14 ms·

I think this article is an incorrect interpretation of the research, which doesn't support the author's three conclusions: > 1. Using the unadjusted figures...

I think this article is an incorrect interpretation of the research, which doesn't support the author's three conclusions: > 1. Using the unadjusted figures... The adjustment is to correct for sex. This is explained in the original paper and supported by their data: The males in the study had higher lead levels as children and males in general are more likely to commit crime, this alone causes a correlation between lead and crime. Correcting for sex is not "unusual": it's done in 99% of research on human subjects. > 2. Using the adjusted figures, there’s a clear association of lead levels with later criminal convictions, and the association is effectively statistically significant The authors perform comparisons of blood level with 5 different crime statistics and only 1 is statistically significant. These comparisons must be considered together: What causal effect between lead and non-violent crime would not also apply to violent crime, crime as a whole, first-time offences, or repeat offences? Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/ > 3. Using the adjusted figures, there’s a clear association of lead levels with self-reported offenses, but the statistical significance is poor. The author bases this conclusion from their chart of self-reports vs lead at different ages, which does not (as they claim) use the sex-adjusted figures. The statistical significance is indeed poor for the adjusted values, they got that right.

Semiapies 9y ago
Drum is irrationally invested in the lead-crime hypothesis. There's a strain of white, technocratic US liberal with a creepy investment in the idea that programs like urban renewal (bulldoze minority neighborhoods and stuff the residents in miserable housing projects) didn't fail, but were failed by those minorites. Back in the day, they were the ones who would mutter about generic differences in intelligence and The Bell Curve not getting a fair hearing when they thought the audience was sympathetic.
- Gibbon1 9y ago
  > and The Bell Curve not getting a fair hearing If you put that line at the beginning of your comment you'd saved me a couple of seconds reading.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- neaden 9y ago
  This is in no way a fair reading of Drum on the lead stuff. His basic point is that the rise and fall off crime is due in large part to lead so you should ignore politicians who try to claim credit for it with their policing programs and that we should scale back programs that were initiated during the 80s come wave. He does not support things like The Bell Curve at all.
  - veridies 9y ago
    It’s worth noting Drum’s actual position on The Bell Curve: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/charles-murray-still-convinced-whites-are-smarter-blacks/ http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/charles-murray... TLDR: he thinks that there could be an genetic difference in racial IQ levels, but that the evidence is against it and it makes far less sense than the environmental explanation.
  - Semiapies 9y ago
    It's an entirely fair reading of many of his supporters, who are absolutely about rehabilitating failed social programs.
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  You got it 180degrees off. Drum is the opposite stereotype from the one you put forth.

Semiapies 9y ago

Drum is irrationally invested in the lead-crime hypothesis. There's a strain of white, technocratic US liberal with a creepy investment in the idea that programs like urban renewal (bulldoze minority neighborhoods and stuff the residents in miserable housing projects) didn't fail, but were failed by those minorites. Back in the day, they were the ones who would mutter about generic differences in intelligence and The Bell Curve not getting a fair hearing when they thought the audience was sympathetic.

Gibbon1 9y ago
> and The Bell Curve not getting a fair hearing If you put that line at the beginning of your comment you'd saved me a couple of seconds reading.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
neaden 9y ago
This is in no way a fair reading of Drum on the lead stuff. His basic point is that the rise and fall off crime is due in large part to lead so you should ignore politicians who try to claim credit for it with their policing programs and that we should scale back programs that were initiated during the 80s come wave. He does not support things like The Bell Curve at all.
- veridies 9y ago
  It’s worth noting Drum’s actual position on The Bell Curve: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/charles-murray-still-convinced-whites-are-smarter-blacks/ http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/charles-murray... TLDR: he thinks that there could be an genetic difference in racial IQ levels, but that the evidence is against it and it makes far less sense than the environmental explanation.
- Semiapies 9y ago
  It's an entirely fair reading of many of his supporters, who are absolutely about rehabilitating failed social programs.
fjsolwmv 9y ago
You got it 180degrees off. Drum is the opposite stereotype from the one you put forth.