PhilGoetz comments on The Psychological Diversity of Mankind - Less Wrong

79 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 09 May 2010 05:53AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (153)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ObliqueFault 09 May 2010 04:20:49PM 9 points [-]

I'm going to nitpick a couple points here.

"There is considerable psychological variance between dog breeds: in 1982-2006, there were 1,110 dog attacks in the US that were attributable to pit bull terriers, but only one attributable to Border collies"

Though pit bull terriers are indeed much more dangerous than collies, it may not be entirely behavioral genetics. Unlike collies, pits are often trained to be aggressive. Pits are also simply much stronger and more resistant to pain than than collies, so their attacks are more difficult to defend against, and thus more likely to cause injury, and thus more likely to be reported.

"A larger population means there's more genetic variance: mutations that had previously occurred every 10,000 years or so were now showing up every 400 years. "

True, but a larger population also means that "genetic sweeps" would take longer, especially given our relatively long life spans. If agricultural humans evolved more rapidly I'd say it was more likely due to new selection pressures that their hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't have.

Comment author: Johnicholas 10 May 2010 08:19:47PM 5 points [-]

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".

Comment author: PhilGoetz 10 May 2010 10:18:42PM 5 points [-]

But how did these dogs get the aggressive reputation in the first place?

Comment author: gwern 11 May 2010 03:02:17AM 7 points [-]

And really, a stereotype leads to a 1110:1 ratio? Mighty powerful things, those stereotypes.

Comment author: Sticky 15 May 2010 07:20:48PM 3 points [-]
Comment author: TobyBartels 08 October 2012 07:00:32PM 2 points [-]
Comment author: Johnicholas 12 May 2010 06:37:38PM *  1 point [-]

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.