The host of NPR's This American Life once tried to raise a pit bull with his now ex-wife.
He let the dog ruin his lifeđź§µ
He ended up getting it on Prozac and Valium, feeding it kangaroo and ostrich, and making excuses for the many times it would attack people.
Ira Glass' wife had a dog before they got married, but it died right before the ceremony.
That dog was a pit bull and it was a rescue, so they decided it would be good to rescue another one.
Per him, it originally came with the "slave name" Marley, which he changed to Piney.
Shortly after taking him home, Piney seemingly developed severe allergies to whatever he was eating.
So, Ira and his wife got him set up with a doctor. In fact, they got him set up with four doctors.
And they started spending more time cooking for the dog than for themselves.
As an indication that this was decidedly not a real condition, but in fact something that Ira and his wife were Munchausen-by-proxying onto the dog, it apparently just kept developing allergies to every new meat it would eat.
And he apparently needed expensive meals.
After committing himself to taking daily, hour-plus-long trips get fresh kangaroo to feed to Piney, Ira started to fantasize about what life could be like if he didn't have this high-needs pit in his life.
It becomes very clear to the interviewer that Ira sees his pit bull as helpless and dependent and precious, rather than as a vicious dog that's forcing him to throw his time down the drain.
And, in fact, Ira sounds like he's an abused girlfriend.
Why "abused"? Because the dog is violent.
And because he was justifying it.
Notice how he's aware that the dog is breaking people's skin and really going in for serious bites, and he just decides to call those "nips".
And let's be clear here.
This dog does not love Ira Glass. It might have loved his wife, but it didn't love him.
It fundamentally thought he was an aggressive male who shouldn't be allowed to go near... his own wife, Anaheed.
This dog was actually ruining his life.
He could no longer have a real, adult social life, because he couldn't stay away from the dog for very long, and, perhaps more importantly, people couldn't come over to his home or they'd be attacked.
This was *despite* paying trainers!
Ira's love for this pit bull was pathological.
He knew it was a terrible dog. He didn't realize that it didn't really love him. He thought it was misunderstood, and being misjudged by others, even though he thought the only way to appease it would be self-sacrifice!
Ira and Anaheed eventually divorced, and in a later interview where he was asked about it, he confirmed that Piney contributed to his marriage failing.
This is all tragic, but it's also so avoidable.
From the outset, the whole endeavor was delusional.
Ira and his wife adopted this animal, in part because they wanted to defy the perception that pit bulls were bad
They wanted to show that you could take a dog perceived a certain way, raise it well, and have everything turn out fine
Why they believed this, I can only speculate
Ira and Anaheed were addicted to the 'feel-good' notion that they were protecting an underdog, saving a reviled thing, protecting this sweet, kind, and loving animal from a world that wished it harm.
But they were suckers for a dog that abused them and eventually broke them.
It is genuinely shocking to read through these interviews and this story and to see that a man who is genuinely insightful about so many topics could show such a pathological level of self-sacrificial adoration for a monstrous animal
An animal any rational person should put down
But there it is.
And there go so many others, too.
A lot of people who end up being mauled, having kids mauled, having neighbors mauled... they're just like Ira.
If they accepted the reality that some dogs have earned their bad reputations, maybe this wouldn't have happened.
Don't be delusional about pit bulls. Don't sacrifice your life for something that can't even begin to love you. Don't become pathologically sorry for yourself and indignant towards others for disliking your evil dog.
British fertility abruptly fell after one important court case: the Bradlaugh-Besant trialđź§µ
You can see its impact very visibly on this chart:
The trial involved Annie Besant (left) and Charles Bradlaugh (right).
These two were atheists—a scandalous position at the time!—and they wanted to promote free-thinking about practically everything that upset the puritanical society of their time.
They were on trial because they tried to sell a book entitled Fruits of Philosophy.
This was an American guide to tons of different aspects of family planning, and included birth control methods, some of which worked, others which did not.
One of the really interesting studies on the psychiatric effects of maltreatment is Danese and Widom's from Nat. Hum. Behavior a few years ago.
They found that only subjective (S), rather than objective (O) maltreatment predicted actually having a mental disorder.
Phrased differently, if people subjectively believed they were abused, that predicted poor mental health, but objectively recorded maltreatment only predicted it if there was also a subjective report.
Some people might 'simply' be more resilient than others.
I think this finding makes sense.
Consider the level of agreement between prospective (P-R) and retrospective (R-P) reports of childhood maltreatment.
A slim majority of people recorded being mistreated later report that they were mistreated when asked to recall.
The Reich Lab article on genetic selection in Europe over the last 10,000 years is finally online, and it includes such interesting results as:
- Intelligence has increased
- People got lighter
- Mental disorders became less common
And more!
They've added some interesting simulation results that show that these changes are unlikely to have happened without directional selection, under a variety of different model assumptions.
They also showed that, despite pigmentation being oligogenic, selection on it was polygenic.
"[S]election for pigmentation had an equal impact on all variants in proportion to effect size."
I still think this is one of the most important recent papers on AI in the job marketđź§µ
The website Freelancer added an option to generate cover letters with AI, and suddenly the quality associated with cover letters stopped predicting the odds of people getting hired!
LLMs do a few things to cover letters.
Firstly, they increase the quality, as measured by how well tailored they are to a given job listing.
Second, they make job applications in expensive, so people start spending less time shooting off applications.
More, rapidly-produced job applications becomes the norm.
Now, we have a breakdown of different types of rich people!
Among those who could be classified, the majority of the rich (79%; >=€1m net worth) were self-made, with a smaller, 21% share whose wealth came primarily from inheritances.
How do inheritors and the self-made differ in personality?
They're both more risk-tolerant and less neurotic than the average, but the inheritor profile looks like a mixture between the overall rich and normal people, with more agreeableness, less openness, etc.
When did being fat become a thing for poor people?đź§µ
We should start with the observation that, as countries get richer, they tend to get fatter.
This might seem contradictory to the whole thesis, but it's not.
Countries become obese with wealth because poorer people within them are able to get fatter as they become richer.
The ecological and individual relationships differ.
Look internationally:
Now, we have good data for much of the U.S., and it tends to agree with Swiss and Dutch data, in that the inversion of the relationship between obesity and social status was a post-WWII, mid-century thing.
It precedes the welfare state, and then it's fairly constant.