The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour
Ben Alexander Daniel Lendrem, student, Dennis William Lendrem, project manager, Institute of Cellular Medicine, Andy Gray, consultant orthopaedic trauma surgeon, John Dudley Isaacs, director, Institute of Cellular Medicine
Abstract Sex differences in risk seeking behaviour, emergency hospital admissions, and mortality are well documented. However, little is known about sex differences in idiotic risk taking behaviour. This paper reviews the data on winners of the Darwin Award over a 20 year period (1995-2014). Winners of the Darwin Award must eliminate themselves from the gene pool in such an idiotic manner that their action ensures one less idiot will survive. This paper reports a marked sex difference in Darwin Award winners: males are significantly more likely to receive the award than females (P<0.0001). We discuss some of the reasons for this difference.
In the spirit;-)
I am very skeptical because this is a small study will all sorts of possible biases. I am particularly worried about the statistics. The graphs have no error bars and I do not believe a student T test was done. No error bars is bad enough but that a journal like the BMJ would publish a paper that does not perform a student T test is amazing.
Plus they misspelled behavior in the title. And throughout the paper. Who peer reviewed this paper?
Compare with this other paper just published: An exploration of the basis for patient complaints about the oldness of magazines in practice waiting rooms: cohort study. I mean, just look at the stunning graph:
Who can argue with that? 30 days! 30 frigging days! That is all the time the gossipy magazines have.
Great statistics and proper spelling. Plus some results that are really important. They could revolutionize waiting rooms around the world.
This current paper suffers from more than just bad statistics or spelling, It’s suggested theory – Male Idiot Theory (MIT) – is flawed with several other possibilities I call MIT, MIT and MIT.
One compelling alternative model to the MIT that this paper is trying to cram down my throat is Male Individual Theory (MIT). Perhaps men just feel “No one is going to tell me I can’t jump off this cliff”. So not an idiot. Just anti-authoritarian.
Or perhaps the Male Insomniac Theory (MIT) where the male is so tired from not getting any sleep, …ZZZZ….ehh.. what?..oh.. they perform Darwin award activities.
Another possibility is the Male Interstellar Theory (MIT) – that men are so impressed with the movie “Interstellar” they forget self-preservation. (I can certainly understand.)
A possible way to separate out the article’s MIT and my proposed MIT, MIT, MIT or MIT might be to have a sign pointing to the right saying “Idiots This Way” leading to a 400 foot cliff. Another sign to the left stating “Go this way if you hate The Man”, leading to a 400 foot cliff. And then a sign pointing straight ahead stating “Follow if you are awake” leading to an open elevator shaft. Finally, we put up a full size cutout of Matthew McConaughey in the middle of a major freeway.
I would expect that if MIT is correct, men will go to the right. If MIT is correct they will go to the left. If MIT is right, they will go straight ahead.
Finally, if MIT proves correct, they will enter the freeway. I certainly know which way I would go.
And finally, if either the journal’s MIT is correct, or my MIT, MIT or MIT is, I expect women to look at each possibility, shake their head and turn around.
Which section of the NIH should I send the proposal to?