I have been thinking a lot since the election about what could explain the incredibly high numbers of Americans who seem incapable of critical thinking, or really any kind of high level rational thought or analysis.
Then I stumbled on this post https://old.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/16ires5/lead_exposure_from_shooting_is_a_much_more/
Which essentially explains that “Shooting lead bullets at firing ranges results in elevated BLLs at concentrations that are associated with a variety of adverse health outcome"
I looked at the pubmed abstract in that Reddit post and also this one https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5289032/
Which states, among other things, “Workers exposed to lead often show impaired performance on neurobehavioral test involving attention, processing, speed, visuospatial abilities, working memory and motor function. It has also been suggested that lead can adversely affect general intellectual performance.”
Now, given that there are well in excess of 300 million guns in the United States, is it possible lead exposure at least partially explains how brain dead many Americans seem to be?
This is a genuine question not a troll and id love to read some evidence to the contrary if any is available
Yeah but you oughta see the other guy
What a fucking retarded post
EXCUSE ME, but compared to the drinking water it’s basically a rounding error for lead exposure.
I have literally fired a machine gun until liquid carbon is running down the gun and spraying on my face and I’ve likely had more lead from pipes and paint chips than anything else.
Source? I’d like to see the analysis please.
No.
No that’s kind of stupid.
The amount of lead exposure from shooting is not particularly high and would be concentrated in a very small number of people who are doing things like firing uncoated bullets A LOT ie. reloaders. Most Americans don’t own guns and even the ones that do don’t fire them indoors extremely regularly and most indoor ranges have soap intended for lead. The lead exposure we’re talking about is pretty tiny especially considering lead effects cognition the most during brain DEVELOPMENT and the amount of leaded gas and lead paint are going to be much, much more significant. People who occupationally encounter lead in things like bullets, such as range workers, armorers, etc, monitor their lead exposure and if they are within safe levels the average guy who goes to an indoor range a handful of times a year certainly is. Also, shooting is expensive, most people aren’t shooting thousands of rounds a year, so countries with mandatory service where every 18 year old learns to shoot a rifle, likely using thousands of rounds of rifle ammo for every boy as an early adult would still be a much more statistically significant thing, as anyone who has ever received military training has, simply due to cost, shot more rounds than a very large chunk of any population
At first glance I thought this post was a bit facetious, but after thinking about it and reviewing some research around people manufacturing the bullets and how it affects them and understanding that detonating them in confined spaces probably is just as if not more problematic. And if you have a job that requires you to do it often, say a cop, does that create even more of an effect? Lead exposure causes a loss of impulse control as well as intelligence effects. Could that be one reason why cops are so much more violent than the average person? I’d love to see a study on lead content of blood in cops, especially ones who murder people they capture, but unfortunately, the NRA is probably too powerful to allow that to happen. And conservatives hate masks, so I doubt it would be easy to convince cops to wear them while practicing.
Most Americans don’t shoot very often, even if they own a bunch of guns.
Part of it is that ammo is just expensive. A trip to the range can burn hundreds of dollars in ammo in just a few minutes.
Equating votes for a particular candidate to an incapability of critical thinking is probably where your hypothesis breaks down the most
Yes, this shit is so obvious. I have been calling this out for a decade now.
Yes, but not because of guns. While the adverse effects of leaded gasoline were known in the 60s and leaded gasoline got banned in most countries, the US only phased it out in 1996. Which means that millions of people alive today are exposed as a child. This has a huge impact on IQ:
The average lead-linked loss in cognitive ability was 2.6 IQ points per person as of 2015. This amounted to a total loss of 824,097,690 IQ points, disproportionately endured by those born between 1951 and 1980.
This amounted to a total loss of 824,097,690 IQ points
What a useless figure compared to the 2.6 per capita given earlier
IQ is a useless data point anyway as even IQ point values have shifted over the past 100-ish years. An average IQ now used to be genius level IQ in the past and it mostly comes down to basic education and not starving.
Adding all the points together feels useless as a metric. But 2.6 per individual doesn’t sound as drastic as I was expecting leaded gas to impact. Still bad, just not what I’d call a huge impact.
The lowering of emotional self-regulation and impulse control on the other hand swings wildly with just a few percents over a population with a much more dangerous extreme on the bell curve
As an outsider (most people in my country don’t shoot guns for fun, but we still have our fair share of morons) I think not educating oneself/not being educated may be a more important cause.
My personal opinion is that it’s more related to the way people spend (waste) their time. All of us, I mean. The way we (do not) educate ourselves, the way we do (not) value intelligence and knowledge.
- How many people shoot guns? vs How many don’t ever read a book (a difficult one, I mean, say one essay a year)? or How many students reach university level without having read a single book? FFS, if that doesn’t ring an alarm bell…
- How many people are (not) being taught how to have heated but articulated discussions, in the literal sense of debating against someone, having a dispute with someone, while still being able to not want to kill one another?
- How many people are willing to be told (and willing to admit that) they were wrong… when they were?
That lack of education and an overall cheerful ignorance of all facts that dare not fit their viewpoint, no matter which one it is, seems to me a much more likely cause to explain why more and more people around the world (not just Americans) ‘seem cognitively impaired’. And that’s because, well, they are. Sadly.
We don’t value knowledge anymore, we value money and success. Once again, suffice to ask people: how many essays did you read in the last 12 months? Or to look at kids, how many of them want to be, say, a doctor, a scientist of some sort or, even funnier, a writer? And how many want to become ‘an influencer’ on YT (or TikTok, or whatever) or to become some star singer or sport star?
Kids have not suddenly become allergic to smartness. They’re only the mirror of what our real values as a society are (not the ones we pretend to have). Which are not being smart, not even talented as a matter of fact. They are: easy money and success.
imho, this is the main cause of dumbification going on everywhere. Obviously, I may be wrong and maybe I should stop eating lead bars as a snack?
I didn’t mean to suggest that it was the only explanation, rather that it might help explain some of the phenomenon of the lack of critical thinking that seems so prevalent in america these days, while also sort of flying under the radar as I don’t really notice people talking about it.
There has always been an anti-intellectual portion of the population but it seems to be expanding rather than contracting over time, whatever the reasons.
That Atlantic article is pretty crazy, I didn’t realize the kids these days don’t read books basically at all in school anymore.
Here’s an archive link for anybody else who wants to check it out since its paywalled
I didn’t mean to suggest that it was the only explanation,
Neither would I, just wanted to… how do you say that in English… to compare two hypothesis and say that between the two, alas, I think the lack of education (which is closely linked to the anti-intellectualism you mention) may be a more important factor.
That Atlantic article is pretty crazy,
And frightening, and sad.
Here’s an archive link for anybody else who wants to check it out since its paywalled
Thx! I did not realize it was now paywalled (I read it a few months ago).
It definitely could be and I appreciate the contribution to the discussion
I think there’s a much higher chance of slow-poisoning with heavy metals and other chemicals by food then shooting guns. Food quality standards in the US are poor. As well as nutrition wise. Malnutrition has a big effect on people their brain. The brain needs loads of stuff to function properly, not just corn syrup and fats. And with the poor US food safety regulations and poor tap water there’s more poison then nutricions coming into your body.
Then is not than.
Thenk you.
It is absolutely driving me bonkers. I think the two words will collapse into one over the next century if people don’t stop making this mistake. It’s so common and it irks me so!
All good. I appreciated your comment since I’m not a native English speaker. I had to read the comment twice to find the “then”, because my brain was on auto-correct. So I really wanted to thank you, but than my inner clown took over. Happens from time to time. Sorry about that.
Lol the funny thing is that I literally didn’t even notice the spelling of “thenk” until now!
I appreciate the responses on two levels haha
Curious – what is your native language?
You’re welcome. I’m German. And you probably missed the “than” in my previous comment. Isn’t it fun how our brian works? (I was soo tempted to write “your welcome” 😀)
Nah I caught your “then”. I’ve become hyper aware of that one. Your Greman Brian ist interresant
Your absolutely correct, you’re judgement is sound.
Leaded gas wasn’t fully stopped until 1996. Still in some aviation used (piston plane engines).
But yes I wonder about shooting ranges too. I think a couple times a year at an indoor range isn’t insignificant.
Iirc indoor ranges need ventilation systems because, you know, all the combustion. I don’t know if the residue on, say, counters, etc, is enough of a buildup to be significant but I would be surprised if airborne particulate was particularly high.
Yeah some of the replies have good points about lead damage being cumulative and showing up later, so maybe the workers in those studies I mentioned showed impairment because they were chronically exposed over some lengthy period and the impairments they measured were because of the cumulative exposure?
That also makes me think again though that, like you said, going to the indoor range a few times per year and not taking proper measures to clean oneself could cause some cumulative effect over time?
I mean check out this post where this person’s lead level was over 15 and decreased to 8 after a month of no shooting. Idk but reaching a blood lead level of 15 can’t be good right? Especially if you’re exposed repeatedly over a long period of time?
I see where you are going, but you probably should focus less on the guns. Most Americans don’t regularly shoot guns, even those that have them. A whole lot also don’t own any. But lead is all over in shit like water pipes. Other heavy metals and chemicals are present in higher levels than allowed elsewhere. Also full metal jacket is much more common than it used to be which reduces the lead particles when shooting.
As far as lead water pipes go, they’re not nearly as dangerous as they’re made out to be. The lead quickly bonds to things in the water creating a layer of corrosion which means the lead doesn’t really get in the water.
Don’t get me wrong, they should still all be replaced.
lol no.
This guy leads!
Your joke is highly diverting me, thanks!
My aunt spent a long time working in education in the USA, much of it in leadership roles. When she incorporated lessons on critical thinking into the curriculum, it resulted in a lot of pushback from parents who did not appreciate their kids applying the lessons at home.
People who actively resist the use of critical thinking will seem cognitively impaired because they are, in fact intentionally impairing their cognition. My intuition here is to blame religious fundamentalism, but that’s not a well-researched position.
A lot of parental pushback comes from frustration over the Dunning-Kruger effect, where somebody who learns a little about a subject feels like an expert. This is often where kids are at. If you keep studying the same material you realize how much you don’t know, which tends to make you feel ignorant, but as you continue you get better at gauging what level you’re at. A lot of it is a matter of maturity. Some parents don’t mind that the kids are learning new things, they just aren’t very good at parenting it. Highly religious people are more likely to see outside information and analyticals skills as a threat, because yeah they are - for good reason lol.
Religion is a major component I’m sure but overall parents probably don’t want their ideals and norms challenged in their own house. This is probably why people (on the right) say that college liberalized their kids. No, college teaches you how to think and pursue answers to your own questions. Not our fault your ideals are based on tradition and ignorance.
This is from the Texas GOP 2012 education platform.
“We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”
They backtracked on critical thinking after the outrage it caused with this
- Munisteri told KVUE, "The platform plank is against a specific type of teaching called ‘outcome-based education.’
"The reason why critical thinking is mentioned is some places try to disguise the program of outcome-based education and just re-label it as ‘critical thinking.’ "
“Good Christian kids need fear-based learning, like we had!”
100%
“We are already providing all the answers you will ever need.” -religion
Organized religion is, fundamentally — at its very core — based on rejecting critical thought; to “just have faith” in the unknown/unknowable.
It is in no way surprising that it’s incompatible with advanced science/evidence-based civilization.
Fundamentalism is certainly a contributing factor, but there are others. Conservatives have been working to cut back on education since the early 80’s. Removing critical thinking training was one of the objectives… Conservative policies are unpopular and are often supported with misrepresentations and outright lies. To succeed, they need a public without the knowledge or skills to realize their arguments are invalid. Unfortunately, they have gone a long way toward accomplishing that.
Yeah man. When that kid starts asking questions and challenging the family norms, that’s the teacher’s fault for making their life harder. It isn’t a sign that the parent needs to adapt.
Adapting IS a pain in the ass. Some parents don’t have the faculties to do it. Some do, but don’t after getting done with work. It is truely a generational trauma that the parent has to head off in themselves for it to carry to early aged kids.
