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.
Some of you who are familiar with medicine no doubt do, but if you don't, no worries: This is James Lind, the man most often credited with finding the cure for scurvy.
Scurvy is one of humanity's great historical killers.
It's a gruesome condition that culminates in your life's wounds reappearing on your flesh. If you want a picture, go look it up.
You never hear about it today though, because it's so easy to cure.
This research directly militates against modern blood libel.
If people knew, for example, that Black and White men earned the same amounts on average at the same IQs, they would likely be a lot less convinced by basically-false discrimination narratives blaming Whites.
Add in that the intelligence differences cannot be explained by discrimination—because there *is* measurement invariance—and these sorts of findings are incredibly damning for discrimination-based narratives of racial inequality.
So, said findings must be condemned, proscribed.
The above chart is from the NLSY '79, but it replicates in plenty of other datasets, because it is broadly true.
For example, here are three independent replications:
A lot of the major pieces of civil rights legislation were passed by White elites who were upset at the violence generated by the Great Migration and the riots.
Because of his association with this violence, most people at the time came to dislike MLK.
It's only *after* his death, and with his public beatification that he's come to enjoy a good reputation.
This comic from 1967 is a much better summation of how the public viewed him than what people are generally taught today.
And yes, he was viewed better by Blacks than by Whites.
But remember, at the time, Whites were almost nine-tenths of the population.
Near his death, Whites were maybe one-quarter favorable to MLK, and most of that favorability was weak.
The researcher who put together these numbers was investigated and almost charged with a crime for bringing these numbers to light when she hadn't received permission.
Greater Male Variability rarely makes for an adequate explanation of sex differences in performance.
One exception may be the number of papers published by academics.
If you remove the top 7.5% of men, there's no longer a gap!
The disciplines covered here were ones with relatively equal sex ratios: Education, Nursing & Caring Science, Psychology, Public Health, Sociology, and Social Work.
Because these are stats on professors, this means that if there's greater male variability, it's mostly right-tail
Despite this, the very highest-performing women actually outperformed the very highest-performing men on average, albeit slightly.
The percentiles in this image are for the combined group, so these findings coexist for composition reasons.