Has the lead-crime hypothesis been debunked?

Re:Has the lead-crime hypothesis been debunked? by jonnycomputer on Saturday July 31, 2021 @03:52PM (#28021075)

I came to say something similar. I understand the impulse to complain that it is an argument from absence of evidence, but the statistical reasoning behind these kind of arguments is sound. The real question, I guess, is whether the conclusion is justified, given the found effect sizes and distribution of results.

OTOH, this meta-analysis was published, showing a negative result ...

Based on the blog post, I'm most concerned about the focus on murder rather than violence more generally.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Has the lead-crime hypothesis been debunked? by pas on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @12:26PM (#28051094)

Isn't murder used simply because that's the most reliable signal (proxy) of violence?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Has the lead-crime hypothesis been debunked? by jonnycomputer on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @04:40PM (#28053887)

All murder is violence. But reliable proxy of over-all violence? Well,

# of violent incidents >>>> # of violent incidents that are also murder

So there really might not be enough murders to do the statistical inferences you want to do. Also, if there is a qualitative difference between murder and other violence, not merely a quantitative difference in degree, then it might get at the wrong things. Like, sometimes people go into a violent rage, and occasionally those end up killing some one. OTOH, sometimes people, say, rob a store, get scared, and shoot, and that's murder too. And then there are the people who carefully plan a murder to get something they want. Those all seem like they involve different kinds of brain states...

[ Parent | on HN ]