USA: The Leader of the Unfree World

[Norgy]

Except that neither your "example" nor DG's are examples of anything.  The lead hypothesis is based on both correlation and causation, whereas you and DGuller seem to think that random correlations are examples of something or other.

Spurious connections are more fun, though. 

[DGuller]

Dguller, an even better example is this:

Except that neither your "example" nor DG's are examples of anything.  The lead hypothesis is based on both correlation and causation, whereas you and DGuller seem to think that random correlations are examples of something or other.

What's the causation?  And did it come before or after correlation was found?

[frunk]

I'm actually talking about non-violent crimes in general. If you look at the previous statistics on what portion of our incarcerated population are in there for non-violent crimes that have no victims it's actually relatively small. Especially since you can presume most of the percentage of drug incarcerations are not simple users of the drugs.

What non-violent crimes that have no victims are there other than drug related?

[Valmy]

Illegal gambling?

[Zanza]

Dguller, an even better example is this:

Except that neither your "example" nor DG's are examples of anything.  The lead hypothesis is based on both correlation and causation, whereas you and DGuller seem to think that random correlations are examples of something or other.

The Internet Explorer hypothesis is also based on both correlation and causation. Have you used the Internet Explorer in the mid 2000s? That piece of shit could trigger a murderous rage in the calmest person imaginable.

More serious, the lead hypothesis conflicts with some other trends that make it questionable whether there was really widespread brain damage from lead poisoning in the Western world during the 20th century. IQs rose considerably and constantly for example.

[Ideologue]

Otto, it appears that violent crime is falling everywhere in the Western World.  It also seems that nobody has a particularly good explanation for why this is occuring across all Western societies.

This.

Someone made a case that the key was lower levels of lead ingested by kids. I'm not convinced, I think probably it is a number of different factors.

I dunno; in what other way do we warehouse 18-22 year old males?  I think it coincides quite nicely with the rise of student lending, don't you?  HMMM.

I actually suspect that college attendance is a huge driver in the decrease in violent crime.

[Ideologue]

Illegal gambling?

Prostitution (in theory, often not in practice).

[frunk]

Both true, but I'm willing to bet they are a small fraction compared to those incarcerated because of drugs.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm actually talking about non-violent crimes in general. If you look at the previous statistics on what portion of our incarcerated population are in there for non-violent crimes that have no victims it's actually relatively small. Especially since you can presume most of the percentage of drug incarcerations are not simple users of the drugs.

What non-violent crimes that have no victims are there other than drug related?

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying, "almost none of our incarcerated population are there for non-violent crimes that have no victims, for example drug users, who have no victims and are a small proportion of incarcerated inmates." I'm differentiating between drug users, who I define as persons convicted of simple possession, and not any form of drug distribution/dealing, who I believe are committing a mostly victimless* crime, and drug traffickers and dealers who in fact have many victims--namely the population to which they peddle intrinsically harmful, addicting, and destructive substances for high profit margin.

If you dig into the statistics I suspect the overwhelming majority of persons incarcerated for drug offenses are persons who were dealing/distributing/trafficking. Simple possession is rarely punished with a lengthy prison sentence, unless it's a case where someone's parole is revoked over it (but that's really more sending you back for violating the terms of your release.) While there are laws on the books that would allow some persons who are just users to get put away, a lot of times prosecutors only utilize those when they believe it's someone who may actually know how to flip a dealer or a bigger fish. Most people who are found with baggies of weed or such don't go to prison but jail and usually only briefly.

[grumbler]

What's the causation?  And did it come before or after correlation was found?

The causation is that high lead levels in childhood have negative physical effects on children into adulthood (that's why they passed laws regarding paint manufacturing and gasoline additives).  The potential impact on crime rates wasn't studied, insofar as I know, until the late 1990s.  Those studies were certainly spurred by the apparent correlation.  That's how science works.

Now, it certainly is just a hypothesis at this point; no controlled experiments could ethically be conducted.  But the evidence is certainly very compelling.  No contrary cases have been observed, as far as I know.

There was a Mother Jones article on this about 18 months ago: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline It is summarized in a Forbes article here:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/01/03/how-lead-caused-americas-violent-crime-epidemic/  The money quote:

There are three basic reasons why this theory should be believed. First, as Drum points out, the numbers correlate almost perfectly. "If you add a lag time of 23 years," he writes. "Lead emissions from automobiles explain 90 percent of the variation in violent crime in America. Toddlers who ingested high levels of lead in the '40s and '50s really were more likely to become violent criminals in the '60s, '70s, and '80s."

Second, this correlation holds true with no exceptions. Every country studied has shown this same strong correlation between leaded gasoline and violent crime rates. Within the United States, you can see the data at the state level. Where lead concentrations declined quickly, crime declined quickly. Where it declined slowly, crime declined slowly. The data even holds true at the neighborhood level – high lead concentrations correlate so well that you can overlay maps of crime rates over maps of lead concentrations and get an almost perfect fit.

Third, and probably most important, the data goes beyond just these models. As Drum himself points out, "if econometric studies were all there were to the story of lead, you'd be justified in remaining skeptical no matter how good the statistics look." But the chemistry and neuroscience of lead gives us good reason to believe the connection. Decades of research has shown that lead poisoning causes significant and probably irreversible damage to the brain. Not only does lead degrade cognitive abilities and lower intelligence, it also degrades a person's ability to make decisions by damaging areas of the brain responsible for "emotional regulation, impulse control, attention, verbal reasoning, and mental flexibility."

[DGuller]

  As far as correlation-explaining stories go, it sounds pretty convincing.

[grumbler]

As far as correlation-explaining stories go, it sounds pretty convincing.

Yep.  Welcome to the world of science.

[Malthus]

If lead causes an increase in violent crime essentially because it reduces intelligence, what about the Flynn Effect? Is that correlated with decrease in lead usage?

[frunk]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying, "almost none of our incarcerated population are there for non-violent crimes that have no victims, for example drug users, who have no victims and are a small proportion of incarcerated inmates." I'm differentiating between drug users, who I define as persons convicted of simple possession, and not any form of drug distribution/dealing, who I believe are committing a mostly victimless* crime, and drug traffickers and dealers who in fact have many victims--namely the population to which they peddle intrinsically harmful, addicting, and destructive substances for high profit margin.

Like people who sell alcohol?

[Agelastus]

If lead causes an increase in violent crime essentially because it reduces intelligence, what about the Flynn Effect? Is that correlated with decrease in lead usage?

I think it's quite likely that the general damage that lead caused to intelligence was more than balanced by increases in nutrition and improvements in schooling etc., hence the "Flynn Effect".

However, the specific damage to the brain that probably lead to the increase in violent crime was probably the damage caused to the parts of the brain involved in "emotional regulation, impulse control" (to quote the article.) I doubt that IQ tests reflect this aspect of the brain's functions.

Does anyone know if there was a "bump"/abnormal increase in intelligence when the first lead-free generation took the IQ tests?