3 ms·

I just read this story and its longer follow-up in the print edition. They do mention the lead study.

Vivtek 13y ago
Then I find it dismaying that they know of it but intentionally refrained from mentioning it in the online edition. More dismaying, honestly, as they are specifically championing a panopticon solution to crime here and saying that increased police expenditure and profiling has resulted in lower crime rates.
- YokoZar 13y ago
  The economist generally has 1 page "summary" articles at the front of the newspaper, and more in depth articles in the dedicated sections. Both are available online. Trying to put every point into the summary would defeat the entire purpose.
  - SeanLuke 13y ago
    Except that the link between the drop in crime and the elimination of lead has very strong evidence, and the various social theories bandied about by the Economist have almost no support. They didn't just not put "every point" into the summary -- they completely ignored the biggest, best supported reason.
    - YokoZar 13y ago
      Here's the longer article: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-seeing-less-and-less-crime-even-face-high-unemployment-and-economic http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-s... The economist clearly doesn't agree with you, here's what they said about lead: Jessica Wolpaw Reyes, an American researcher, has argued that the cognitive effects of exposure to lead were a primary determinant of violent crime, and unleaded petrol is to thank for the improvement. But the causal link is far from proven.
      - SeanLuke 13y ago
        The Economist needs to read up a bit. There is strong support for lead as the primary determinant, and not just correlation. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-li...
- swordswinger12 13y ago
  Next time you feel like criticizing something you should probably know more than epsilon about it...
  - Vivtek 13y ago
    Well, you've certainly made a great point there, swordswinger12!

Then I find it dismaying that they know of it but intentionally refrained from mentioning it in the online edition. More dismaying, honestly, as they are specifically championing a panopticon solution to crime here and saying that increased police expenditure and profiling has resulted in lower crime rates.

YokoZar 13y ago
The economist generally has 1 page "summary" articles at the front of the newspaper, and more in depth articles in the dedicated sections. Both are available online. Trying to put every point into the summary would defeat the entire purpose.
- SeanLuke 13y ago
  Except that the link between the drop in crime and the elimination of lead has very strong evidence, and the various social theories bandied about by the Economist have almost no support. They didn't just not put "every point" into the summary -- they completely ignored the biggest, best supported reason.
  - YokoZar 13y ago
    Here's the longer article: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-seeing-less-and-less-crime-even-face-high-unemployment-and-economic http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-s... The economist clearly doesn't agree with you, here's what they said about lead: Jessica Wolpaw Reyes, an American researcher, has argued that the cognitive effects of exposure to lead were a primary determinant of violent crime, and unleaded petrol is to thank for the improvement. But the causal link is far from proven.
    - SeanLuke 13y ago
      The Economist needs to read up a bit. There is strong support for lead as the primary determinant, and not just correlation. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-li...
swordswinger12 13y ago
Next time you feel like criticizing something you should probably know more than epsilon about it...
- Vivtek 13y ago
  Well, you've certainly made a great point there, swordswinger12!