View Single Post
Old 02-18-2013, 08:06 PM   #145
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,033


Originally Posted by Blart View Post
Scientists try to tease our causation from correlation, relying on what the data explains best, controlling for factors when they can, and coming up with the best explanation possible...

But you're right, it's not perfect, and there is no singular reason for crime. There are millions.
Parental involvement, education, community involvement, gun control, incarceration rates, drug control, mental health services, income inequality, access to birth control, etc.

However, despite the best efforts of Jim Manzi (expert statistician and conservative, who found that the above could explain up to 20 percent of the following, but failed to replicate those results based on further evidence) no combination of the known crime correlates could explain this:

Steven Levitt (of Freakonomics fame) pleased many liberals, including me, when he published data that showed a probable link between abortion and the drop in crime, which wasn't perfect but explained the phenomenon better than anything else at the time.

That's what I believed up until last month. Call me a flip flopper, but my beliefs change based on evidence.

Cities, states, and countries all over the world have seen a similar rise and decline. The similarity they all share? Not abortion services, not single motherhood, not black youths - just the rise and fall of leaded gasoline, which can explain up to 90% of the crime wave over the late 20th century.

The evidence goes further than the national, state, and city level - follow-up studies have found it on the individual level. Childhood blood lead levels are consistently associated with arrest rates for violent crimes.

All that leaded smog didn't completely go away, it's still in our soil - especially around inner-cities where traffic was worst. It's still in old houses, it's especially in old windows.

If you're not convinced, just wait. Western Europe used leaded gasoline longer, so we can expect crime to drop there in the next 20 years, with a drastic drop over the next 10. In Russia, the drop should happen a little later, since the Soviets used leaded gasoline longer. We should see the beginnings of a crime decrease in Latin America (they need it) around 2018, since they used leaded gasoline until 1995.

If crime decreases don't happen in the countries above, we can label the theory false or flawed.

Regardless, this is all much more interesting to me than Ted Nugent's opinions or txtebow's racial stereotypes.
I don't disagree with anything you've said and find it quite interesting, to be honest. It's just, at best, a predisposition to these problems. To dismiss what some of the others introduce (socioeconomics or fatherhood, for example) because you found a correlation is a bit overly simplistic. Within the impacted people, some will turn to crime and some won't. So for you to dismiss what Doc is saying outright because you have charts that show general trends is just as ignorant as him blindly dismissing what you say because he might have more localized trends. Heck, even if what he's saying is accurate, it's merely another predisposition.

That's basically what I'm saying. It's not any one thing so anyone arguing that they know the one factor is doing so out of a blind debate rather than a true discussion. And yes, I know you just stated above (and stated before) that lead isn't the end all for whether someone's destined to be a criminal or not but I just think it needed more emphasis.

PS: Req is still an annoying little b****.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote