4 ms·
I think this post explains it without me repeating someone's words. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7619054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7619054
by jackvalentine 13y ago
I think this post explains it without me repeating someone's words.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7619054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7619054
Your "contribution" of repeating the phrase doesn't educate anybody, doesn't address the actual content of the article. It doesn't make your opinion invalid but it also doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the understanding of the article. It was also said several times before you deigned to enter the conversation and "educate" us about correlation.
- downandout 13y agoIt doesn't address the content of the article? Apparently you did not read the article. It specifically is trying to say that the correlation between crime rate and removal of lead from gasoline is attributable to it (e.g. caused by it). I strongly disagree with it. That's what I said.
- midas007 13y agoThere's plenty of more strongly correlated suggestions for the drop in crime than TEL: legalized abortion, drug trends, law enforcement, on and on. Common sense would put TEL at hypothesized causation reason # 10 or so.
- jtheory 13y agoThere's a strange battle going on in this discussion, but honestly -- I dismiss a lot of quasi-scientific articles that put a lot of importance on correlation without addressing a ton of alternate explanations. This one, I can't dismiss so easily; I've read into the details of where this theory comes from via a few sources, and the correlations are rather more than just "this line goes up & then down where this other line also goes up & down". I'd suggest the naysayers read into this one a bit more before dismissing it (though I do understand the reaction).