This just proves that broader economic trends exist, but especially cause how much it detaches at the end, yet increases in step this is obviously not causation, and is really only loose correlation
Children age out of the sample cohort, but still have high lead levels and still contribute to the crime cohort.
I’d expect to see the lead level rate be proportional to the birth rate and the crime rate proportional to the death rate. Having the chart extend another 15 years to today might show that.
That’s incorrect. It’s correlation, not causation.
If lead were such a direct cause of violence, they should start diverging at the introduction of lead, not long after a notable decline in lead levels. (ok ok not diverge at first, but still have a predictable, visible connection throughout)
Children grow up constantly, and only one of the lines is not age-restricted. If it were to ever diverge while still being a major cause, it’d begin to diverge at the introduction of the stimulus… or rather, start to diverge when the supposed initiating cause was reduced.
As you say, lead is a lifetime problem. If it were to be a tent pole contributor to violence, violence wouldn’t have reduced in lockstep basically ever.
Lead is a massive problem and is a toxin, but it surely did not itself contribute to increased violence. Increased stupidity? Absolutely.
This just proves that broader economic trends exist, but especially cause how much it detaches at the end, yet increases in step this is obviously not causation, and is really only loose correlation
The divergence makes sense.
Children age out of the sample cohort, but still have high lead levels and still contribute to the crime cohort.
I’d expect to see the lead level rate be proportional to the birth rate and the crime rate proportional to the death rate. Having the chart extend another 15 years to today might show that.
No idea on lead level, but violent crime has mostly stayed fairly level now, property crime is way down. Something to consider is that rapes are up quite a bit, starting around the time #MeToo went viral. Which IMO makes sense, as more women found the courage to speak out.
Thats a good point, I always get messed up on small aspects of statistics like that
That’s incorrect. It’s correlation, not causation.
If lead were such a direct cause of violence, they should start diverging at the introduction of lead, not long after a notable decline in lead levels. (ok ok not diverge at first, but still have a predictable, visible connection throughout)
Children grow up constantly, and only one of the lines is not age-restricted. If it were to ever diverge while still being a major cause, it’d begin to diverge
at the introduction of the stimulus…or rather, start to diverge when the supposed initiating cause was reduced.As you say, lead is a lifetime problem. If it were to be a tent pole contributor to violence, violence wouldn’t have reduced in lockstep basically ever.
Lead is a massive problem and is a toxin, but it surely did not itself contribute to increased violence. Increased stupidity? Absolutely.
Lead is a neurotoxin. Its link to violence is not in question by any serious statistical analysis.
Leave apologia at the door please.
Perhaps the preschoolers who were exposed to lead, who then went on to become violent 20-somethings, continued to be more violent in their 30s.