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
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.
So I really wanted to thank you, but than my inner clown took over
Lol
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” 😀)
Great now i read thank as than-k. Lol
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.
The vast majority of Americans don’t own/shoot guns. There’s 300 million guns because some people own multiple.
Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
Also, the British literally voted to have a worse economy. We don’t have a monopoly on headassery.
Also, the British literally voted to have a worse economy. We don’t have a monopoly on headassery.
Our Brexit vote narrowly won for the same reason that Trump won again - the weaponisation of our stupid people via social media by right-wing shitbags.
It’s not like these people are getting 75% of the vote and the opposition is fractured. Is’s mostly pluralities or, at best, 52%ish percent of the vote. And 20% of people in any country are just change voters no matter what the change is.
There’s not really mandates in the U.S. Trump won’t even be able to control the House. We got a Belgium situation where there’s no government.
For those that don’t know, Belgium is the world’s most successful failed state. There’s enough chocolate and beer around so no one cares but they suck at forming governments. I think they beat Iraq’s record at just not forming a government.
Don’t joke too flippantly about it to their face, though.
I did once and the dude sat me down and very patiently explained to me all of the ways people still suffered because of that period, like how his friend had to suddenly pay his cancer treatment out of pocket for months and months and would have ended up homeless if not for being able to crash on this guy’s couch.
Or, you know, the lead that we put into the air for decades burning leaded gasoline…
Even though we’ve (mostly) stopped doing that, the effects are cumulative, and there are still plenty of people alive who were around when that was still a thing.
Somebody else in the comments said something very similar, I’lll paraphrase what I responded which is that I hadn’t really thought of that, and I’m starting now to come around to the notion that maybe even if there is some percentage of the population suffering the cognitive impairments associated with the adverse effects of lead, it’s probably more likely that they were exposed many years or decades ago vs recently
I may be mistaken, but there was talk years ago about regulating lead bullets. They were to switch to steel ones and it caused a whole story about ammunition becoming more expensive and started a run on lead bullets. If true, wile there would be this collected leads ammo, steel would be more prolific. But there could be some other contaminate in shooting, or some other reason. But i fear that this is more of a problem of the human condition then any outside factor
Then is not than.
lol no.
This guy leads!
Your joke is highly diverting me, thanks!
I think far more people are exposed to lead in water than from guns. Even gun-owning Americans don’t go to the range that often.
That’s a good point, especially the fact the most people who own guns don’t shoot them that often, but re: lead in the water, hasn’t the issue of lead in water become less significant over time?
This post by New York City government states that actually construction work is the most common source of lead exposure for people in the city, followed by sketchy consumer products. https://a816-dohbesp.nyc.gov/IndicatorPublic/data-stories/adult-lead/#%3A~%3Atext=This+continued+drop+in+blood%2Cair%2C+paint+and+consumer+products.
Maybe just generally we’re not taking the adverse cognitive effects of lead exposure, whatever the source, seriously enough?
Edit: someone else in the comments made the connection between the high numbers of lead water pipes in Florida and the “Florida man” phenomenon. Maybe lead in the water is still way more significant of an issue than I thought
Lead pipes internally corrode through chemical reaction very quickly. Then the corrosion shields the water from the lead. They aren’t very dangerous.
You’re maybe not wrong, but I expect that even then the amount of lead and lead salts that gets in the water will be significantly higher than from non-lead pipes
Oh yeah, every lead water pipe everywhere should be replaced. I was just trying to say that the level of concern is way too high.
Also bear in mind that leaded gas was the norm til the mid 90s, so a lot of boomers and Gen X were exposed
Holy shit. I gues lemmy is a pretty young place for you to say something so completely wrong and get so many upvotes for it. Most cars have been “unleaded gasoline only” since the mid to late 70"s.
Think about it. Do you think those cars from the 1990’s still on the road today have all had engine and fuel pump swaps on them to run unleaded? Heck no. Most all the cars you’re going to find from the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s all still say “unleaded fuel only” by the gas gauge. Most gas stations in the 1980’s didn’t even offer leaded gasoline.
was the norm
In the US, it was only banned from being sold in 1996, but it wasn’t the norm for long before that. The last model year that leaded gas was allowed for cars was 1974. Yes, all Boomers and most of Gen X would have had high exposure, but it would have been fading out by the time younger Gen Xers were born.
And yes there are some non-car applications of it that are still legal to this day, but the overall frequency of it would have dropped a ton well before the mid-90s. (Source, and actual graphs of the decline over time)
I think they are trying to phase out 100LL right now
They’re trying again. AvGas has always been more of a challenge, more resistant to change, but also a niche market segment. They were also trying twenty years ago when I did some flying, but progress has been glacial. Personally I always hoped we’d get new engines that could run on jet fuel, so avgas could just go away ( one of the things holding back general aviation is cost, and jet fuel is much cheaper). We should probably treat land near airports as contaminated, but there really aren’t many airports and the number continues to shrink
lead pipes, leaded gasoline, lead paint, lead sweetener …
We’re leaders! /s
I doubt that there are enough people shooting enough guns often enough for it to be more than just trace exposures, it likely must be something else.
It’s regular old religion, shit culture, and propaganda just like it always is.
Nailed it! Religion, shit culture and propaganda are all major sources of stupidity!
Don’t forget the deliberate effort by Republicans to nerf the public education system
Nerf is too nice a way to say it. They want to abolish the Department of Education. Their goal is that only the children of the rich will get anything close to a good education.
It’s by design. Keep people stupid, and use religion for its intended use, a tool for control.
We the masses are the foundation for their wealth and power.
Plus, Gen-X and Boomers were exposed to a lot of lead.
Gasoline types used to be “Regular or Unleaded” and Regular, I think, and required a"special" engine.
Also fungicides/pesticides can cause dementia. One of the first signs of early onset dementia is loss of empathy. So not very surprising many old rural folks have become jaded people
Leaded (“regular”) gas will destroy a catalytic converter. A car without a cat could usually run leaded or unleaded. Some may knock running unleaded if they’re super old or broken in some way. I believe leaded was usually cheaper.
I wouldn’t try running leaded in a modern engine even if you removed the cats. God knows what else it would screw up.
deleted by creator
Yes it’s actually a pretty ignorant idea. Lead exposure is more likely from car exhaust from leaded gas, which has been severely limited since the 80s.
Lead paint in every house probably didn’t help
Most old lead paint just gets painted over, further sealing it in. It doesn’t do anything to you unless you chew on peeling paint or release it into the air by sanding it.
There is an episode of Mind Field on youtube, it’s their halloween episode that explored the source of fear in humans. It had a campy feel to it but also contained a lot of good information.
The conclusion made in the video is that there are very few “universal fears”, things that cause fear in every human test subject regardless of race, culture, age, etc.
They were able to find one though: humans universally do not like the feeling of suffocation, specifically we are pretty sensitive to the ratio of oxygen and CO2 we are inhaling.
The brain interprets an increase in the CO2 concentration in the blood as “suffocation” and activates the fear response to try to protect us.
What have been dumping absolute metric fuck loads into the atmosphere in the past centuries? Countless amounts of CO2. And the concentration is only going up and up and up.
All of us are experiencing elevated amounts of CO2 in the blood, and all of us are universally feeling some level of the fear response because of it. Might explain what seems to be a lot of really bad decision making across all of society, people are scared, don’t know where it’s coming from, and are seeking anyone and anything that can help fix it immediately, whether or not it’s actually helping.
Fear is the mind killer.
deleted by creator
I really can’t imagine CO2 concentrations in the air is “suffocating” us. Air is mostly nitrogen, then oxygen, CO2 is a tiny sliver (which yes traps heat, different problem.)
The other commenter didnt say it’s suffocating us, just that CO2 levels are used by the body to figure out whether we are suffocating, and that the elevated levels might cause a subconscious reaction. We nearly doubled the CO2 compared to before industrialization.
Seriously? I used the word suffocating to reference what he said about suffocating, however he danced around it. It’s called context. *I added quotation marks to match his quotation marks if that helps.
First off, no need to be so condescending.
Next, what do you mean by dancing around it? The original comment just said that we might have some adverse effects, not that it is suffocating us. The word suffocation was originally only mentioned to explain that our body is capable of noticing differences in CO2 concentration.
I matched the energy you gave.
Whatever their attitude, the poster is right. They added valuable information that disproved the OPs hypothesis.
I still dont see how it disproves anything. Yeah, we have little amounts of co2 in our air, why should that mean that we can’t detect a change?
Because it’s 0.3%. Our body is not sensitive enough to notice this. Causing climate change through the greenhouse effect, destroying the planet, absolutely. But it’s not suffocating anyone.
Yes, this shit is so obvious. I have been calling this out for a decade now.
It’s really the idiocracy theory. Dumb people have more and more kids while smart people tend to have 0 to 2 kids. It’s exponetially growing the amount of dumb people. Besides some people that had potential dumbed themselfs down by joining organized religion. very sad
Ooh the “Idiocracy is about Eugenics!” crowd is here
hai!!
It’s not smart vs dumb though, it’s educated vs uneducated. I seemingly small distinction but a critical one.
There’s a distinct inverse correlation with the mean education level of a population and their birth rate (the better educated a group is the fewer babies they have) especially when you look at the women in that population.
Uneducated parents don’t value education in their children and so on and so on. Educated parents very much do value education in their children and actively participate in the schooling.
These two factors together mean that there’s a increasing number of people who do not value educating themselves or their children and also tend to identify with those politicians who present as uneducated (while actually being highly educated and highly intelligent but lacking in any empathy or morality). This is one factor in why populist parties are gaining traction again in western democracies.
Don’t forget the gutting of the school system over the past 40 years. Now we’re at “Let’s abolish the Department of Education”. It’s so sick.
Eugenics but because a funny movie said it it’s suddenly acceptable to parrot. 🙄
It’s not eugenics. Nobody was forced to have more or less children and none of it was based on ethnicity. It’s an uncomfortable thing to talk about, but it’s real. Unlike eugenics.
I think you may have misunderstood me. I’m not saying Idiocracy is a movie about eugenics. I’m saying that believing the world is getting dumber because dumb people have more babies and smart people don’t is eugenics adjacent.
I think we’re operating on slightly different definitions of eugenics. I looked it up to see if I was mistaken. Eugenics, by definition, involves State power to arrange. Whether by policy, law, or even forced sterilization and outright murder.
I just learned that there’s an idea called new eugenics or liberal eugenics. It strips out the use of State power, leaving the decisions up to the parents.
That’s why I said eugenics adjacent.
Yes it it it at least spreads harmful ideas about genetic and biological essentialism.
And no its not because of “stupid people” that the election turned out the way it did.
The subject is more complex and saying it was due to stupidity is a very easy answer that ignores the role power and wealth and a broken system play into the victory of trump.
I’m not saying stupid people pass on stupid genes and I don’t think the movie did either. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen it. It’s a fact that uneducated people have more children. It’s more that stupid people raise stupid kids and the school system is continually getting worse. So the kids just don’t have much of a chance.
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.
Pretty sure it’s much more prevalent than would be tied specifically to gun use as a catalyst, though…
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!”
I got a wooden spatula that’s great for creating fear!
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.
