As pit bulls have become more common, their representation in dog fatalities has grown, as have the per capita rates of dog fatalities and injuries.
In 1979-1998, pit bulls were a quarter as common as now, but they were still responsible for a large % of deaths. The premiere "aggressive dog" at the time was the Rottweiler, and despite its reputation, bad owners, and far greater numbers, it didn't kill as many as the pit bull.
And this isn't due to mix-ups. We used to have data separating purebred pit bulls from crossbred ones.
Crossbred pit bulls are fortunately now more common, but they used to be the less common variety. It's fortunate because the mixing means less violence per dog.
More recently, in the deadliest states with respect to dog attacks, it's clear that pit bulls are to blame for most dog fatalities.
A major part of why pit bulls are such outliers is that, where we have data, it appears they kill people at a wider - older - range of ages.
52% of all dog fatalities are of people ≥10 while 72% of pit bull fatalities are, versus 28% for the ~94% from all other breeds combined
Despite aggressive dogs and bad owners being a thing forever, the switch from Rottweilers and the like to the pit bull has been destructive for this reason
Dog fatalities used to be a problem for children alone, but due to pit bulls they are now largely a problem for people ≥10
Pit bulls are not deadly because they're strong. Many breeds are stronger. They are deadly for the reason fighters want them: tenacity.
"Pit Bull" here is a mix, but the broader label applies to the APBT, American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
This is something that's difficult for police to get dogs to adopt through the rigorous training they're subjected to. Most fail! Because it's been bred into pit bulls, it's much more reliably observed in that breed.
Other BSL'd breeds are also often extremely tenacious.
Here's a previous post with the relative risks of fatalities by breed.
Conservatives love to attack the Great Society as if it's responsible for modern high divorce and low marriage rates as well as high Black crime rates.
But this is a narrative-based belief, not a statistically-justified one. High Black crime rates precede the Great Society.
The Great Society gets a lot of senseless blame.
Some people say it caused people to work a lot less. Not clearly supported:
Roughly one-third of all of Japan's urban building was done through a process of replotting land parcels and reconstructing homes to increase local density while making way for new infrastructure🧵
Conceptually, it's like this:
In that diagram, you see an area of low-density homes that has undergone land rights conversion, where, when two-thirds of the area’s existing homeowners agree, everyone’s right to their land is converted to the rights to an equivalent part of a new building.
This works well to generate substantial, dense amounts of housing, and it's, crucially, democratic.
All the decision-making power was held by those who were directly affected, and not outsiders to the situation.
If 2/3 wanted to upzone, they could, and they did!
I've seen a lot of people recently claim that the prevalence of vitiligo is 0.5-2%.
This is just not true. In the U.S. today, it's closer to a sixth of a percent, with some notable age- and race-related differences.
But where did the 0.5-2% claim come from?🧵
The claim of a 0.5-2% prevalence emerged on here because Google's Gemini cited a 2020 review in the journal Dermatology which proclaimed as much in the abstract.
Simple enough, right? They must have a source that supports this estimate in the review somewhere.
They cite four studies for the 0.5-2% claim, so let's look into those studies.
Relationships between class and fertility and IQ and fertility used to routinely be negative in the not-so-distant past.
But across the developed world, they're increasingly positive, albeit only slightly. In this Swedish birth cohort (1951-67), the transition came early:
In this example, there's also some interesting confounding: between families, IQ isn't monotonically associated with fertility, but within families, it is.
Something seems to suppress the IQ-fertility relationship between families!
Sweden's positive IQ-fertility gradient (which, above, is just for males, since it's draftee data), has been around for quite a while (but has varied, too), whereas in countries like France, Japan, and the U.S., the gradient shift towards being slightly positive is more recent.