5 ms·

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 w

by 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.
- pas 5y ago
  There are other variables too. Soviet dictatorships were pretty safe, because they were totalitarian surveillance "fake it till you make it" "smile and nobody gets hurt" dystopias. Theoretically the connection is sound (so I think it warrants a pretty solid prior probability), after all unwanted children lead to decrease in socioeconomic status, which is a very surefire way to have a lot of problems in life, and without a supportive family and state, the number of options quickly dwindles to illegal and not so great ones. (Basically the "not so great" option is that in the Soviet dictatorships around here - Eastern Europe - at least the full employment mandate meant that there was enough make believe work available to not starve. )

by mabbo 5y ago

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.

pas 5y ago
There are other variables too. Soviet dictatorships were pretty safe, because they were totalitarian surveillance "fake it till you make it" "smile and nobody gets hurt" dystopias. Theoretically the connection is sound (so I think it warrants a pretty solid prior probability), after all unwanted children lead to decrease in socioeconomic status, which is a very surefire way to have a lot of problems in life, and without a supportive family and state, the number of options quickly dwindles to illegal and not so great ones. (Basically the "not so great" option is that in the Soviet dictatorships around here - Eastern Europe - at least the full employment mandate meant that there was enough make believe work available to not starve. )