Kevin Drum is getting some mileage out of this crime-lead article. He’s now making an argument I brought up two years ago (not that I was the only one) when I first read Drum on the topic.
If lead is one factor that influences IQ (and behavior), and if blacks tend to have higher levels of lead exposure than whites (this is the only fact whereas everything else is interpretation), how does this change our genes/environment allocation on the IQ question? Is this just a matter of lead taking up a larger share of the residual left over after the ~50% heritability of IQ?
Drum quotes Rick Nevin who has done the most work on translating lead exposure to group-level outcomes:
In 1960, blacks occupied 15% of central city households and 56% of substandard central city housing…. Average 1976–1980 blood lead for black children ages 6–36 months was 50% above the average for white children….Those children were juveniles when the 1990–1994 black juvenile burglary arrest rate was 60% higher than the white rate, but the black juvenile violent crime arrest rate was five times higher and the black juvenile murder rate was eight times higher.
More from Nevin on lead exposure and race can be found in his working paper “Lead Poisoning and The Bell Curve“. In it, he wrote:
An increase in blood lead from 1 to 10 mcg/dl (micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood) is associated with a loss of 7.4 IQ points (Canfield et al. 2003). Another one-third IQ point is lost per mcg/dl increase from 10 to 15 mcg/dl, and one-quarter IQ point lost per mcg/dl over 15 mcg/dl. (Schwartz 1994). Therefore, blood lead over 20 mcg/dl can lower IQ to less than 90 among children who would have had average IQ of 100, and blood lead over 40 mcg/dl can lower IQ to less than 75 for children who would have had IQ of 90 (Figure 2). When large scale blood lead screening began in many USA cities around 1970, 25% of city children tested had blood lead over 40 mcg/dl. (Gilsinn, 1972). In addition to reducing IQ, preschool lead exposure is directly associated with an increased risk of violent and delinquent behavior.
Nevin seems to answer the question posed up top about the allocation of lead to differences in intelligence test scores:
USA blood level trends explain 65% of the 1953-2003 variation in average SAT math scores, 45% of variation in SAT verbal scores, and 65% of 1948-2001 MR [mental retardation] prevalence.
Between the 1988-1991 cohort and a 1999-2004 cohort, average childhood blood lead levels for black kids went from 5.2 mcg/dl to 2.8 mcg/dl. White kids’ levels decreased from 3.1 mcg/dl to 1.7 mcg/dl. If we’re comparing average lead levels and average IQ for both groups, these blood lead level differences still don’t explain IQ gaps. If lead were an important environmental explainer we’d expect white IQ (1991) to match black IQ (2004) since blood lead levels for those groups were about the same.
Via Rick Nevin
Another way to look at this is that if the average black in 1991 had about 5 mcg/dl of lead in their blood, they lost about 5 IQ points from their “unleaded potential” IQ level. Whites had lead in their blood as well – about 3 mcg/dl’s worth which matches to about a 3 IQ point loss. The commonly-cited black-white IQ gap is about 12 to 15 points. Lead exposure for the average of both groups seems to only account for a couple of IQ points. This is just taking Nevin’s citations for granted. Studies not cited by Nevin show a less steep IQ-lead slope. Needleman’s study shows a 6.9 IQ point decrement when blood lead levels rise from 2.4 to 30 mcg/dl whereas Nevin seems to cite one study that pegged the decrement to 7.4 points when lead levels rise from 1 to 10 mcg/dl.
If you look back at old murder rate statistics you never see the white murder offense rate come near the level of the black murder offense rate. And this despite the fact that more recent black lead levels are less than white lead levels from a couple of decades ago. In the late 1970s the average black lead level was 20.2 while the white level was 13.7 mcg/dl. Currently average black lead levels are not as high as whites’ were, yet black murder rates and overall crime rates are several multiples larger all the way across the board.
Nevin’s research and Drum’s article are fascinating because of the surprise factor and the potential of being a sort of “theory of everything”. They present legitimate arguments that any Bell Curver has to pay attention to, but the explanatory power, at least as far as IQ is concerned, seems not to be there.
One common refrain is that Nevin is the Rodney Dangerfield of criminology. His research hasn’t gotten the respect it deserves. Perhaps true, but the problem here is that Nevin’s research is heavy on correlation but light on rigorous statistical analysis. He’s done all of Drum’s work for him, but tried to push it through the academic world instead of through a politically active magazine.
For further reading:
Jim Manzi at National Review
Scott Firestone at Discover
Steve Sailer grapples in Drum’s comments section
In NYC, 1 in 4 children who suffer from lead poisoning are Asian
Like this:
Like Loading...
Black IQs in Africa are even lower than in the US. Are the Africans exposed to more lead?
There must be a shit-load of lead in the Caribbean and Africa then! Hmmm, I guess that is why the Zulus were so violent. Not to mention the Japanese during WWII.
The comment section on Drum’s blog is unreal. Steve’s restraint is hilarious- and they keep getting more and more upset at his reasoned, well thought out responses. . Leftists are pathological scum and cowards to boot
I find it humorous that if I say something like “The average black IQ is 10 points lower than whites” I’m an evil racist but if Kevin Drum says “Lead is to blame for blacks lower IQ” he’s hailed as a hero trying to solve the racial gap. Both statements come to the same conclusion of blacks having lower IQ’s. Of course the answer to solving the lead problem will be to take more resources from me.
Its encouraging to see these idiots branching out to other explanations for black pathology beyond evilrasiswhiteyholdingblackiedown.
If only that lead exposure came in the proper form: bullets!
The differences in intelligence is plain and obvious. If one doesn’t believe their eyes and ears all they’ll have to do is take a glance at the statistics of MCAT, DAT, PCAT,OAT and any other standardized test like the SAT. One common element is blacks score the lowest followed by Hispanics and Asians the highest.
My theory why blacks here are smarter than their brothers back in Africa is racial mixing with whites.
This is probably off the mark, but I’ll throw it out here. Considering the NY Times focus this past year on single moms, declining marriage rates and the problems it causes as well as even just these slight admissions like Drum’s of different IQ levels, might the elite on the left be setting the table for acceptance of their future caste system when they have politics locked down due to demographic changes? If they feel secure that the political system will remain the same but the demographic changes will continue, they will need to set up a quasi-caste system to secure their control of the levers of power as well as excuse away their benign racism of excluding those that don’t measure up. It is an awfully slick playing surface they are on at the moment.
@Tom: Agreed. Drum and his commenters appear to now regard the lead theory as the Great Explanation to Close the Gaps. They get apoplectic when Steve injects some reality checks in the discussion. Holy writ must not be questioned.
The search for the Magical Unicorn of Black Pathology continues. The search will never end until some outside agency can be definitively blamed because, genetically, of course blacks are identical to whites, except for their superior athleticism.
“Is this just a matter of lead taking up a larger share of the residual left over after the ~50% heritability of IQ?”
No, shittier and more unequal environments would reduce the measured heritability of IQ. The proportion of variance explained by environment would be higher a few hundred years ago when access to food/medicine/education was less equal.
So the decline in lead should INCREASE the measured heritabilty of IQ today compared to 40 years ago.
I’ve seen jensen explain this somewhere but don’t feel like tracking it down right now.
The Lead connection to violence is real. This is no BS. This is predictive. Since the rest of the world is slowly going “Lead-free”, it is reasonable to predict that violent crime will decline in places where it is currently very high, Russia and Latin America, over the next 20 years. Does this mean all violent crime will go away? Of course not. Other factors also cause violence. It is multi-factorial. There is no one single cause for crime and violence. And yes, the propensity for violence does vary with race. However, remove the Lead and the violence rate should decline for all races (which it has in the U.S.) even though it will be higher for some than others.
But it’s still astronomically higher than it was in say, the 19th century. How much lead can you take out? It’s almost gone. You’d have to go into negative lead territory.
Also what is the lead situation in Britain, which one of the highest crime rates in the civilized world (~4k per 100k)?
1950s: separate but equal is the reason for the disparities!
1960s: lack of civil rights is the reason for the disparities!
1970s: lack of busing is the reason for the disparities!
1980s: negative media images is the reason for the disparities!
1990s: lack of affirmative action is the reason for the disparities!
2000s: lack of diversity is the reason for the disparities!
2010s: lead is the reason for the disparities!
JS: fantastic. I’m going to steal that.
It’s all yours. You can adjust it for whatever topic is at hand. For example: 2010s: exam test prep classes are the reason for the disparities!
My god, the level of the vitriol directed at Steve Sailer at Kevin Drum’s is crazy. Some people really hate Steve Sailer.
“The search for the Magical Unicorn of Black Pathology continues. The search will never end until some outside agency can be definitively blamed because, genetically, of course blacks are identical to whites, except for their superior athleticism.”
hahah. yes, there’s plenty of piety and avoidance re. this issue, but the alt-right’s bluster can be just as bad —– it’s ‘by-any-means-necessary’-desperation in deeming any racial disparities as genetic and therefore immutable.
I think there’s always going to be a cultural component to ‘causation,’ even though, if that is indeed a fact, I still don’t think it good to have many of the kind of ‘reform’ programs and efforts, such as AA, and others that are frequently lamented about here.
Why a cultural component? Ok, take for instance the aggregate Thai Asian —— sort-of the ‘negro’ in caste status among other Asians; his or her I.Q. averages out to 86 I believe, a point above that of the aggregate African-American population.
Yet do Thais here and elsewhere have anywhere near the level of perpetual social, economic and criminal justice mire in their communities compared to American blacks’? Anc whatever problems Thais do have, are they explaned away as a result of immutable genetic characteristics.
It’s tiring to go over the classic ‘black historical injustice’ narrative —— perhaps the most tiring and exasperated piece of American folklore in existence, but unfortunately that doesn’t mean there isn’t some truth and validity to it. American blacks and whites defines itself against each other.
nikcrit,
I don’t think the more intelligent writers in the alt right think all racial disparities are always the result of genetics. They seem open to other viewpoints. It’s just that for so long no one was ever allowed to even suggest that there were genetic differences, so it might seem to you like that’s all they talk about. If you read Steve Sailer’s comments, you’ll see he takes the lead issue seriously.
If you are referring to some of the commenters, you are probably right, but who cares what they think.
In a couple of years this theory will be treated as “settled science” and the Left will pour vitriol on the “lead deniers” who are skeptical….
Nikcrit, whatever may be the case with Thai Asians, the point is that they don’t matter. They are limited enough to have little impact on American society. Blacks, on the other hand, not only cost billions in direct subsidies, but they wreak havoc on whites. The true, untold story in America is the incredible amounts of violence that whites suffer at the hands of NAMs. Whites brutalized by NAMs are the real people “living in the shadows,” the real people “without a voice.” If every white woman raped by a NAM got front-page coverage, the news would be literally nothing but raped women. If every white person beaten up by a NAM got front-page coverage, the news would be nothing but beat up white people.
Now and again a case bubbles up, but thousands are never even reported, or make only a tiny little bit of local news, with the race of the attacker oh-so-carefully scrubbed out.
Why would alt-righters focus on Asian sub-groups? They aren’t a problem. NAMs are a gigantic problem.
The problem with Steve Sailer is that it’s very difficult to argue with his positions, given that he methodically backs up what he says, is very moderate in his approach to conclusions (qualifying everything) and is just unperturbed by race-baiting.
He’s just infinitely better at this – presenting information in a convincing way, and proceeding from facts, rather than wishful thinking – than his opponents.
His opponents are, almost to a commenter, vitriolic, extremely emotional, demonstrably unable to parse arguments or reason on the same level, and utterly blinded by their own ideological biases.
This is apparent in each and every single word they write, and any disinterested reader can see their commentary for what it is.
I buy Sailer’s interest in this argument, too – while he’s not overly enthusiastic, he’s skeptically interested in the genuine plausibility and potential of the argument, but wants the presenter to do the required legwork. He even – genuinely, I think – considers that further research into this subject is a very good idea.
This is not the position of a member of the KKK. It’s the position of a thoughtful, if somewhat resigned, writer on a topic of powerful interest.
His self-control is remarkable, given the mindlessness of the comments he was getting. But his restraint is rewarded: He has, in all respects, shown himself to quite literally be the better man.
The other commenters on the piece were at best juvenile, at worst disruptively ignorant.
I’ve shown the exchange to several people, most who have no opinion on the subject matter, and they all agreed – the other commenters were nearly spewing bits of food from their mouths and unable to make any intelligent comments at all. One called them clear cases of trolls.
On the other hand, you can’t but respect their blind, stonewalled belief in their personal opinions to the exclusion of considering any other data at all. That level of ideological pig-headedness is difficult to maintain in the face of facts. It takes a special kind of irrationality, a kind of rationally trained irrationality, to accomplish.
Truly understanding why crime has dropped so far so fast is truly an interesting phenomenon and probably has many fathers. Lead being one. However, all that lead was out there when the rates were much lower earlier in the century, so I am not necessarily buying it as a major cause of black violence. Why is it that the run down slum housing that blacks were in during the 50s and 60s that is blamed for much of the lead exposure did not cause the same issues when it was newer and populated with white families? The old flaking paint problem??
Crime does seem worse now, even though the rates have declined, since crime is so well publicized with 24hr cable news, reality crime shows, and the internet. Plus troopers like Drudge are publicizing some of the worst racial cases that would have been only local stories in the past.
“My god, the level of the vitriol directed at Steve Sailer at Kevin Drum’s is crazy. Some people really hate Steve Sailer.”
Truly getting into the liberal’s head and seeing where his anger comes from is something I’ve been unable to do. Smugness, gloating, cold intolerance coming from Lefties I’d understand, given the power asymmetry.
“Truly getting into the liberal’s head and seeing where his anger comes from is something I’ve been unable to do. Smugness, gloating, cold intolerance coming from Lefties I’d understand, given the power asymmetry.”
There exists significant amount of HBD-believing liberals; this us-vs.-them ideological dichotomy is more a matter of rah-rah-like bonding-&-venting than some absolute incompatibility. The main problem with your view, IMHO, is that it can’t help but end up being a case of building up straw men and then knocking them down ——- over-and-over-and-over-and-over again.
RE: “HBD-believing liberals,” I meant to have the comment include this link, though he’s not the best example out there of a lib who believes in HBD:
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/hbd-obsession-with-black-iq/
Nikcrit,
In fairness to PA he hardly ever mentions IQ. His views on race are just a throw back to a different time.
Nah, my views on race are contemporary and universal and in line with even the most liberal of whites, but stripped of obfuscatory screen of denial and lies.
The gist of my original question is that I’m puzzled by libs’ shrill tone, as though they were losing while the conventional red pill wisdom is that they are comfortably in the driver’s seat. Furthermore, they are an existential danger to us (and ultimately to themselves) while we are harmless to them even if we were in the position to implement what we want.
My only explanation is that libs think of righties in terms of a neocon free market caricature of bankers and industrialists who want to pave the Earth.
They don’t understand that the alt-Right — an obscure but ascendant faction on the political spectrum and seeds of future sanity — comes not from old school capitalists but from the original progressives. We’re the original progressives who are reconciling the Old Right with 19th century progressivism.
They, the current Lefties, are progressivism’s apostates: half mad, half sellout to global capitalism.
They used to paint schools with lead paint, and we didn’t have this problem.
The problem is that public education in the US is so useless that it may as well not even exist.
peterike said:“Why would alt-righters focus on Asian sub-groups? They aren’t a problem. NAMs are a gigantic problem.”
Peterike,
That wasn’t my point; I wasn’t saying or implying Thais were a statistically relevant problem, but simply pointing out that here was another ethnic group with the same aggregate IQ, yet didn’t suffer from or disproportionately create the kind of social and criminal mayhem so tightly correlated to blacks. Yet often, particularly when declaring how useless social redemption efforts are, black IQ is used to argue total futility toward such efforts; I’m saying, tired as it is, cultural factors are a big element too.
Having said that, I think it’s clear that I don’t believe: “therefore, more of the same please, in terms of programs and other redemption efforts of the last 40-some years.’ I agree with a lot of your points, but am merely adding a few of my own from my relatively uncommon perspective in forums like these, etc., blah-blah.
Lara, P.A.,
Thanks for your replies; i get a lot of useful critique and perspective from them. Re. ‘in fairness’; i wasn’t really chastising his view or even calling out something specific; i just think there’s some dangers that come with approaching this topic with a ‘ether-or’ lib-vs.-con mindset, with all those terms attendant baggage.
Along breaking free of those lines, I like P.A. thoughts re. the alt-right possibly re-establishing the ORIGINAL creeds and missions of the progressives —— such re-castings are necessary, as nowadays, terms like ‘progressive’ and so-many others can connote the most dirty, unsavory insinuations, given the extremes of our modern 24-7 media.
I mean, I hardly think of myself as the standard blue-pill swallowing, ho-hum, just-another-black-middle-class-democrat-with-a-capital-’D', but when you think about it, what other option do i really have? lol!
“They don’t understand that the alt-Right — an obscure but ascendant faction on the political spectrum and seeds of future sanity — comes not from old school capitalists but from the original progressives. We’re the original progressives who are reconciling the Old Right with 19th century progressivism.”
Thanks, this is a thought worth keeping; me thinks you may really be on to something here!
hehe…
https://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/if-you-can-solve-this-then-your-iq-is-purportedly-above-120/
Yes, they are. Thais, Cambodians, Hmong. Even in their native countries are crime infested shitholes and always have been. Any of their past cultural might is likely due to some colonial element from somewhere else in Asia and the tall poppies were cut down like Asians have a tendency to do.
Regardless there are other genetic factors than just IQ, such as the dysfunctional MAOA gene that causes chemical imbalances in the brain which lead to ease of agitation and impulsiveness.
Both blacks and Asians are much more likely to carry the dysfunctional version of this gene. NE Asians with their lower T and higher IQ are still basically abrasive cunts that can’t control their wagging tongue at worst and are just extremely passive aggressive at most. For the lower IQ set it just means chimping out.
All I know is that the paint chips on the front porch when I was a kid were TASTY! Didn’t keep me out of Mensa and engineering school, though.
That comment thread on Drum’s piece was completely insane. It felt like a lynch mob to be honest. Be honest, do you guys really think a ‘neutral’ observer, say a moderate Democrat, or even a lefty who is not extremely political would come out of that thinking Sailer may have something of value to add? I fear most people are like the frothing at the mouth commenters there.