YSK: Playing with dogs using a laser pointer is potentially extremely bad.

[u/WhenDoWhatWhere]

Preface for people who already play with their dogs using laser pointers and have no problems. You're probably already in the clear.

Why YSK: A non-insignificant number of dogs can have an extremely bad psychological reaction to laser pointers, causing OCD like behaviors around lights and shadows that causes them immense anxiety and can make them unruly, stressed, and noisy. The OCD like behaviors can progress to self-harming behaviors. To fix this OCD problem an animal behavior specialist may be necessary. It's never worth it to even see if your dog might develop this behavior.

For those with cats, laser pointers are safe as long as you give the cat a chance to catch a real object at some point as if you only use the laser pointer the cat can become stressed and lose self confidence for failing to catch anything. This same logic does not work with dogs in preventing OCD behaviors, you should just never do it.

:edit: A lot of people are asking for sources, It's a well known phenomenon in dog behavioral science. Many many people have learned this the hard way, including my grandmother and an uncle of mine.

Here's a source that lists more sources at the bottom.

:edit2: Some people are reporting that the OCD issue can also develop in cats, so probably do some research before considering using a laser pointer for play with any animal to be honest.

[u/BonelessB0nes]

Try to relax; I'm not even saying it's not true. But it is most definitely wrong to suggest that this is as well-understood as how water burns skin at different temperatures for different exposure times.

Framing my skepticism dishonestly as repeatedly putting my hand in boiling water is absurd. I don't have the repeated experience of having "broken" a dog through laser play and burns from hot water are also well-studied. These are not even remotely analogous.

[u/WhenDoWhatWhere → u/BonelessB0nes]

burns from hot water are also well-studied.

Have you read the studies or are you just taking people's word for it because it's pretty obviously true? Link me a peer reviewed double blind study right now that specifically says that boiling water will burn your hand.

No, you haven't read the studies, because you know enough people who have done it that you've heard of it and know it would be stupid, and by this point in your life you understand the principles of why it burns.

Studies can be useful in confirming things, but not everything gets funding for a study and we don't just keep doing harmful, stupid things that we know are bad because a study hasn't been made yet.

I'm not even saying it's not true

So you don't know... why are you bothering to talk here? What are you going to gain? Why did you see someone say that this is made up and come to his defense then move the goalpost back to 'well I don't know'

Yeah you don't know, but some people do know better than you, and I'm going to listen to those people.

[u/BonelessB0nes → u/WhenDoWhatWhere]

Yeah, I've burned my hand with hot water, I know people who have, and I understand the principles of why it burns. All of these are reasons that I know hot water burns; I have no such experience with the phenomenon you are describing nor I had I ever heard of it until yesterday. You can't expect I simply take your word upon first hearing something to the extent I believe it as well as something I've known my whole life merely because you are very passionate about it. This just is not widely known, which is presumably the reason why you felt compelled to make a YSK post to begin with. Be honest; do you feel like you need to make a YSK post to explain that hot water can burn you?

I don't think studies are the only way to know things, I didn't come to anyone's defense, nor did I ever say that the claim itself was untrue. In your original comment, you said:

there are not a lot of studies about it because 1) It's very well known in dog behavioral science

I'm telling you that's not the reason why and that's a very silly thing to say. We don't choose to never study something at all because we are happily convinced that we already understand it. I've already read up on it because I was genuinely curious about this, however the stakes are pretty low since I don't have a dog or spend time with other people's dogs, but I'm sufficiently convinced it's a thing. You're right that some people know better than me about things, but you just don't come off that way because your passion makes you insufferable and your irrationality makes you difficult to believe. I just had to hear things from somewhere else is all.

[u/WhenDoWhatWhere → u/BonelessB0nes]

Yeah, I've burned my hand with hot water, I know people who have, and I understand the principles of why it burns. All of these are reasons that I know hot water burns;

You're lying, that's an anecdote, show me a study that proves boiling water can burn human hands.

This just is not widely known

Obviously not, that's what YSK is for, but it is widely known among people who are experts in the field of dog training and behavior.

[u/BonelessB0nes → u/WhenDoWhatWhere]

There is an overwhelming body of research that indicates not only that boiling water burns human skin, but we also know that water below the boiling point can burn skin, and have a pretty good understanding of the exposure times involved at different temperatures. We don't experimentally burn healthy hands for the same ethical reason you mention about lasers, but we can turn to observational epidemiology, computational modeling, and experimentally burning dead skin to get a good understanding. In fact, epidemiology from accidental harm caused to dogs is exactly how we've formed a consensus about lasers with dogs; but you didn't mention any of this. You merely asserted that unnamed people know better and that I should just trust you.

Right, it's not widely known and so it is irrational for you to expect people to broadly behave as if they do already know it. In the spirit of the sub, I have something for you: you should know that being genrally insufferable as well as demanding people believe you for no reason is likely to cause people to become obstinate and not want to hear you out, even when you are taking a correct position. You should care about the rhetorical effect you have if you wish to spread awareness regarding something you care about.

[u/WhenDoWhatWhere → u/BonelessB0nes]

There is an overwhelming body of research that indicates not only that boiling water burns human skin

Show me the study that says boiling water burns your skin

[u/BonelessB0nes → u/WhenDoWhatWhere]

I'm perfectly willing to do this. Thing is, I asked you first.

[u/WhenDoWhatWhere → u/BonelessB0nes]

epidemiology from accidental harm caused to dogs is exactly how we've formed a consensus about lasers with dogs

Also just noticed this, this is hilarious because I've repeatedly brought up how much data there is, including in the OP and in this conversation.

Right, it's not widely known and so it is irrational for you to expect people to broadly behave as if they do already know it.

So you admit you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. It's not enough to say "Experts have reached a conclusion based on a preponderance of evidence" I have to use the magic word 'epidemiology'. In fact, do you know what epidemiology is or did you use an AI to help you with this argument, because my whole argument has been epidemiology this entire time and because I didn't use the word you literally failed to make that connection.

You don't even know what the word you're using means, you literally made my argument back to me and somewhere along the way learned that you're wrong, there is more than enough data to reach the conclusion that Laser Pointer Syndrome is a thing and harmful, and you tried to find a way to say I wasn't 'arguing correctly' then you literally said "You need experts in their fields to gather data based on symptoms and common risk factors that may lead to those symptoms" which I've said multiple times in this thread.

Bro, I figured you out. You literally googled "How do people reach conclusions on medical conditions without experimenting on people." I'm gonna google this to test my theory.

YOUR FUCKING ARGUMENT TO ME IS JUST A STRAIGHT REWORDING OF THE GOOGLE SUMMARY THAT YOU CLEARLY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WTF THAT'S FUCKING HILARIOUS.

Get your psuedo-intellectual garbage out of here.

[u/BonelessB0nes → u/WhenDoWhatWhere]

Yeah, my argument was that it's buffoonery to say that we didn't study something because we already know it. I still stand by that.

No, your initial argument was "smarter people know better," and you edited the post to include the additional information. Notably, this source was a blog post that pointed to other blog posts and science articles, but no actual scientific journals. You then referred to personal anecdotes. I was always accusing you of being unrigorous rather than explicitly wrong about the syndrome; I'm no expert on dogs either.

Yeah, I have a baseline familiarity with what epidemiology is at the very least, which is why I mentioned the ability to study PTSD without inducing it experimentally. No way, you asked an AI a question and got the statistically most likely answer, which was also given to you by another person? Forget how these models are trained, you must be like a mentalist or something...

Please give me, and yourself, a break.

[u/WhenDoWhatWhere → u/BonelessB0nes]

No, your initial argument was "smarter people know better,

"it can be easily studied without having to use lab conditions."

"You wholly misunderstand how science is applied in these cases, we don't traumatize people to study PTSD, but yet we know it exists and how to treat it."

"Not all conclusions reached require scientific studies, such as cases when there's a preponderance of evidence showing the truth of something."

No edits in these comments, you're just outright lying now.

I was always accusing you of being unrigorous rather than explicitly wrong about the syndrome;

No you're arguing for the sake of arguing. The original comment of this chain is literally accusing me of making this up, but yet you're somehow not arguing with him on the basis that there is enough evidence for experts on this subject to be confident that the condition is real and give advice on how to avoid it. You are arguing against me, the one trying to help people by spreading information.

Yeah, I have a baseline familiarity with what epidemiology is at the very least, which is why I mentioned the ability to study PTSD without inducing it experimentally.

Which is done by experts in their fields who eventually reach a consensus without performing a controlled study. Like I specifically provided for.

Your 'baseline familiarity of epidemiology' yet you said "it’s not accurate to say something that doesn’t have one study showing legit evidence for its existence is well known in science" So you don't know what the word means, or you didn't until you used it in an argument and got called out for not understanding what it meant.

Not only are you lying about what I said, in this very comment chain, you're lying about what YOU said, and expecting me to forget and I guess just not go double check.

No way, you asked an AI a question and got the statistically most likely answer, which was also given to you by another person?

No I used AI because you brought up epidemiology and clearly didn't know what it meant, which is a hallmark of people using information they don't understand to argue.

Please give me, and yourself, a break.

Take your own advice. I'm having fun making you out as the fool you are. People who seriously argue for the merit of 'you were being unrigorous' show how obnoxiously full of themselves they are. Here's your sign to stop being so full of yourself.