Steven Pinker argues that since the separation between the cause (lead exposure in childhood) and effect (criminal behavior in adulthood) is so wide, there are

Steven Pinker argues that since the separation between the cause (lead exposure in childhood) and effect (criminal behavior in adulthood) is so wide, there are almost certainly big confounding variables that we haven't considered. > There are reasons to be skeptical of any claim based on correlations between such widely separated variables as lead exposure (the cause) and crime (the effect). Consuming lead does not instantly turn someone i nto a criminal in the way that consuming vitamin C cures scurvy. It affects the child’s developing brain, which makes the child duller and more impulsive, which, in some children, and under the right circumstances, leads them to grow up to make short - sight ed and risky choices, which, in some children and under the right circumstances, leads them to commit crimes, which, if enough young people act in the same way and at the same time, affects the crime rate. The lead hypothesis correlates the first and last link in this chain, but it would be more convincing if there were evidence about the intervening links. source - http://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/pinker_comments_on_lead_removal_and_declining_crime.pdf http://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/pinker_comments_o...