Genuinely speaking, low level lead poisoning is linked to increased aggression, criminal behavior and lack of empathy. It may be directly tied to the reason we so rarely see serial killers now, but they were relatively prevalent in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. This is at the height of pollution related to leaded gasoline. It might explain Boomer and Xer MAGA conservatives too.
Correlation not implying causation is not the same as correlation not implying relation. When data correlates, that means that there is a liklihood that there is some connection. For any two correlating datasets, there are 3 explanations, 1) coincidence 2) causation 3) relation to a shared casual link. Figuring out which it is just requires more data, experimentation, and/or an understanding of the mechanisms of their relation. We use correlation of datasets as a guide, and even as a proof of theory given enough experimentation and correlating data to show a casual link all the time in science.
I think that the liklihood that leaded gasoline is connected to the rates of serial killers and other forms of violent crime is high not just because of the correlation, but because of that and the fact that we have studies showing how lead poisoning can effect people’s behavior. We know it can effect behavior, and we know that lead levels in the air peaked in the mid 70s before leaded gasoline was banned. It is not a leap to jump to the hypothesis that leaded gasoline causing high lead levels in the air from pollution may have effected human behavior. And then the data of serial killings and violent crime actually showing a correlation with those lead levels strengthens that hypothesis. I wouldn’t say that it’s proof, far from it. But I do think it’s likely the truth.
Right, I’m just venting my old frustration with that specific book because they only used the correlation as “proof”, rather than indeed looking at more causal signals like studies on lead poisoning.
It is certainly also true that correlation doesn’t mean that there’s no causation, even in cases were there are no other experiments yet to support a causal relationship.
While it can be comforting to find something external to blame, assholes have always existed. You don’t have to look farther than human nature to explain their behavior. In fact, doing so can in some ways prevent us from fully understanding the problem. We can’t combat it effectively if we don’t understand it.
Reducing it down to a vague concept of “human nature” is shortsighted and ignores the science into environmental factors that affect human behavior on a societal level. There is no one, singular “human nature”. We are products of our environment and our upbringing.
They never said assholes don’t exist. They said there were more cases of violence and serial murder due to the increased level of lead exposure.
You don’t have to look further than the surface, no, but neglecting to do so is just myopic and willfully ignorant behavior. It’s hilarious that you then end it by saying we can’t fight it if we don’t understand it. We can’t understand it if we don’t study it and the factors that influence it.
Cool, so all we need to do is keep lead exposure to a minimum and in a generation fascism won’t exist, right? If you’re agreeing with the statement “lead exposure explains Boomer and Gen X MAGA conservatives” then something along those lines must be what you’re trying to say.
Genuinely speaking, low level lead poisoning is linked to increased aggression, criminal behavior and lack of empathy. It may be directly tied to the reason we so rarely see serial killers now, but they were relatively prevalent in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. This is at the height of pollution related to leaded gasoline. It might explain Boomer and Xer MAGA conservatives too.
They are still enough around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_in_the_United_States
serial killers just don’t make the news…for fucks make mass school shootings don’t even make the news anymore
https://www.unilad.com/news/us-news/active-us-serial-killers-742428-20231106
What school shooting hasn’t made the news?
How about the one that happened the same day Charlie Kirk was killed?
Oddly enough, Kirk’s shooting is considered a school shooting
fair enough, should have said “stay in the news longer than a day”
considering there are like a 1000 of them per year now, i’d say there’s a chance some do not.
What explains the Milennial and GenZ Trump bros?
Here on Lemmy they don’t count. Anyone who sucks is a boomer. Actually, those guys are also boomers.
Only explanation is lead.
Here on Lemmy it seems to be kids mostly, going by the memes. I put it down to limited experience.
Never fear, time will sort that and then we’ll be able to tell the smart ones from the average…
The internet
Is this why we can’t have nice things?
Blasted interwebs…
Ah, is this that claim from Freakomics that they made right after explaining that correlation doesn’t imply causation?
They found enough causation to ban lead in gasoline despite lobbying against the ban from both lead and oil companies.
Correlation not implying causation is not the same as correlation not implying relation. When data correlates, that means that there is a liklihood that there is some connection. For any two correlating datasets, there are 3 explanations, 1) coincidence 2) causation 3) relation to a shared casual link. Figuring out which it is just requires more data, experimentation, and/or an understanding of the mechanisms of their relation. We use correlation of datasets as a guide, and even as a proof of theory given enough experimentation and correlating data to show a casual link all the time in science.
I think that the liklihood that leaded gasoline is connected to the rates of serial killers and other forms of violent crime is high not just because of the correlation, but because of that and the fact that we have studies showing how lead poisoning can effect people’s behavior. We know it can effect behavior, and we know that lead levels in the air peaked in the mid 70s before leaded gasoline was banned. It is not a leap to jump to the hypothesis that leaded gasoline causing high lead levels in the air from pollution may have effected human behavior. And then the data of serial killings and violent crime actually showing a correlation with those lead levels strengthens that hypothesis. I wouldn’t say that it’s proof, far from it. But I do think it’s likely the truth.
Yup. There’s a reason it’s called co-relation.
Right, I’m just venting my old frustration with that specific book because they only used the correlation as “proof”, rather than indeed looking at more causal signals like studies on lead poisoning.
It is certainly also true that correlation doesn’t mean that there’s no causation, even in cases were there are no other experiments yet to support a causal relationship.
While it can be comforting to find something external to blame, assholes have always existed. You don’t have to look farther than human nature to explain their behavior. In fact, doing so can in some ways prevent us from fully understanding the problem. We can’t combat it effectively if we don’t understand it.
Reducing it down to a vague concept of “human nature” is shortsighted and ignores the science into environmental factors that affect human behavior on a societal level. There is no one, singular “human nature”. We are products of our environment and our upbringing.
They never said assholes don’t exist. They said there were more cases of violence and serial murder due to the increased level of lead exposure.
You don’t have to look further than the surface, no, but neglecting to do so is just myopic and willfully ignorant behavior. It’s hilarious that you then end it by saying we can’t fight it if we don’t understand it. We can’t understand it if we don’t study it and the factors that influence it.
Cool, so all we need to do is keep lead exposure to a minimum and in a generation fascism won’t exist, right? If you’re agreeing with the statement “lead exposure explains Boomer and Gen X MAGA conservatives” then something along those lines must be what you’re trying to say.
And you said I’m oversimplifying things, sheesh.