14 ms·

The lead-crime hypothesis is almost certainly true but the mass media reaction to it just shows how much is wrong with our society. First of all, the lead-crim

The lead-crime hypothesis is almost certainly true but the mass media reaction to it just shows how much is wrong with our society. First of all, the lead-crime hypothesis is good news. It is great to realize that small entirely achievable environmental changes can cause such marked improvement in wellbeing in people's lives. But for some reason it has not been accepted as good news by the mass media. And then you have papers like the one discussed by the article that try to debunk the theory on absolutely ridiculous grounds. (You see there are no studies disproving this theory therefore there must be studies disproving this theory, therefore this theory is wrong. What a bunch of BS!) So why is the lead crime hypothesis treated so negatively by our elites? Perhaps to avoid another round of massive litigation. Perhaps to prevent people from finding other ways other pollution can affect people's behavior and thus prevent the banning of other substances and other rounds of massive litigation. Or perhaps to preserve an image key in international culture -- the violent city youth.

Gauge_Irrahphe 5y ago
That's just wishful thinking. The costs on health could be massive if lead is essential. (and it very likely is)
jhbadger 5y ago
Another possibility is that people just don't like such reductive explanations of human behavior. It's easier to say, well, violent youth is a product of society somehow and it's too hard to come up with a concrete explanation.
- Hammershaft 5y ago
  I think many people are uncomfortable with the idea that a chemical or unknown environmental change can cause such marked changes in human behavior.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    To be even more accurate the older folks are uncomfortable with provable allegations that they are brain damaged.
    - Gibbon1 5y ago
      I also feel like there is a very short jump from the lead crime hypothesis to a lead political dysfunction hypothesis. Meaning older voters and politicians have poor critical thinking ability and poor impulse control. Which causes them to make bad political decisions.
      - jonnycomputer 5y ago
        A really well done published study showed gray matter shrinkage in people with COVID-19. I assume, and hope, that they'll do a follow up to see if they recover. I am genuinely curious whether we might see a bump in some kind of problems (depression, suicide, crime, etc.). Seeing how the US 2019-2020's politics has gone ... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v...
        ComputerGuru 5y ago
        There’s no real evidence to believe that the difference between COVID-19 and other coronaviruses is anything other than a matter of magnitude/degrees (more infectious, more lethal, more resistant) rather than “super mysterious disease with never-before-seen implications.” There is a huge incentive to try to find and publish studies suggesting otherwise, but take them with considerable skepticism.
        jonnycomputer 5y ago
        This study was very well done, the people on the study very well regarded in the field; I believe the results. That they found the most shrinkage in olfactory regions is consistent with one of the most common symptoms. As for whether this is a matter of degree rather than kind, there frankly have not been enough studies done of pre-post illness, and there should be. I know that depression is common in cases of severe pneumonia, and maybe there is a loss of gray matter in those cases too.
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  What it is is that 'violent youth is a product of society' has an agenda. People are using crime to push particular agendas. If it turns out that lead exposure the culprit the throws a big monkey wrench in that. Random thought as well, what if it turns out that the rise in obesity and type II diabetes is due to something similar?
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    HN recently discussed an article arguing that obesity in the United States apparently rolls downhill, with little at high altitude and a great deal at sea level. The inference being that water-borne pollutants may be the cause of obesity.
bjourne 5y ago
I believe you are onto something here. See all those inner city neighborhoods, ghettos, and other slum areas? Nine times out of then, what are surrounding them? Highways? There couldn't be a connection, could there?! And let's not talk about all the racists who blame crime on immigration. What are they gonna do if it turns out violent crime often is caused by pollution-induced brain damage rather than defective genes of foreigners?
- gjhh244 5y ago
  It's not racist to point out higher amount of crime among many migrant populations. Often such populations are poorer and less educated than general population, both of which are attributes that correlate with higher crime rate, and also ones mostly determined by your parents wealth rather than your own actions.
  - bjourne 5y ago
    I didn't say it was racist and it is not necessarily racist. Just as it isn't racist to point out the higher amount of crime among many young male populations. Often such populations are poorer and less educated than general population, both of which are attributes that correlate with higher crime rate.
- kypro 5y ago
  The crime levels in metropolitan areas can vary significantly by the neighbourhood though, and some cities have very low levels of crime. I’m not suggesting pollution doesn’t have any correlation to crime (it probably does) but it doesn’t seem to be one of the more significant factors if you wanted to try to explain why some neighbours / populations commit more crime.
  - bjourne 5y ago
    But air pollution's impact on cognition is a well-studied topic. See e.g: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/37/9193 https://www.pnas.org/content/115/37/9193, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197018620300991 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019701862..., and especially https://jech.bmj.com/content/64/3/223.short https://jech.bmj.com/content/64/3/223.short: "Although results were not statistically significant, the associations found between exposure to NO2 and cognitive functions suggest that traffic-related air pollution may have an adverse effect on neurodevelopment, especially early in life, even at low exposure levels." In other words, air pollution makes you dumb and being male and dumb makes you more prone to commit crime. I find no reason not to believe that this may be a significant factor.
gus_massa 5y ago
> You see there are no studies disproving this theory therefore there must be studies disproving this theory, therefore this theory is wrong. That is an oversimplification, and I think it's in the original article. Let me try to give an alternative explanation. In an ideal world where all the studies have the same amount of subjects and all the countries have the same conditions, when you make an histogram of the result of the test you expect to see a Gaussian distribution. Some graphics in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution If half of the studies have 100 participants and the other half have 10000 participants, you expect to see the sum of two Gaussian distributions with the same center, it looks like a low wide mountain with a bump in the center. In a more realistic universe, each study has a different number of participants, and you get something in between. A rounded symmetrical bump. Also, in a magical world where there are two type of countries, you will see the sum of two bumps with different centers. If they were far enough, you would see two humps. If they were too close, you will see only one hump but wider than the expected only form noise. And in between you can get weird shapes. In a realistic word where each country is unique, and they are not so different, you get a bump. With enough variations, some luck, and crossing your fingers, you expect to see a bump that is similar to a Gaussian. It's not exactly a Gaussian, but somewhat close enough. More technical details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem So if you have a very big number of studies, you expect to see in the histogram something like a Gaussian. In the first graph, instead of the histogram, the article uses another representation. In an ideal word, you expect to see an inverted ʃ. See again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution In a real word you expect to see something somewhat similar to an inverted ʃ. But the graphic shows only a L, Where is the top horizontal part of the inverted ʃ??? It's a very difficult question, and it's difficult to understand without a deep analysis. (That I can't do.) Perhaps there are good reasons, but it's strange. In particular, the vertical part of the inverted ʃ in the graphic is close to 0, too close to 0. You can see that the lower tic of the inverted ʃ goes quite a bit to the right, so the "missing" upper tic should go approximately the same distance to the left. (Or there must be an explanation. Not all distributions are symmetrical, but it's strange that it's so asymmetrical.) Now, the "missing" experiments in the "missing" upper tic of the inverted ʃ are the ones that say that the hypothesis is wrong (or even that lead is good for you). So it would be nice to have an explanation of thee weird distribution or the disappearance of these experiments. Oversimplifying, there are no studies disproving this theory, but from the distribution there should be studies disproving this theory, therefore there is something weird happening here. (Note: Sometimes the vertical part of the inverted ʃ is so far away from 0 that you don't expect any result in the negative part. Just the two tics at the top and at the bottom of the inverted ʃ, both in the positive part.)
CalRobert 5y ago
Maybe because it suggests our elites have brain damage making them more likely to have poor impulse control.
mabbo 5y ago
I think you're ignoring the point the article is trying to make because the lead-crime hypothesis is one that is likeable- it's a simple cause-and-effect that we can (and did) remedy. The point they are making is that selection bias in which studies get published and which get suppressed can fool us (and may have done so) into believing an effect is real that isn't, or into thinking an effect is much larger than it is. Forget about which study this is and look at the point they are making on its own. Is there bad science going on here? > but the mass media reaction to it just shows how much is wrong with our society There is a whole other branch of mass media that desperately wants the lead-crime hypothesis to be not just true but the only reason for the crime rate falling in the 90s. Why? because it's much preferred over the alternative answer: Roe vs Wade. That side of the mass media is very aggressive in defending the lead-crime hypothesis. Good discussion on the subject here: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/abortion/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/abortion/
- scotty79 5y ago
  I think leaded gasoline influence on crime rates was observed in countries where abortion was illegal until different date and influence was as strong as in the US.
  - vintermann 5y ago
    Yes. Information from other countries with different dates of phasing out lead would be (and is) strong evidence for the lead crime hypothesis, and evidence against the racier abortion hypothesis that the Freakonomics guys also promoted. This meta-analysis just gives up on cross-borders comparisons entirely. And they suspiciously focused on murder only, they may have peeked at the data before deciding.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bjourne 5y ago
  One of the many problems with the abortion-crime hypothesis is that it is US-specific. For example, in Romania the government banned abortion in 1966 and instituted harsh punishments for illegal abortions. Yet no one has shown that this correlated with a crime wave in the late 1980s as one would expect if free abortions really decreases crime.
Barrin92 5y ago
>So why is the lead crime hypothesis treated so negatively by our elites? It's not just treated negatively by elites, but I think that's very straightforward. Because a biological or chemical explanation for behaviour, especially such a simple one, throws a pretty big wrench into the moralistic and individualistic worldview that underpins our Western societies, in particular in regards to crime or intellect. If you accept the, from a scientific point, very obvious observation that a bunch of chemicals in your drinking water can turn you into an idiot or a criminal you just about undermine most stories of self-earned merit or responsibility we are being fed in our mother's milk and that justify bringing the hammer down on said inner city youth.
- jhgb 5y ago
  I guess alcohol is a non-issue, then? Or are you restricting yourself only to some chemicals?
  - cool_dude85 5y ago
    I'm sure we've all seen alcohol or illicit drug use used to further the morality tales we tell ourselves. Lead is a lot harder to do it with because it was in water or paint.
    - Gibbon1 5y ago
      If you want a morality tale it's the worst because it means a the perps were originally helpless victims themselves. The worse thing I think comes from some really old chemistry books from the early 1900's I inherited. The thing from those books is educated people back when they started putting lead in paint and gasoline absolutely knew lead caused developmental brain damage.
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    Alcohol is absolutely an issue, all drug use is. I don't limit myself to 'some' chemicals. But I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, are you asking if I think drug use ought to be treated the same way, as an environmental and behavioral issue, rather than some individualistic moral guilt thing? Yes, absolutely. It's a good example actually. We've done incredible damage by moralizing drug use rather than treating it as medical issue and instead promote quackery like AA which has horrible outcomes.
aaron695 5y ago
> The lead-crime hypothesis is almost certainly true Could you explain what is true? You are talking about a societal wide chemical change in behaviour in all aspects of life. To start, what % or amount of the reduced crime is due to the lead-crime hypothesis? Since the lead has brain damaged somewhat equally everyone's impulse control can we see this in TV viewing habits and other everyday behaviour? I'd expect if it can cause us to murder more, it'd also have many everyday effects. Do you have any conversations around it's effects on other animals also in these environments. How would our pets changed or city animals like birds have changed their behaviour? Societal wide chemical changes are pretty out there, but they happen, IQs rise as countries become richer through diverse food security but this a limit function, 90% of people get enough iodine so the IQ changes will on be the 10%. Lead-crime hypothesis is ~100% changed. The Middle East was late to reducing lead. Do the think the we will see more stability there. Do you think lead-crime hypothesis is that important? What is true?

Gauge_Irrahphe 5y ago

That's just wishful thinking. The costs on health could be massive if lead is essential. (and it very likely is)

jhbadger 5y ago

Another possibility is that people just don't like such reductive explanations of human behavior. It's easier to say, well, violent youth is a product of society somehow and it's too hard to come up with a concrete explanation.

Hammershaft 5y ago
I think many people are uncomfortable with the idea that a chemical or unknown environmental change can cause such marked changes in human behavior.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  To be even more accurate the older folks are uncomfortable with provable allegations that they are brain damaged.
  - Gibbon1 5y ago
    I also feel like there is a very short jump from the lead crime hypothesis to a lead political dysfunction hypothesis. Meaning older voters and politicians have poor critical thinking ability and poor impulse control. Which causes them to make bad political decisions.
    - jonnycomputer 5y ago
      A really well done published study showed gray matter shrinkage in people with COVID-19. I assume, and hope, that they'll do a follow up to see if they recover. I am genuinely curious whether we might see a bump in some kind of problems (depression, suicide, crime, etc.). Seeing how the US 2019-2020's politics has gone ... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v...
      - ComputerGuru 5y ago
        There’s no real evidence to believe that the difference between COVID-19 and other coronaviruses is anything other than a matter of magnitude/degrees (more infectious, more lethal, more resistant) rather than “super mysterious disease with never-before-seen implications.” There is a huge incentive to try to find and publish studies suggesting otherwise, but take them with considerable skepticism.
        jonnycomputer 5y ago
        This study was very well done, the people on the study very well regarded in the field; I believe the results. That they found the most shrinkage in olfactory regions is consistent with one of the most common symptoms. As for whether this is a matter of degree rather than kind, there frankly have not been enough studies done of pre-post illness, and there should be. I know that depression is common in cases of severe pneumonia, and maybe there is a loss of gray matter in those cases too.
Gibbon1 5y ago
What it is is that 'violent youth is a product of society' has an agenda. People are using crime to push particular agendas. If it turns out that lead exposure the culprit the throws a big monkey wrench in that. Random thought as well, what if it turns out that the rise in obesity and type II diabetes is due to something similar?
- jeffbee 5y ago
  HN recently discussed an article arguing that obesity in the United States apparently rolls downhill, with little at high altitude and a great deal at sea level. The inference being that water-borne pollutants may be the cause of obesity.

bjourne 5y ago

I believe you are onto something here. See all those inner city neighborhoods, ghettos, and other slum areas? Nine times out of then, what are surrounding them? Highways? There couldn't be a connection, could there?! And let's not talk about all the racists who blame crime on immigration. What are they gonna do if it turns out violent crime often is caused by pollution-induced brain damage rather than defective genes of foreigners?

gjhh244 5y ago
It's not racist to point out higher amount of crime among many migrant populations. Often such populations are poorer and less educated than general population, both of which are attributes that correlate with higher crime rate, and also ones mostly determined by your parents wealth rather than your own actions.
- bjourne 5y ago
  I didn't say it was racist and it is not necessarily racist. Just as it isn't racist to point out the higher amount of crime among many young male populations. Often such populations are poorer and less educated than general population, both of which are attributes that correlate with higher crime rate.
kypro 5y ago
The crime levels in metropolitan areas can vary significantly by the neighbourhood though, and some cities have very low levels of crime. I’m not suggesting pollution doesn’t have any correlation to crime (it probably does) but it doesn’t seem to be one of the more significant factors if you wanted to try to explain why some neighbours / populations commit more crime.
- bjourne 5y ago
  But air pollution's impact on cognition is a well-studied topic. See e.g: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/37/9193 https://www.pnas.org/content/115/37/9193, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197018620300991 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019701862..., and especially https://jech.bmj.com/content/64/3/223.short https://jech.bmj.com/content/64/3/223.short: "Although results were not statistically significant, the associations found between exposure to NO2 and cognitive functions suggest that traffic-related air pollution may have an adverse effect on neurodevelopment, especially early in life, even at low exposure levels." In other words, air pollution makes you dumb and being male and dumb makes you more prone to commit crime. I find no reason not to believe that this may be a significant factor.

gus_massa 5y ago

> You see there are no studies disproving this theory therefore there must be studies disproving this theory, therefore this theory is wrong. That is an oversimplification, and I think it's in the original article. Let me try to give an alternative explanation. In an ideal world where all the studies have the same amount of subjects and all the countries have the same conditions, when you make an histogram of the result of the test you expect to see a Gaussian distribution. Some graphics in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution If half of the studies have 100 participants and the other half have 10000 participants, you expect to see the sum of two Gaussian distributions with the same center, it looks like a low wide mountain with a bump in the center. In a more realistic universe, each study has a different number of participants, and you get something in between. A rounded symmetrical bump. Also, in a magical world where there are two type of countries, you will see the sum of two bumps with different centers. If they were far enough, you would see two humps. If they were too close, you will see only one hump but wider than the expected only form noise. And in between you can get weird shapes. In a realistic word where each country is unique, and they are not so different, you get a bump. With enough variations, some luck, and crossing your fingers, you expect to see a bump that is similar to a Gaussian. It's not exactly a Gaussian, but somewhat close enough. More technical details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem So if you have a very big number of studies, you expect to see in the histogram something like a Gaussian. In the first graph, instead of the histogram, the article uses another representation. In an ideal word, you expect to see an inverted ʃ. See again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution In a real word you expect to see something somewhat similar to an inverted ʃ. But the graphic shows only a L, Where is the top horizontal part of the inverted ʃ??? It's a very difficult question, and it's difficult to understand without a deep analysis. (That I can't do.) Perhaps there are good reasons, but it's strange. In particular, the vertical part of the inverted ʃ in the graphic is close to 0, too close to 0. You can see that the lower tic of the inverted ʃ goes quite a bit to the right, so the "missing" upper tic should go approximately the same distance to the left. (Or there must be an explanation. Not all distributions are symmetrical, but it's strange that it's so asymmetrical.) Now, the "missing" experiments in the "missing" upper tic of the inverted ʃ are the ones that say that the hypothesis is wrong (or even that lead is good for you). So it would be nice to have an explanation of thee weird distribution or the disappearance of these experiments. Oversimplifying, there are no studies disproving this theory, but from the distribution there should be studies disproving this theory, therefore there is something weird happening here. (Note: Sometimes the vertical part of the inverted ʃ is so far away from 0 that you don't expect any result in the negative part. Just the two tics at the top and at the bottom of the inverted ʃ, both in the positive part.)

CalRobert 5y ago

Maybe because it suggests our elites have brain damage making them more likely to have poor impulse control.

mabbo 5y ago

I think you're ignoring the point the article is trying to make because the lead-crime hypothesis is one that is likeable- it's a simple cause-and-effect that we can (and did) remedy. The point they are making is that selection bias in which studies get published and which get suppressed can fool us (and may have done so) into believing an effect is real that isn't, or into thinking an effect is much larger than it is. Forget about which study this is and look at the point they are making on its own. Is there bad science going on here? > but the mass media reaction to it just shows how much is wrong with our society There is a whole other branch of mass media that desperately wants the lead-crime hypothesis to be not just true but the only reason for the crime rate falling in the 90s. Why? because it's much preferred over the alternative answer: Roe vs Wade. That side of the mass media is very aggressive in defending the lead-crime hypothesis. Good discussion on the subject here: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/abortion/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/abortion/

scotty79 5y ago
I think leaded gasoline influence on crime rates was observed in countries where abortion was illegal until different date and influence was as strong as in the US.
- vintermann 5y ago
  Yes. Information from other countries with different dates of phasing out lead would be (and is) strong evidence for the lead crime hypothesis, and evidence against the racier abortion hypothesis that the Freakonomics guys also promoted. This meta-analysis just gives up on cross-borders comparisons entirely. And they suspiciously focused on murder only, they may have peeked at the data before deciding.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bjourne 5y ago
One of the many problems with the abortion-crime hypothesis is that it is US-specific. For example, in Romania the government banned abortion in 1966 and instituted harsh punishments for illegal abortions. Yet no one has shown that this correlated with a crime wave in the late 1980s as one would expect if free abortions really decreases crime.

Barrin92 5y ago

>So why is the lead crime hypothesis treated so negatively by our elites? It's not just treated negatively by elites, but I think that's very straightforward. Because a biological or chemical explanation for behaviour, especially such a simple one, throws a pretty big wrench into the moralistic and individualistic worldview that underpins our Western societies, in particular in regards to crime or intellect. If you accept the, from a scientific point, very obvious observation that a bunch of chemicals in your drinking water can turn you into an idiot or a criminal you just about undermine most stories of self-earned merit or responsibility we are being fed in our mother's milk and that justify bringing the hammer down on said inner city youth.

jhgb 5y ago
I guess alcohol is a non-issue, then? Or are you restricting yourself only to some chemicals?
- cool_dude85 5y ago
  I'm sure we've all seen alcohol or illicit drug use used to further the morality tales we tell ourselves. Lead is a lot harder to do it with because it was in water or paint.
  - Gibbon1 5y ago
    If you want a morality tale it's the worst because it means a the perps were originally helpless victims themselves. The worse thing I think comes from some really old chemistry books from the early 1900's I inherited. The thing from those books is educated people back when they started putting lead in paint and gasoline absolutely knew lead caused developmental brain damage.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  Alcohol is absolutely an issue, all drug use is. I don't limit myself to 'some' chemicals. But I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, are you asking if I think drug use ought to be treated the same way, as an environmental and behavioral issue, rather than some individualistic moral guilt thing? Yes, absolutely. It's a good example actually. We've done incredible damage by moralizing drug use rather than treating it as medical issue and instead promote quackery like AA which has horrible outcomes.

aaron695 5y ago

> The lead-crime hypothesis is almost certainly true Could you explain what is true? You are talking about a societal wide chemical change in behaviour in all aspects of life. To start, what % or amount of the reduced crime is due to the lead-crime hypothesis? Since the lead has brain damaged somewhat equally everyone's impulse control can we see this in TV viewing habits and other everyday behaviour? I'd expect if it can cause us to murder more, it'd also have many everyday effects. Do you have any conversations around it's effects on other animals also in these environments. How would our pets changed or city animals like birds have changed their behaviour? Societal wide chemical changes are pretty out there, but they happen, IQs rise as countries become richer through diverse food security but this a limit function, 90% of people get enough iodine so the IQ changes will on be the 10%. Lead-crime hypothesis is ~100% changed. The Middle East was late to reducing lead. Do the think the we will see more stability there. Do you think lead-crime hypothesis is that important? What is true?