TUESDAY, JANUARY 3, 2023
Professor swings and misses: Did increased exposure to lead result in this nation's increase in violent crime from the 1970s on into the early 1990s?
Did the elimination of leaded gasoline in the mid-1970s result in the later decrease in violent crime (along with other undesirable social behaviors)?
We're taking about the so-called "lead-crime hypothesis" (LCH), which Kevin Drum has written about extensively. Right here in this recent post, Drum summarizes what the LCH does and doesn't claim:
DRUM (1/2/23): [T]he key thing is that the LCH is not a general explanation for crime. It is solely a theory for the unusually large rise and fall of violent crime in postwar America through about 2010:
[Graphic is provided]
As it happens, the LCH also turns out to explain the rise and fall of violent crime in some other places during roughly the same period. Since the lead in question derives from the ethyl additive in gasoline, it all depends on how much car ownership rose (a lot in rich countries, not so much in poor ones) and when leaded gasoline was phased out (the mid-70s in the US, generally later in other countries).
How about it? Does the LCH explain, or help to explain, "the unusually large rise and fall of violent crime in postwar America through about 2010," along with the rise in crime in various other countries during that same general period?
We can't give you a definitive answer! In our view, Drum has provided a lot of persuasive data, from this country and from others, in his past work on this subject.
(For Drum's cover report for Mother Jones on this topic, you can just click here. The fascinating, lengthy report appeared in January 2013.)
Drum returned to the topic yesterday because Tyler Cowen had offered a post saying he doesn't place much stock in the whole lead/crime theory.
Cowen is a libertarian-leaning professor at George Mason, and a somewhat influential blogger. To his credit, he isn't a kid. In fact, he's 60 years old. For Cowen's life story, click here.
Yesterday, Professor Cowen offered this post concerning the LCH. At the very start of Drum's rebuttal post, it can almost seem like Drum got a tiny bit snarky:
DRUM (1/2/23): Tyler Cowen explains today why he's skeptical of the lead-crime hypothesis. It turns out that it's because of a simple bit of confusion.
You'll have to click the link and read Tyler's post to understand my reply—so don't blame me if you're too lazy to do it—but the key thing is that the LCH is not a general explanation for crime. It is solely a theory for the unusually large rise and fall of violent crime in postwar America through about 2010.
That can almost sound snarky! After all, who would think that the LCH was a general explanation for the prevalence of crime all over the world during all historical periods, as opposed to a theory about the recent rise and fall of violent crime in certain nations?
Who could actually think such a thing? We clicked Drum's link and read Cowen's post, and this is what we found:
As it turns out, Professor Cowen seems to think that the LCH a general explanation for the prevalence of crime all over the world during all historical periods, as opposed to a theory about the recent rise and fall of violent crime in certain nations! That's who would think such a thing!
In our view, Professor Cowen's influential post was dumbfoundingly unintelligent. As it turns out, Drum wasn't being snarky in his rebuttal post. In our view, he was being excessively polite.
As Drum said, you'll have to read Cowen's post for yourself to see how dumb it seems. We'll leave you today by saying this:
The post in question is the work of an influential professor in these, the latter days of our floundering republic. As our nation slides toward the sea, can you put your faith in leading academic figures?
Again and again and again and again, the answer seems to be painfully clear. Actually no—you cannot!
Always nice to read Doctor Somerby point out the symptoms in others, of the disease he himself suffers from.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn the spirit of magnanimity, may we suggest, dear Bob, that both assertions are probably true: the professor is an idiot, and the "lead-crime hypothesis" is bullshit...
Lead damages a growing child’s brain and leads to antisocial behavior in later life.
DeleteBy the way, Bob, Michelle Norris did not say that half of those white medical students in that UVa study believed that “Blacks’ nerve endings are less sensitive than whites.”
ReplyDeleteIt's a theory. Like the one about there being a Republican voter who isn't a bigot, except this one has some thought and research behind it.
ReplyDeleteGreetings!
DeleteYou have been randomly chosen to participate in a one-question survey.
If you found yourself in a crowded elevator and you suddenly were overtaken by a foul fanny odor, would you:
A) Do your best to ignore the offensive odor and remain silent.
B) Deny any and all involvement in its production
C) Blame it on the person standing to your left
D) Claim complete responsibility for its production, even if you didn't produce it!
If you chose option D, then you should check out MrMethane.com.
You will be most pleased.
“can you put your faith in leading academic figures?”
ReplyDeleteThe criticism of Cowen’s post is not without merit, but by asking the above question, Somerby turns an academic dispute (there is still some uncertainty as to the lead crime effect) into an existential question about whether “academic figures” can be trusted at all.
While it is generally true that no one should blindly and unquestioningly follow “academic figures” (whoever those might be specifically), it is also true that the continual debate and correction of outmoded or incorrect assertions amongst academicians is preferable to placing one’s faith in demagogues or dilettantes.
C-Span is staking it's claim for "Best Comedy of 2023", on only the 3rd day of the year. The laughs are non-stop.
ReplyDelete“Cowen is a libertarian-leaning professor”
ReplyDelete…of economics.
His most objectionable comment, not mentioned by Somerby, is to call the lead crime hypothesis “leftist:”
“Correctly or not, people on the Left are much more likely to elevate lead exposure as a cause of social problems.”
"our view, Professor Cowen's influential post was dumbfoundingly unintelligent."
ReplyDeleteSomerby's critique of Professor Cowan's opinion is itself dumboundingly unintelligent because it ignores that goals of the professor's field, which is to understand crime in a general sense, not to explain a blip in crime rates in a very limited time period and one single culture. A satisfying theory is not an ad hoc explanation for a particularly bad crime period in a place that is unlike most of the world. That is what Somerby misses when he calls Cowan dumb.
Kevin Drum did not originate that lead-crime hypothesis but he was the main person talking about in the US, at least outside academic circles. It works OK for the limited phenomenon that it explains. I do not see why Drum should defend it, nor why Somerby should defend Drum.
Cowan is studying crime overall. It is not a knock on the lead-crime theory that it doesn't explain all crime worldwide, but it also isn't a knock on Cowan that he is seeking a more general theory instead a specific explanation for what happened in the US in one narrow time range. And it is especially not dumb. Cowan makes a valid point and apparently Somerby doesn't care about figuring out why societies in general have crime.
"As our nation slides toward the sea, can you put your faith in leading academic figures?"
ReplyDeleteSomerby seems to put faith in Kevin Drum. He has a bachelor's degree in journalism from CSU Long Beach, where he learned to make graphs. He is not an economist, not a professor, has no doctorate in anything. He is just a blogger, which makes him a kind of journalist (the kind of person Somerby most likes to criticize), but apparently Drum is some sort of exception. I don't know why, when he produces his own Howlers, which his commenters point out whenever it happens. Unlike Somerby, Drum reads and responds to his commenters.
I think TDH misreads Prof.Cowen's post. I think the professor's argument is that there were rises in crime in other places and time periods when lead in gasoline could not be a factor - if that is the case, how can it be more than speculation that it has been a factor in the rise, then decline, of crime in recent history. Is there any evidence that high lead exposure in individuals causes them to commit to violent crime? Drum is attached to his theory, and maybe there is something to it; the prof seems to recognize that is the case. I think TDH's basis for dissing the prof is off base.
ReplyDelete