You might want to read that first link in full. The second half of it places its first half (and your third link) in a less impressive context.
The last link is indeed fascinating, although I’m sure I first read it before February this year… is that a re-post? Or maybe lead has eaten my brain cells. 🙂
I did read the first link in full, and yes I agree, it does raise some doubts. I found many other links, also with doubt built in. That’s the trouble with proof and evidence; by definition it is questionable, and requires critical thought to evaluate. It’s much easier to assert without proof, and be outraged at the request for evidence.
I think that in this case, the evidence is pretty good. There’s grounds for optimism rather than despair.
I mentioned lead earlier on this site. Don’t worry about lead if you were born after the 70’s, unless the paint in your house is old, or the dirt in your backyard is contaminated, or the governor of your state wants to save a few pennies on water purification. If the lead hypothesis is true, then moralism is useless, and hygiene is the cure.
9 Comments
Citation, please. Seriously. When you have a case, make it; that’s credibility. Outrage is not evidence.
I would like to using the above comment as a citation. Are we allowed to do that?
Citation: go throw yourself off a cliff, asshole.
Citation: five seconds on Google. Seriously. This isn’t even vaguely a debatable set of statistics.
This is too good to be true! 😀
Self-parody in no time flat, 10/10
No citations? All right, then, try these:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/12/rape-way-down-over-past-two-decades-%E2%80%94-so-all-violent-crime
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800610.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/upshot/perceptions-havent-caught-up-to-decline-in-crime.html
No doubt you agree that this is good news. The reason why remains unknown, though I tend to agree with Kevin Drum’s theory:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health
You might want to read that first link in full. The second half of it places its first half (and your third link) in a less impressive context.
The last link is indeed fascinating, although I’m sure I first read it before February this year… is that a re-post? Or maybe lead has eaten my brain cells. 🙂
I did read the first link in full, and yes I agree, it does raise some doubts. I found many other links, also with doubt built in. That’s the trouble with proof and evidence; by definition it is questionable, and requires critical thought to evaluate. It’s much easier to assert without proof, and be outraged at the request for evidence.
I think that in this case, the evidence is pretty good. There’s grounds for optimism rather than despair.
I mentioned lead earlier on this site. Don’t worry about lead if you were born after the 70’s, unless the paint in your house is old, or the dirt in your backyard is contaminated, or the governor of your state wants to save a few pennies on water purification. If the lead hypothesis is true, then moralism is useless, and hygiene is the cure.