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.
Why do identical twins have such similar personalities?
Is it because they're reared together? Is it because people treat them alike due to their visual similarity?
Nope! Neither theory holds water.
Despite looking as similar as identical twins and being reared apart, look-alikes are not similar like identical twins are. In fact, they're no more similar than unrelated people.
This makes sense: they're only minimally more genetically similar than regular unrelated people.
The other thing is that twins reared apart and together have similarly similar personalities.
In fact, there might be a negative environmental effect going on, where twins reared together try to distinguish their personalities more!
Smart people tend to earn higher educations and higher incomes, and to work in more prestigious occupations.
This holds for people from excellent family backgrounds (Utopian Sample) and comparing siblings from the same families!
This is true, meaningful, and the causal relationship runs strongly from IQ to SES, with little independent influence of SES. Just look at how similar the overall result and the within-family results are!
But also look at fertility in this table: quite the reverse!
The reason this is hard to explain has to do with the fact that kids objectively have more similar environments to one another than to their parents.
In fact, for a cultural theory to recapitulate regression to the mean across generations, these things would need to differ!
Another fact that speaks against a cultural explanation is that the length of contact between fathers and sons doesn't matter for how correlated they are in status.
We can see this by leveraging the ages parents die at relative to said sons.
The internet gives everyone access to unlimited information, learning tools, and the new digital economy, so One Laptop Per Child should have major benefits.
The reality:
Another study just failed to find effects on academic performance.
This is one of those findings that's so much more damning than it at first appears.
The reason being, laptop access genuinely provides people with more information than was available to any kid at any previous generation in history.
If access was the issue, this resolves it.
And yet, nothing happens
This implementation of the program was more limited than other ones that we've already seen evaluations for though. The laptops were not Windows-based and didn't have internet, so no games, but non-infinite info too
So, at least in this propensity score- or age-matched data, there's no reason to chalk the benefit up to the weight loss effects.
This is a hint though, not definitive. Another hint is that benefits were observed in short trials, meaning likely before significant weight loss.
We can be doubly certain about that last hint because diabetics tend to lose less weight than non-diabetics, and all of the observed benefit has so far been observed in diabetic cohorts, not non-diabetic ones (though those directionally show benefits).