= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on The Psychological Diversity of Mankind - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (153)
Another point about the (IMO, dubious) "pit bulls are more dangerous" claim.
It's possible that young/aggressive/defensive male humans more often purchase dog breeds that look aggressive (or have an aggressive reputation) and young/aggressive/defensive male humans more often mistreat their dogs, leaving them chained and untrained.
Similarly, dog breeds that look aggressive (or have an aggressive reputation) may elicit different, more dangerous, patterns of behavior (fear, fear-based-defensiveness, et cetera) than "Lassie dogs".
But how did these dogs get the aggressive reputation in the first place?
And really, a stereotype leads to a 1110:1 ratio? Mighty powerful things, those stereotypes.
Yes, they are.
See: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/pit-bull-placebo-text1.pdf
Now http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/publications/230603563_Pit%20Bull%20Placebo.pdf
How did they get an aggressive reputation in the first place? Perhaps, by fighting other dogs publicly, with advertising for the fights focusing on their aggressiveness.