I’ve been a fan of his for a long time — I loved The Tipping Point, and saw him speak at Powell’s downtown Portland. I knew he had his critics who challenged his conclusions or methods, but I saw that many of the attacks were ideological, and so didn’t think much of them.
But I recently stumbled onto his blog post, Pit Bulls…. It’s short; just two paragraphs long. The first is decent; he describes how, even though a pit bull attack caused no serious physical harm,
. . . the attack could have been much more serious. If everyone hadn’t run to the defense of the boy so quickly, and if the boy’s mother hadn’t done exactly the right thing (lying down, with her body covering the boy) the boy could easily have been badly injured. The attack was horrifying, even if no one was seriously hurt . . .
But then the concluding paragraph is wrong on its face:
. . . part of the rhetorical arsenal of those who get hysterical about Pit Bulls is to pretend that every dog bite is a medical catastrophe. . . . [But] more people are admitted every year for non-dog bites than dog-bites—which is to say that when you see a Pit Bull, you should worry as much about being bitten by the person holding the leash than the dog on the other end.
[Emphasis mine] I mean, really? He really believes (and thinks he’s proved) that people, or at least owners of pit bulls, are more likely to bite you than their dogs are? My friend Morgan pointed out that this goes against our own experience: We could each remember numerous times we’ve been bitten by dogs, but we’ve never been bitten by a person.
Where Gladwell goes wrong
His logic violates conditional probability. I learned it in my core computer science curriculum. It has the central idea: It can be the case that if A happens, B occurs too. Yet this does not imply the reverse: That if B happens, then A will occur.
Here, Gladwell’s premise is, when people land in the hospital due to a bite (A), it’s probably due to a non-dog animal (B). He then draws the erroneous reverse conclusion: When encountering a human and a dog (A), it’s more probable that the human, rather than the dog, will bite you, sending you to the hospital (B).
And another thing
I have to also say that his “those who get hysterical about Pit Bulls” characterization is B.S. In my experience, pro-Pit Bull people (they exist) and Anti-BSL advocates often get hysterical. See the comments to my other blog posts, for example. However, I haven’t seen this in advocates for BSL.
Leave a comment »