Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't deny that there is more and more research every day about the negative impacts of microplastics on the human body. From my place of relative ignorance, it still seems that more sweeping claims like "Microplastics are responsible for the Flynn Effect and the male infertility crisis" are awfully bold. You throw obesity in there too, and doesn't it seem like folks are trying to pin all of society's ills on a sin…
> it still seems that more sweeping claims like "Microplastics are responsible for the Flynn Effect and the male infertility crisis" are awfully bold You are making my original statements into a straw man argument. I didn't say they are fully responsible, but rather I think they are contributors. I even asked in my original post what else could be contributing: > I think microplastics along with forever chemicals/PFA…
And yet the study you shared about lead actually proves my point. The meta-analysis showed that the impact of lead on crime is overstated in the literature. And I know a number of sociologists/criminologists, and (though this is anecdotal) they take the lead hypothesis far less seriously than this meta-analysis does. Partially that's due to the fact that this was written by economists, the natural enemy of sociologists. But I digress.
My argument is that simple "scientific" answers to complex social problems get overstated, while the messy stuff gets overlooked. It's a cognitive bias that especially affects the kinds of people on this website, because it substitutes complex social scientific problems with "simple" chemical cause and effects. It doesn't means we we shouldn't address the very real public health crisis. But remember, Rome wasn't built in a day, and it wasn't destroyed by lead pipes. That's a myth.