtually no one has an entirely "male" or "female" brain. Instead, every brain is a unique mosaic of features, some more common in males, some more common in females, and most shared across sexes. Average group differences in timing exist, but they are far smaller than the variation within each sex. Using brain differences to justify rigid gender stereotypes in education or parenting is not supported by the neuroscience.
The practical takeaway is nuanced: developmental timing differences are real and can inform how we support children, but they are averages across populations, not blueprints for individuals. Every child's brain develops on its own unique schedule, shaped by the interplay of genetics, hormones, experience, and environment.
What longitudinal neuroscience reveals about screens, brains, and what protects children
In a world where screens are ubiquitous from infancy, parents and educators urgently need answers grounded in evidence, not fear. The emerging neuroscience is nuanced -- neither dismissive of concerns nor supportive of moral panic. It reveals a more complicated and ultimately hopeful picture.
Groundbreaking longitudinal research following children for over a decade linked high screen exposure before age 2 to significant changes in brain development:
BUT: Parent-child reading at age 3 could COUNTERACT some of these brain changes. The researchers found that interactive, responsive human engagement -- reading together, talking, playing -- provided a powerful protective effect. The take-away is not "screens are poison" but rather: human interaction protects. The developing brain needs responsive, back-and-forth engagement with caring humans. Screens that replace this engagement are problematic; screens that supplement it are far less concerning.
The brain is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled.
The most hopeful finding in developmental neuroscience
Donald Hebb's foundational principle (1949) captured it elegantly: "Neurons that fire together wire together." The brain is never truly "finished." Neuroplasticity — the brain's lifelong ability to reorganize itself by forming new neural connections — means practice changes the brain structurally. Repeated activation of a neural circuit physically strengthens it through increased myelination, synaptic density, and dendritic branching. Every skill rehearsed, every lesson learned, every experience absorbed leaves a physical trace in the architecture of the brain.
William Greenough (1987) made a crucial distinction that clarifies why both early experience and lifelong learning matter. Experience-expectant plasticity describes the brain's built-in expectation of certain inputs during critical windows — light, language, touch — and its allocation of resources to receive them. The brain essentially reserves neural real estate for information it "expects" based on evolutionary history. Experience-dependent plasticity, by contrast, describes the brain's responsiveness to unique individual experiences throughout life. Experience-expectant plasticity explains why deprivation during sensitive periods is so harmful. Experience-dependent plasticity explains why learning and recovery remain possible throughout life — even into old age.
Eleanor Maguire's landmark London taxi driver study (2000) provided the most compelling evidence that experience physically reshapes adult brains. Drivers who completed "The Knowledge" — memorizing 25,000+ London streets — had measurably enlarged hippocampi compared to bus drivers who followed fixed routes. The enlargement was directly proportional to years of taxi driving and reversible upon retirement. The brain literally grew in response to sustained navigation demands. In children, the effects are even more dramatic: musical training before age 7 produces a larger corpus callosum (Schlaug et al.) and fundamentally different auditory cortex organization compared to non-musicians — changes that persist into adulthood.
Recovery from early adversity demonstrates neuroplasticity's extraordinary reach. The Bucharest Early Intervention Project (Nelson, Fox & Zeanah) followed Romanian orphans raised in severely depriving institutions. Children placed in high-quality foster care showed significant neural recovery compared to those who remained institutionalized. The younger the placement, the better the outcome — but children placed even at 18–24 months showed meaningful recovery in brain structure and cognitive function, demonstrating that while timing matters enormously, the brain retains remarkable recovery capacity when provided responsive, stimulating relationships.
The Brain Never Stops Building — Even in adults, the hippocampus generates approximately 700 new neurons per day (Spalding et al., 2013), established through carbon-14 dating. This challenged the decades-old belief that adult brains cannot grow new neurons. Combined with neuroplasticity findings, this means the brain's capacity to change in response to experience never fully closes — making every learning opportunity, at every age, genuinely consequential.
Understanding when the brain is most — and least — receptive to change
Critical periods are narrow windows during which specific input is absolutely required for normal development. If the window closes without the input, the capacity may be permanently impaired. Sensitive periods are broader windows of heightened receptivity — learning can still occur after the window narrows, but requires more effort and produces less complete results. Crucially, few human capacities have true critical periods; most have sensitive periods. Understanding the difference has enormous implications for both early intervention policy and for managing realistic expectations about recovery and remediation.
Vision provides the clearest example of a true critical period. David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel's Nobel Prize-winning research (1960s–70s) showed that kittens deprived of vision in one eye during the first months of life permanently lost normal vision in that eye — the visual cortex reorganized to serve only the seeing eye, with the deprived eye's columns shrinking dramatically. In humans, children with untreated congenital cataracts who do not receive corrective surgery before approximately age 6–8 months may never develop normal binocular vision (Maurer et al., 2005). The critical period is that narrow — and the consequences of missing it that severe.
Language represents a sensitive period rather than a true critical period. Patricia Kuhl's perceptual narrowing research showed that infants can distinguish all human speech sounds at birth but lose the ability to discriminate non-native sounds between 6–12 months — the brain specializes for the sounds of the ambient language. Eric Lenneberg's (1967) critical period hypothesis proposed that language acquisition is most efficient before puberty. The case of Genie (Curtiss, 1977) — isolated until age 13 — provides the most extreme test: she acquired vocabulary (~200 words) but never mastered syntax, suggesting a sensitive period specifically for grammatical acquisition that does not fully close but is vastly more efficient during childhood.
The policy implications are direct. The distinction between critical and sensitive periods explains why early intervention programs are more cost-effective and neurologically powerful than later intervention — not because later intervention is impossible, but because the brain is more receptive earlier, making every unit of effort more effective. James Heckman's economic analysis (Nobel laureate economist) shows that returns on human capital investment are highest for early childhood programs, with each dollar invested in high-quality early childhood programs returning $7–13 in reduced special education, crime, healthcare, and welfare costs.
The Case of Genie — Discovered in 1970 at age 13, having been isolated in a room since infancy, Genie provided a tragic natural experiment on the language sensitive period. She was never taught language. Given intensive language instruction, she acquired vocabulary and basic phrases but never mastered English grammar — she could not reliably form correct sentences. Her case suggests a sensitive period specifically for syntax: vocabulary acquisition remained possible, but grammatical competence did not. The window had narrowed, not closed — but it could no longer fully open again.
How neurotransmitters shape the developing brain — and why adolescence is a neurochemical revolution
Neurons communicate through chemical messengers called neurotransmitters. When an electrical signal reaches the axon terminal, it triggers release of neurotransmitter molecules into the synapse — the tiny gap between neurons. These chemicals bind to receptors on the receiving neuron, either exciting it (making it more likely to fire its own signal) or inhibiting it (making it less likely to fire). The balance between excitation and inhibition is fundamental to all brain function — and this balance changes dramatically across development, with profound consequences for behavior, emotion, and learning.
Dopamine is the neurotransmitter most associated with motivation, reward, and novelty-seeking. During adolescence, dopamine receptor density in the striatum (the brain's reward center) peaks dramatically and then declines to adult levels by the mid-20s (Galvan et al., 2006; Wahlstrom et al., 2010). This peak in dopamine sensitivity explains why teenagers experience pleasure more intensely, seek novelty more aggressively, and are more vulnerable to addiction. Adriana Galvan's fMRI research showed that adolescents' nucleus accumbens responds 2–4 times more strongly to rewards than either children's or adults' brains — a finding that has transformed how developmental psychologists understand risk-taking behavior.
Serotonin modulates mood, sleep, appetite, and emotional regulation. Serotonin systems are active from early fetal development and play a critical role in brain circuit formation. Caspi & Moffitt (2003) proposed a landmark gene-environment interaction: the "short allele" of the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTTLPR) moderated the relationship between childhood maltreatment and adult depression. However, subsequent meta-analyses produced mixed results (Risch et al., 2009) — teaching a lesson strikingly parallel to the marshmallow test: compelling initial findings require robust replication. The relationship between serotonin genes, stress, and depression is real but more complex than the original study suggested.
GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid) is the brain's primary inhibitory neurotransmitter — the chemical brake on neural excitation. A remarkable developmental fact: GABA is actually excitatory in the fetal and neonatal brain and only becomes inhibitory during the first weeks of postnatal life (Ben-Ari, 2002). This developmental switch is critical for normal brain circuit formation. The gradual maturation of GABAergic inhibition throughout childhood and adolescence is a key mechanism underlying developing impulse control — the neural "brakes" are being chemically calibrated over two decades, helping explain why impulse control improves so gradually.
Reward & Motivation. PEAKS during adolescence — making rewards feel more intense and novelty more compelling than at any other point in life.
Mood & Regulation. Active from fetal life. Modulates emotional development across childhood — and its interaction with stress genes is more complex than early research suggested.
The Brake. EXCITATORY at birth, switches to INHIBITORY after birth — the chemical foundation of impulse control, being calibrated over two decades of development.
Adolescents' reward centers respond 2–4x more strongly to rewards than either children's or adults' brains (Galvan et al., 2006). This is not a character flaw — it is a neurochemical reality. The dopamine system peaks precisely when the prefrontal brakes are still developing, explaining why the combination of intense pleasure-seeking and weak impulse control is so characteristic of adolescence. Risk-taking is not irrationality — it is biology.
Caspi & Moffitt's (2003) finding that the 5-HTTLPR gene variant moderated depression risk after childhood maltreatment was widely celebrated as the first clear gene-environment interaction for depression. But Risch et al.'s (2009) meta-analysis of 14 studies found no consistent support. This parallels the marshmallow test story: a compelling, plausible initial finding that requires more careful investigation. The field of gene-environment interactions has become substantially more methodologically rigorous — requiring larger samples, pre-registration, and independent replication — as a direct result.
Why sleep is the most underrated force in child development
Sleep is not passive. The brain during sleep is extraordinarily active — consolidating memories by replaying and strengthening neural connections formed during the day, processing emotional experiences, and clearing metabolic waste products through the glymphatic system (discovered by Nedergaard, 2012–2013). The glymphatic system expands dramatically during sleep, allowing cerebrospinal fluid to flush out toxic proteins that accumulate during waking hours. For developing brains, sleep is when much of the physical construction work happens — newly formed synapses are strengthened, and selective pruning accelerates. Far from "time lost," sleep is the night shift of brain building.
Sleep architecture changes dramatically across development. Newborns sleep 14–17 hours per day with approximately 50% in REM sleep — the stage associated with memory consolidation and emotional processing. By age 5, sleep decreases to 10–13 hours with about 20% REM. Adolescents need 8–10 hours but average only 6–7 hours. This gap is not laziness: puberty triggers a biological shift in circadian timing — melatonin release delays approximately 1–2 hours (Carskadon, 2011), pushing the natural sleep onset later into the night. When school start times do not accommodate this biological reality, adolescents are forced into chronic sleep deprivation during precisely the years when their brains are undergoing the most active restructuring since infancy.
Sleep deprivation in children produces cascading effects on neural architecture and function: reduced hippocampal volume (impairing memory consolidation), heightened amygdala reactivity (producing emotional dysregulation), and impaired prefrontal cortex function (reducing impulse control). In a landmark study, Gruber et al. (2012) found that extending children's sleep by just 27 minutes per night for 5 nights produced measurable improvements in emotional regulation, impulsivity, and academic performance. The effect size from such a modest intervention was striking — suggesting that many children are operating in a state of chronic sleep deprivation that significantly impairs their cognitive and emotional functioning.
School start times represent one of the clearest opportunities to apply developmental neuroscience directly to policy. California became the first US state to mandate later high school start times (2019), requiring most high schools to start no earlier than 8:30 AM. Research in districts that made this change documents improved attendance, better academic performance, and reduced traffic accidents among teen drivers (Wahlstrom et al., 2014). This is one of the most evidence-grounded, cost-effective interventions available — requiring no new curriculum, no new buildings, and no new technology. It simply aligns school schedules with biological reality.
Gruber et al. (2012) found that extending children's sleep by just 27 minutes per night for 5 nights significantly improved emotional regulation, reduced impulsivity, and boosted classroom performance. The brain's night shift is so powerful that even a modest extension of sleep produces measurable cognitive benefits within a week. If a supplement produced these effects, it would dominate headlines.
Evidence-based recommendations: (1) Consistent bedtime routines — same time, same sequence every night. (2) No screens 60 minutes before bed — blue light suppresses melatonin release. (3) Cool, dark room — body temperature drop signals sleep onset. (4) For adolescents: advocate for later school start times — this is a public health issue, not a preference. (5) Protect weekend sleep — "social jetlag" from weekend late nights disrupts the circadian clock and undoes weeknight discipline.
What nutrition, exercise, and early intervention actually change in developing brains
The brain consumes approximately 60% of a child's total metabolic energy (compared to ~20% in adults). This extraordinary demand makes the developing brain uniquely vulnerable to nutritional deficiencies. Iron deficiency — the most common nutritional deficiency worldwide — is associated with impaired myelination and cognitive deficits that can persist even after iron levels are corrected (Lozoff et al., 2006). DHA (docosahexaenoic acid, an omega-3 fatty acid) is a critical structural component of neuronal membranes, essential for synaptogenesis and visual development. The Lancet's landmark nutrition series (2013) documented that deficiencies during the "First 1,000 Days" (conception to age 2) can produce irreversible cognitive impairments — a window that coincides precisely with the most intense period of brain construction.
Physical exercise is one of the most powerful brain-building interventions available — and one of the most underutilized. Exercise increases BDNF (brain-derived neurotrophic factor), often called "Miracle-Gro for the brain," promoting neurogenesis, synaptogenesis, and neuronal survival. Charles Hillman's research (2009, 2014) shows that physically fit children have larger hippocampal volumes, better sustained attention, and superior academic performance compared to less-fit peers. Remarkably, a single bout of moderate exercise improves executive function for up to 2 hours afterward. Aerobic fitness is also associated with better white matter integrity (myelination quality) in frontal circuits — the circuits underlying executive function and impulse control.
Musical training and bilingualism also produce measurable structural neural changes. Musical training before age 7 produces a larger corpus callosum (Schlaug et al.) — the fiber tract connecting the two hemispheres — and different auditory cortex organization. Bilingual children consistently show advantages in executive function tasks requiring cognitive flexibility and inhibitory control (Bialystok, 2001, 2011) — though the magnitude of this "bilingual advantage" is debated in the literature. The mechanism appears to be the constant management of two competing language systems, which exercises inhibitory control circuits the way weight training exercises muscles.
Evidence-based early interventions show lasting effects that extend decades beyond the intervention itself. The Nurse-Family Partnership (David Olds): home visiting by nurses during pregnancy and the first 2 years produces lasting improvements in child cognitive development, significantly reduces abuse and neglect rates, and improves maternal outcomes. The Perry Preschool Project (40-year follow-up): children who received high-quality early education showed higher earnings, lower crime rates, and better health outcomes decades later — with an estimated 7–10% annual return on investment (Heckman). The most effective interventions share common features: early start, responsive relationships, and sustained engagement over time.
The Lancet's landmark nutrition series (2013) documented that nutritional deficiencies during the first 1,000 days (conception through age 2) can produce cognitive impairments that persist throughout life, even when nutrition later improves. This window coincides with the period of most intense brain construction and is when nutritional investment produces the greatest returns. Global malnutrition does not just harm bodies — it shapes the architecture of developing minds, with consequences that extend across generations.
5 questions to check your understanding of this module