5 ms·

There are alternative hypothesis for their finding; eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93cr

There are alternative hypothesis for their finding; eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis

philodelta 2y ago
this is mentioned and addressed in the article.
kelseyfrog 2y ago
Ideally, we would be able to tease out the effect of abortion, lead-paint, AND the interaction (lead-paint x abortion). If an interaction model better explains the data, then we should be open to not rejecting it.
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  They tried that--and found abortion was a far bigger factor than lead.
  - mempko 2y ago
    They didn't try that. They also didn't engage with other literature showing link with lead and crime at a micro level. In other words, they didn't seriously counter the lead hypothesis, which is stronger than their work.
    - LorenPechtel 2y ago
      The article says they tried running both in the same model--and found abortion was a far bigger factor than lead.
      - mempko 2y ago
        That's not trying what the OP said.
ziddoap 2y ago
>Exposure to lead in the environment might, perhaps, be the next best hypothesis. But as we showed in our 2020 paper, when one controls for both environmental lead and abortion, the coefficient on abortion remains large while the coefficient on environmental lead is greatly reduced and loses statistical significance. From the article.
- mempko 2y ago
  Their analysis about lead relies on a single study by Reyes. Far from robust. Additionally, if lead results in more violent people, then it's no wonder that reducing the births of people in lead polluted environments would have an effect on crime. What they would need to do to tease our lead, would be to find places with no to little lead pollution and show that abortions resulted in lower crime, which they do not seem to do. Studies by Mielke and Zahran (2012), and Feigenbaum and Muller (2016) provide further evidence that lead is the main culprit in crime reduction. Lead seems to be the reason, not abortion rates. Levitt and Donohue don't engage seriously with the Lead hypothesis as there are many compelling studies supporting Lead. They only engage with the weakest research. I'm not impressed. I worry that Levitt and Donohue are just adding wood to racist fires and their work will be used by bigots, fascists, and racists around the world. It's irresponsible work.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - nickff 2y ago
    Why do you think their work is irresponsible? Is it still irresponsible if they're right? Should people only engage in anti-racist inquiry, or do you think they should just self-censor if they get the 'wrong' result? I don't find Levitt and Donohue very persuasive, but Levitt does seem very data-driven.
    - tedivm 2y ago
      He answers your question in the same paragraph that he states they're irresponsible: > Lead seems to be the reason, not abortion rates. Levitt and Donohue don't engage seriously with the Lead hypothesis as there are many compelling studies supporting Lead. They only engage with the weakest research. The accusation is that they are ignoring research that might disprove their point, while at the same time are using weak research that they can easily refute to try to downplay the stronger arguments they refuse to engage with. Now I personally haven't read the paper, so I do not know if this is true, but it does answer the question you asked as to what OP thinks is irresponsible.
User23 2y ago
Or the so-called crack wars[1], whose effect on criminal violence is so huge that whatever the effect size of lead or abortions was, it’s absolutely dwarfed to the point where it isn’t practically analyzable. Between 1984 and 1989, the homicide rate for Black males aged 14 to 17 more than doubled, and the homicide rate for Black males aged 18 to 24 increased nearly as much. During this period, the Black community also experienced a 20–100% increase in fetal death rates, low birth-weight babies, weapons arrests, and the number of children in foster care. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic_in_the_United...
- golergka 2y ago
  You're listing crack wars and abortion as completely independent issues, whereas abortion could have direct effect on the former.
  - User23 2y ago
    The problem is the claim that the crack wars would have been even worse without aborting future crack warriors is impossible to size. It ruins any baseline.
    - invalidname 2y ago
      It doesn't since the trend still continues as they explained in the linked article. 2020 is well past the crack wars.

There are alternative hypothesis for their finding; eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis

philodelta 2y ago

this is mentioned and addressed in the article.

kelseyfrog 2y ago

Ideally, we would be able to tease out the effect of abortion, lead-paint, AND the interaction (lead-paint x abortion). If an interaction model better explains the data, then we should be open to not rejecting it.

LorenPechtel 2y ago
They tried that--and found abortion was a far bigger factor than lead.
- mempko 2y ago
  They didn't try that. They also didn't engage with other literature showing link with lead and crime at a micro level. In other words, they didn't seriously counter the lead hypothesis, which is stronger than their work.
  - LorenPechtel 2y ago
    The article says they tried running both in the same model--and found abortion was a far bigger factor than lead.
    - mempko 2y ago
      That's not trying what the OP said.

ziddoap 2y ago

>Exposure to lead in the environment might, perhaps, be the next best hypothesis. But as we showed in our 2020 paper, when one controls for both environmental lead and abortion, the coefficient on abortion remains large while the coefficient on environmental lead is greatly reduced and loses statistical significance. From the article.

mempko 2y ago
Their analysis about lead relies on a single study by Reyes. Far from robust. Additionally, if lead results in more violent people, then it's no wonder that reducing the births of people in lead polluted environments would have an effect on crime. What they would need to do to tease our lead, would be to find places with no to little lead pollution and show that abortions resulted in lower crime, which they do not seem to do. Studies by Mielke and Zahran (2012), and Feigenbaum and Muller (2016) provide further evidence that lead is the main culprit in crime reduction. Lead seems to be the reason, not abortion rates. Levitt and Donohue don't engage seriously with the Lead hypothesis as there are many compelling studies supporting Lead. They only engage with the weakest research. I'm not impressed. I worry that Levitt and Donohue are just adding wood to racist fires and their work will be used by bigots, fascists, and racists around the world. It's irresponsible work.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- nickff 2y ago
  Why do you think their work is irresponsible? Is it still irresponsible if they're right? Should people only engage in anti-racist inquiry, or do you think they should just self-censor if they get the 'wrong' result? I don't find Levitt and Donohue very persuasive, but Levitt does seem very data-driven.
  - tedivm 2y ago
    He answers your question in the same paragraph that he states they're irresponsible: > Lead seems to be the reason, not abortion rates. Levitt and Donohue don't engage seriously with the Lead hypothesis as there are many compelling studies supporting Lead. They only engage with the weakest research. The accusation is that they are ignoring research that might disprove their point, while at the same time are using weak research that they can easily refute to try to downplay the stronger arguments they refuse to engage with. Now I personally haven't read the paper, so I do not know if this is true, but it does answer the question you asked as to what OP thinks is irresponsible.

User23 2y ago

Or the so-called crack wars[1], whose effect on criminal violence is so huge that whatever the effect size of lead or abortions was, it’s absolutely dwarfed to the point where it isn’t practically analyzable. Between 1984 and 1989, the homicide rate for Black males aged 14 to 17 more than doubled, and the homicide rate for Black males aged 18 to 24 increased nearly as much. During this period, the Black community also experienced a 20–100% increase in fetal death rates, low birth-weight babies, weapons arrests, and the number of children in foster care. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic_in_the_United...

golergka 2y ago
You're listing crack wars and abortion as completely independent issues, whereas abortion could have direct effect on the former.
- User23 2y ago
  The problem is the claim that the crack wars would have been even worse without aborting future crack warriors is impossible to size. It ruins any baseline.
  - invalidname 2y ago
    It doesn't since the trend still continues as they explained in the linked article. 2020 is well past the crack wars.