Another interesting question is: what kind of person typically owns pit bulls? They must have different personalities from owners of other breeds. I’d bet many Dark Triad types prefer pit bulls.
Our local Amazon driver was mauled by two pit bulls after the owner said they were safe and he pet them. He’ll probably walk with a limp the rest of his life .
A fascinating and well-sourced article. I think one useful thing to add is the potential that some of the misclassification may be affected by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in the UK, which classes the American Pit Bull Terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino, the Fila Brasileiro, and the American Bully as dangerous dogs that are prohibited. This may create the false impression for some people that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, a common breed in the UK that is recognised as being aggressive, is not a pit bull type dog. I would be interested to hear your views on this thought of mine.
Thank you for your response. One thing which has also popped into my head this morning, which may be useful in future critiques of pit bulls, is the issue of what makes a good watchdog in the modern world. Given that home security systems have improved greatly since John P. Colby, one could argue that a vocal dog with a loud enough bark should be sufficient as a watch dog. Corgis can be very vocal, as they were bred to be so as to help drove cattle. Whilst it may sound ridiculous, an alert, responsive, and vocal dog should be enough in various European countries to help alert owners of an intruder and ward off the threat.
I'd love to hear why you believe Staffordshire bull terriers are recignised to be aggressive I've never heard anything. Also it is nit The American Pit bull terrier that is banned here in the UK its "pit bull types" a deliberately vague description of a silhouette not genetics. I feel accuracy is important on topics that people use as reasoning to make other beings no longer alive. It's just respectful.
Staffordshire bull terriers are disproportionately over-represented in recorded dog attacks in the UK where the breed is identified, including fatalities. The article contains evidence that one can genetically identify pit bull dogs of various breeds, so your argument about silhouettes is moot. With regard to the legislation, whilst there are certain breeds specifically banned (XL Bully, Japanese Tosa, Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino etc), you are correct that the language regarding pit bull types is vague.
I have no fixed opinions regarding Staffordshire bull terriers, but they are clearly pit bull type dogs. The law as it is is a mess and it may need to be scrapped and rewritten to be specific and mention the need for genetic tests.
A few of these statements are being presented as settled fact, but they aren’t supported by the kind of evidence required to make them scientifically meaningful.
1. “Disproportionate representation” requires a denominator.
Raw counts of incidents where a breed is recorded do not demonstrate elevated aggression unless adjusted for population size. Staffordshire bull terrier–type dogs are among the most common dogs in the UK, particularly in lower-income and rescue-heavy demographics. Without per-capita bite rates, claims of “over-representation” are statistically invalid (base-rate error).
2. Severity is not the same as propensity.
Fatal or severe injuries reflect size and damage potential, not likelihood of biting. A larger dog will necessarily cause more harm if an incident occurs; this does not indicate higher behavioural tendency toward aggression. Conflating injury severity with aggression frequency is a known analytical error in bite statistics.
3. There is currently no validated genetic test for “pit bull type.”
Genetic testing can identify ancestry clusters, but it cannot identify “pit bull type” as used in legislation, nor predict aggression. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in peer-reviewed studies showing poor concordance between visual ID, genetic results, and legal classifications. “Pit bull type” is not a genetically coherent population.
4. Breed classification ≠ behavioural inference.
Even where ancestry can be inferred, there is no evidence that it predicts human-directed aggression. No gene or gene set has been shown to confer increased risk of human aggression in dogs. If such markers existed, they would already be in routine use in working-dog and service-dog selection. They are not.
5. The current evidence base shows heavy environmental confounding.
Bite and aggression datasets are strongly skewed by factors including environment, owner behaviour, neglect, trauma exposure, socioeconomic context, and reporting bias. These confounds prevent attribution of causality to breed genetics.
None of this argues that large or powerful dogs cannot cause serious harm — clearly they can. But the claim being discussed is biological predisposition toward aggression, and there is presently no robust evidence supporting that conclusion.
Distinguishing risk of harm from propensity to aggress is essential if this discussion is to remain evidence-based.
Thanks for this. Do you plan to cover self-defense in the series? I've wondered how to protect myself from uncontrolled pit bulls when running, while limiting my legal liability.
Fascinating article — thank you for taking the time to lay out your thinking so thoroughly.
I have two questions I’d like to ask in genuine good faith, because this is something I’ve struggled to reconcile myself.
1) Here in the UK, “pit bull–type” dogs are banned and illegal, yet Staffordshire-type dogs are very common and are not generally over-represented in serious attack statistics or ongoing media reporting. Given how frequently these dogs are grouped together under “pit bull–type” classifications, I’m curious how you would explain that apparent incongruence.
2) Much of the discussion around pit bull aggression seems closely intertwined with histories of severe abuse, particularly dogs bred or used for fighting. I was wondering whether any of the data you reference distinguishes between dogs raised with significant trauma versus those raised in stable, non-abusive homes.
In other words, is there evidence that isolates innate temperament from environmental factors? I’d be genuinely interested to understand whether there are temperament studies that look specifically at dogs raised without trauma, as that distinction feels important when trying to separate biology from experience.
I’m asking out of sincere curiosity rather than disagreement, and I appreciate you engaging with a topic that’s clearly complex and emotionally charged.
I’m also looking forward to reading the rest of the articles you’re planning to publish in this series.
Steve Sailer pointed out that deaths from dog attacks have been steadily increasing in the US from 2019 onward after being stable for years (https://www.stevesailer.net/p/why-are-dog-attack-deaths-soaring?utm_source=publication-search). A lot of people in the comments blamed an increase in pit bulls, but is there actually any evidence for a consistent increase in the numbers of pit bulls after 2018? Or is this caused by another factor like the pandemic, or something data-related, like a push for coroners to provide more detail in trauma deaths?
You make your case with a level of detail that leaves little room for hand waving, especially when you walk through the data instead of relying on slogans. The way you move from breed history to identification studies keeps the argument anchored in specifics rather than vibes. I’m curious how you plan to address the strongest counterarguments in the next installment, particularly around environment versus genetics. That part of the debate is where most discussions tend to stall out. Looking forward to seeing how you handle it.
I wanted to begin by saying that I read and appreciated your separate piece on scientific critique — particularly your point that substantive concerns are best raised privately, directly with the author, rather than performatively in public.
I did look for a way to message you directly here, but I don’t seem to have that option available, so I hope you’ll take this comment in the spirit it’s intended: genuine academic curiosity and good-faith engagement.
I’m not disputing your identification framework in this piece, which I think is clearly and carefully laid out. My question is narrower, and relates specifically to the assumption — often implicit in discussions of pit bull–type dogs — that they are inherently or biologically predisposed toward aggression.
From what I’ve been able to find, there appears to be surprisingly little direct temperament data supporting that conclusion. Most datasets seem to rely on proxies such as bite severity, injury outcomes, shelter intake populations, or post-incident reporting — all of which are heavily influenced by environment, human behaviour, and social context rather than baseline canine temperament.
I completely understand why larger, powerful dogs generate more fear when incidents occur, particularly when injuries are severe. But severity and propensity don’t appear to be the same variable, and I’ve struggled to find evidence showing that bull-type dogs are more likely to bite, rather than simply more likely to cause serious harm when they do.
I’d be very interested to know whether you’re aware of any controlled temperament datasets — particularly involving dogs raised without abuse, neglect, or fighting-related environments — that demonstrate an increased tendency toward human-directed aggression specifically.
I ask this with respect, especially given your emphasis elsewhere on rigorous interpretation of data and avoidance of emotionally driven conclusions. If this is something you plan to address in later parts of the series, I’ll genuinely look forward to reading it.
Dogs used as status symbols or for intimidation are often subjected to extreme ear cropping to make them appear more threatening. This practice has nothing to do with behaviour or temperament — it’s a human choice made for appearance.
Historically, cropping became associated with dog fighting and later persisted through certain breed traditions and aesthetics. The resulting association between cropped ears and aggression is therefore about human intent and selection, not canine genetics or biology.
In other words, ear shape doesn’t cause aggression — it’s simply a visual cue created by people, which then feeds human perception and fear.
Pitbull is no doubt tired of being falsely accused of biting people. I'm sure he'd be thankful for your clarification here.
Looking forward to next in series!
Another interesting question is: what kind of person typically owns pit bulls? They must have different personalities from owners of other breeds. I’d bet many Dark Triad types prefer pit bulls.
Both pit bull owners I know personally have severe mental health issues. One is a full-blown narcissist, the other I'm not quite sure, possibly BPD.
Our local Amazon driver was mauled by two pit bulls after the owner said they were safe and he pet them. He’ll probably walk with a limp the rest of his life .
Good luck on your Holy Crusade against the dreaded enemy.
Animal cruelty laws should be broadened and more strongly enforced. With punishment for such crimes increased significantly.
A fascinating and well-sourced article. I think one useful thing to add is the potential that some of the misclassification may be affected by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in the UK, which classes the American Pit Bull Terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino, the Fila Brasileiro, and the American Bully as dangerous dogs that are prohibited. This may create the false impression for some people that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, a common breed in the UK that is recognised as being aggressive, is not a pit bull type dog. I would be interested to hear your views on this thought of mine.
I think the law is messed up, since it allows the SBT to continue walking around even though it is just another pit bull.
Thank you for your response. One thing which has also popped into my head this morning, which may be useful in future critiques of pit bulls, is the issue of what makes a good watchdog in the modern world. Given that home security systems have improved greatly since John P. Colby, one could argue that a vocal dog with a loud enough bark should be sufficient as a watch dog. Corgis can be very vocal, as they were bred to be so as to help drove cattle. Whilst it may sound ridiculous, an alert, responsive, and vocal dog should be enough in various European countries to help alert owners of an intruder and ward off the threat.
I'd love to hear why you believe Staffordshire bull terriers are recignised to be aggressive I've never heard anything. Also it is nit The American Pit bull terrier that is banned here in the UK its "pit bull types" a deliberately vague description of a silhouette not genetics. I feel accuracy is important on topics that people use as reasoning to make other beings no longer alive. It's just respectful.
Staffordshire bull terriers are disproportionately over-represented in recorded dog attacks in the UK where the breed is identified, including fatalities. The article contains evidence that one can genetically identify pit bull dogs of various breeds, so your argument about silhouettes is moot. With regard to the legislation, whilst there are certain breeds specifically banned (XL Bully, Japanese Tosa, Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino etc), you are correct that the language regarding pit bull types is vague.
I have no fixed opinions regarding Staffordshire bull terriers, but they are clearly pit bull type dogs. The law as it is is a mess and it may need to be scrapped and rewritten to be specific and mention the need for genetic tests.
A few of these statements are being presented as settled fact, but they aren’t supported by the kind of evidence required to make them scientifically meaningful.
1. “Disproportionate representation” requires a denominator.
Raw counts of incidents where a breed is recorded do not demonstrate elevated aggression unless adjusted for population size. Staffordshire bull terrier–type dogs are among the most common dogs in the UK, particularly in lower-income and rescue-heavy demographics. Without per-capita bite rates, claims of “over-representation” are statistically invalid (base-rate error).
2. Severity is not the same as propensity.
Fatal or severe injuries reflect size and damage potential, not likelihood of biting. A larger dog will necessarily cause more harm if an incident occurs; this does not indicate higher behavioural tendency toward aggression. Conflating injury severity with aggression frequency is a known analytical error in bite statistics.
3. There is currently no validated genetic test for “pit bull type.”
Genetic testing can identify ancestry clusters, but it cannot identify “pit bull type” as used in legislation, nor predict aggression. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in peer-reviewed studies showing poor concordance between visual ID, genetic results, and legal classifications. “Pit bull type” is not a genetically coherent population.
4. Breed classification ≠ behavioural inference.
Even where ancestry can be inferred, there is no evidence that it predicts human-directed aggression. No gene or gene set has been shown to confer increased risk of human aggression in dogs. If such markers existed, they would already be in routine use in working-dog and service-dog selection. They are not.
5. The current evidence base shows heavy environmental confounding.
Bite and aggression datasets are strongly skewed by factors including environment, owner behaviour, neglect, trauma exposure, socioeconomic context, and reporting bias. These confounds prevent attribution of causality to breed genetics.
None of this argues that large or powerful dogs cannot cause serious harm — clearly they can. But the claim being discussed is biological predisposition toward aggression, and there is presently no robust evidence supporting that conclusion.
Distinguishing risk of harm from propensity to aggress is essential if this discussion is to remain evidence-based.
Thanks for this. Do you plan to cover self-defense in the series? I've wondered how to protect myself from uncontrolled pit bulls when running, while limiting my legal liability.
I hadn't given it any thought, but that's doable!
good stuff!
I have heard the claim that bullies are intensely loyal and protective, thus if you have small children you should get one. What's your view on this?
It's false, baseless, and dangerous.
Very dangerous. Like the cited example in the main text where the family pit pull killed the nephew.
A pet that protects? A Maine Coon!
My Egyptian Mau is pretty protective too... for a cat. But he's likely got nothing on a big ol' Maine Coon...
Fascinating article — thank you for taking the time to lay out your thinking so thoroughly.
I have two questions I’d like to ask in genuine good faith, because this is something I’ve struggled to reconcile myself.
1) Here in the UK, “pit bull–type” dogs are banned and illegal, yet Staffordshire-type dogs are very common and are not generally over-represented in serious attack statistics or ongoing media reporting. Given how frequently these dogs are grouped together under “pit bull–type” classifications, I’m curious how you would explain that apparent incongruence.
2) Much of the discussion around pit bull aggression seems closely intertwined with histories of severe abuse, particularly dogs bred or used for fighting. I was wondering whether any of the data you reference distinguishes between dogs raised with significant trauma versus those raised in stable, non-abusive homes.
In other words, is there evidence that isolates innate temperament from environmental factors? I’d be genuinely interested to understand whether there are temperament studies that look specifically at dogs raised without trauma, as that distinction feels important when trying to separate biology from experience.
I’m asking out of sincere curiosity rather than disagreement, and I appreciate you engaging with a topic that’s clearly complex and emotionally charged.
I’m also looking forward to reading the rest of the articles you’re planning to publish in this series.
Steve Sailer pointed out that deaths from dog attacks have been steadily increasing in the US from 2019 onward after being stable for years (https://www.stevesailer.net/p/why-are-dog-attack-deaths-soaring?utm_source=publication-search). A lot of people in the comments blamed an increase in pit bulls, but is there actually any evidence for a consistent increase in the numbers of pit bulls after 2018? Or is this caused by another factor like the pandemic, or something data-related, like a push for coroners to provide more detail in trauma deaths?
During COVID, there was a massive wave of adoptions. Many shelters were emptied out in that time.
Could one do a polygenic score for pit bull-mode dog aggression? Would it be extendable to other dog breeds?
Does it correlate with ear size?
You make your case with a level of detail that leaves little room for hand waving, especially when you walk through the data instead of relying on slogans. The way you move from breed history to identification studies keeps the argument anchored in specifics rather than vibes. I’m curious how you plan to address the strongest counterarguments in the next installment, particularly around environment versus genetics. That part of the debate is where most discussions tend to stall out. Looking forward to seeing how you handle it.
I wanted to begin by saying that I read and appreciated your separate piece on scientific critique — particularly your point that substantive concerns are best raised privately, directly with the author, rather than performatively in public.
I did look for a way to message you directly here, but I don’t seem to have that option available, so I hope you’ll take this comment in the spirit it’s intended: genuine academic curiosity and good-faith engagement.
I’m not disputing your identification framework in this piece, which I think is clearly and carefully laid out. My question is narrower, and relates specifically to the assumption — often implicit in discussions of pit bull–type dogs — that they are inherently or biologically predisposed toward aggression.
From what I’ve been able to find, there appears to be surprisingly little direct temperament data supporting that conclusion. Most datasets seem to rely on proxies such as bite severity, injury outcomes, shelter intake populations, or post-incident reporting — all of which are heavily influenced by environment, human behaviour, and social context rather than baseline canine temperament.
I completely understand why larger, powerful dogs generate more fear when incidents occur, particularly when injuries are severe. But severity and propensity don’t appear to be the same variable, and I’ve struggled to find evidence showing that bull-type dogs are more likely to bite, rather than simply more likely to cause serious harm when they do.
I’d be very interested to know whether you’re aware of any controlled temperament datasets — particularly involving dogs raised without abuse, neglect, or fighting-related environments — that demonstrate an increased tendency toward human-directed aggression specifically.
I ask this with respect, especially given your emphasis elsewhere on rigorous interpretation of data and avoidance of emotionally driven conclusions. If this is something you plan to address in later parts of the series, I’ll genuinely look forward to reading it.
Its only recently that I was able to notice that Pit Bulls generally have shortened or "cropped" ears.
Dogs used as status symbols or for intimidation are often subjected to extreme ear cropping to make them appear more threatening. This practice has nothing to do with behaviour or temperament — it’s a human choice made for appearance.
Historically, cropping became associated with dog fighting and later persisted through certain breed traditions and aesthetics. The resulting association between cropped ears and aggression is therefore about human intent and selection, not canine genetics or biology.
In other words, ear shape doesn’t cause aggression — it’s simply a visual cue created by people, which then feeds human perception and fear.
This definitely helps with gameness lol