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.
Herpes is terrible, but did you know it might also be making people demented?
Studies of the effects of antivirals support this contention and show that we may be able to greatly reduce dementia rates with existing drugs.
Check out this Taiwanese result.
The various types of dementia in this large Taiwanese study were consistently related to HSV infection, with little strong evidence of difference by subtype.
People who used antivirals sometimes enjoyed a moderately reduced likelihood of dementia. But people who used antivirals more heavily cut their dementia rates *a lot.*
The bar exam is given to people who have all undergone schooling at ABA-accredited institutions and they've been filtered through the LSAT.
Despite the equality of their education levels, there are large racial differences in pass rates.
I don't know what happened in 2019.
The size of these differences is pretty big, even in very different datasets. In the LSAC National Study of Bar Passage Rates, the gaps were comparable to the racial gaps noticed with typical IQ tests.
And the differences aren't attributable to the differences in schools people went to. When the schools are clustered by their size, cost, selectivity, faculty/student ratios, minority population, and both median LSAT and undergraduate GPAs, differences within clusters remain.
Between 2019 and 2020, the number (in thousands) of families with children who were under the poverty line and in the labor force moved from 101 to 102. But the out of labor force number changed from 755 to 919.
I noticed some confusion about causes in the ABCD, so I'm going to clear up some things using a subsample of 126 adoptees. Notes:
1. SES has never been shown to affect intelligence, which is what causes race differences in IQ. 2. SES affects IQ, not intelligence.
3. It's far less useful to look at IQ changes if they don't entail g changes, since g is the predictive part of IQ tests. 4. SES effects are too small and race gaps in SES are also. To explain race differences with them is impossible. 5. Culture is ruled out in this sample by MI
6. The effect of brain size on IQ is causal.
At young ages, it's important to adjust for size if you're going to deal with race, since there are maturation rate differences. It can make the difference between getting a correlation of .25 and a more accurate .43.
My third Substack post was about the Nick Bostrom email and the idea that we need to judge people more carefully.
It covered
- The implications of nonlinearity and background for grasping unstated beliefs
- An experiment to see if teaching race differences in IQ induces racism
In the GSS, the relationship between belief in Black-White intelligence differences and prejudicial beliefs is often nonlinear. In most cases, you cannot infer from a person's intelligence beliefs that they hold prejudicial ones.
- For explicit prejudice, this is stronger
- For possibly racist beliefs, it's weaker
So I asked nonresearchers their opinions before and after being exposed to IQ differences, and the only belief they changed was their belief in IQ differences.
I asked some researchers what they thought. None seemed prejudiced.
When debunking a fact with a thought experiment, it's important to benchmark
This thought experiment and reality diverge in that race predicts admissions net of merit, but the thought experiment never produces a positive race effect. Simulate it!
It's especially odd since it just seems to be a red herring. There's nothing to it that actually confronts the existence of racial bias in admissions. It just says "Look, look selection over a threshold and group means continue to exist!"
That's not related at all.
Amusingly, mean differences for differentiated groups with similar variances beyond a threshold is a tautology. @KirkegaardEmil simulated it once, so no need for me to show it again.