3 ms·
But the article does enumerate flaws wit the cellphone-violent crime hypothesis: The University of Leeds criminologist Graham Farrell, who is closely associate
by bjourne 7y ago
But the article does enumerate flaws wit the cellphone-violent crime hypothesis:
The University of Leeds criminologist Graham Farrell, who is closely associated with the hypothesis that better security technology is the primary cause of the crime decline, also took issue with some of the paper’s data analysis. “At first glance, it seems to be that antenna [density] increased mostly after homicide already declined,” he wrote to me in an email.
The data that the economists presented don’t match the chronology of the decline of homicides, especially considering that their proxy variable—how many antennas were up—would almost certainly precede cellphone usage by some period of time. The timing, he said, is “not even close.”
Correlation doesn't imply causation, but no one said it did.
- bsder 7y ago> their proxy variable—how many antennas were up—would almost certainly precede cellphone usage by some period of time. I find this assumption VERY suspect. Cell tower density is going to increase in the most profitable areas first--and those are not necessarily going to be correlated with high-crime areas (in fact--probably anti-correlated). Cell phones are useful even if just a small number of drug dealers have them (remember when drug dealers used to have pagers?). You would probably have to correlate cell phones with pagers in some way in order to make a valid correlation.
- frereubu 7y agoIt's the title, combined with the fact that they've even given the idea air time, which made me write that comment. My argument is essentially that this article shouldn't have been written.