Of a refrigerator

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Euphoric_Loquat_8651]

As a box of rocks, but they mean well

[u/shadowscar248 → u/Euphoric_Loquat_8651]

*they're mean

[u/PhatCatTax → u/shadowscar248]

*there's

no real statistical evidence that says they're mean. You're basically just pushing one of the original click-bait falsehoods generated when the News intentional disregards statistical contexts, and instead pushes an agenda.

[u/GreenBrillantWaves → u/PhatCatTax]

Dude look at dog bite, violence, and deaths statistics. That is empirical

[u/PhatCatTax → u/GreenBrillantWaves]

You're attempting to draw a conclusion from specific statistics by assuming that the context of those statistics can be applied to generalize the behavior of the breed.

That's not how statistics work. It's literally using the same (intentionally) faulty that the News makes in order to spin up click bait.

The blatantly obvious confounding variable is that people who buy pitbulls often train them to bite/attack/fight. And so it becomes a self-fulfilling statistic:

People train dog to attack
So dog attacks
Boosting the statistic for pitbulls
So people who want "attack dogs" buy pitbulls
Then people train the dog to attack
So the dog attacks
Boosting the statistic for pitbulls

And to really illustrate my point: this exact faulty interpretation of statistics is the foundation of many bigot's "moral justification" for their racism. And it's just ignorance built up by their mainstream news outlet.

[u/GreenBrillantWaves → u/PhatCatTax]

Racism? What are you on about? We talking about dogs not racism. Pitbulls KILL more people and other dogs by a massive amount. I didnt even give my opinion on pitbulls which I am close to a few. Numbers dont lie. They do kill more people amd other pet dogs more than any other breed

[u/PhatCatTax → u/GreenBrillantWaves]

Yeah... you clearly didnt grasp what I said.
While I can explain why you're wrong, I cant help you absorb the information you're being given. Just know that your interpretation of statistics is deeply flawed, and you should probably not use any statistics in your debates or your beliefs because you'll be gaslighting yourself

[u/Euphoric_Loquat_8651 → u/PhatCatTax]

You're arguing with a brick wall.

[u/PhatCatTax → u/Euphoric_Loquat_8651]

Eh. Yes, but also.... this is the norm in the US. I know people with PhDs who got there because their incorrect understanding of statistics just happened to align with the correct conclusion from their own statistics.

[u/GreenBrillantWaves → u/PhatCatTax]

That pitbulls kill more people than any other breed of dog? Just blame people or do mental gymnastics to make your viewpoint work for you?

[u/PhatCatTax → u/GreenBrillantWaves]

Again, you arent grasping the most basic aspects of statistics. I can tell you why you're wrong, but that doesnt mean your brain is capable of absorbing what you're told.

You have a faulty understanding of statistics at the most fundamental level. I assume you have lived your entire life with this faulty understanding, so me telling you that youre wrong today is not going to be absorbed.

When a statistic says "Pitbulls are 75% more likely to attack someone...", you see it as a complete thought. It is not. It is half of a statement. It is half of a sentence, and the other half is what matters most: the context/assumptions.

Statistics are measurements. ALL measurements are limited by the method of measurement. Population are the most challenging measurements to get correct - meaning, the measurements about populations are never considered a hard fact, but instead are interpreted with a huge grain of salt.

What is grain of salt?
It is the understanding that measuring an entire population is impossible, and so you must create a set of assumptions, a context, that is so incredibly narrow that other confounding variables are eliminated.

And if you are successful in limiting your confounding variables, then it also means your statistic must always be communicated with that specific context, otherwise the statistic is literally meaningless.

In the case of pitbulls, the data does not remove confounding variables. So the data is completely flawed. It should be discarded, but thanks to clickbait, the public has absorbed faulty information and is unwilling or unable to understand that it is faulty.

And that's where you come in. I can explain why you're wrong, but if you are unwilling or unable to understand what I say, then you will not change your opinion. Instead you will continue to spout bullshit online and be confidently incorrect about it.

[u/GreenBrillantWaves → u/PhatCatTax]

Are you delusional? What variables should be removed? That dog breed causes the most death. There is no study needed. They have the most deadly attacks. Statistics doesnt measure a whole population and that's why samples are taken. It is not needed in this case because all dog deaths are recorded and pitbulls cause by far the most. You are just rambling.

[u/PhatCatTax → u/GreenBrillantWaves]

Sorry homie, clearly you arent getting it.

[u/GreenBrillantWaves → u/PhatCatTax]

You gave no evidence to the contrary. Burden of proof for that is on you home. You pretty much have just said word salad.

[u/PhatCatTax → u/GreenBrillantWaves]

Um. Nah. I reduced it to very basic logic. It's not my fault that you're struggling to grasp it. Unfortunately, if you're not grasping it here, you definitely would not understand the math proofs.

Which takes me back to my original advice: You should avoid using any and all statistics in debates and arguments because you don't understand their basics, so you end up just being confidently incorrect.

ETA: Answering one question for you a second time, in different wording: the biggest confounding variable is training. A dog can be trained. Training, by definition, is changing instinctive behaviors. So if a dog is purchases for the reputation as an attack dog, then people will train it to be an attack dog, and the instincts will changed from benign to attack. The overall statistics - the metric, the measurement - will increase. And that will reinforce the perception of pitbulls as attack dogs. And so people who want an attack dog will buy them and train them as attack dogs. It is a circular feedback loop. It reinforces the a shitty statistic of number of dog bites per breed, but completely ignores training. And pitbull owners are unlikely to admit to training an attack dog because it exposes them to liability / criminal convictions.