I write this letter in response to the article published on 11 December 2014 in The BMJ titled “The Darwin Awards: Sex differences in idiotic behaviour” by Lendrem and colleagues.
In this article, the authors tried to provide some evidence in support of Male Idiot theory. I have some criticisms of the article which are levelled at 5 main angles:
1- The term “idiotic risk”, which is mentioned in the introduction section, does not have a citation.
2- The main reference for the male idiot theory (MIT) is “McPherson J. Women are from Venus, men are idiots. Andrews McMeel, 2011.” as the author cited in footnote 16. Maybe I am not aware of that, but is this book a scientific reference? Can I reference Harry Potter as a reference for the ability of talking to snakes?
3- The authors claimed that “There are anecdotal data supporting MIT”. Again without providing any citation.
4- The authors mentioned “paper we present evidence in support of this hypothesis using data on idiotic behaviors demonstrated by winners of the Darwin Award”. The Darwin Awards are not scientific awards and there are many unknowns on nomination, election and confirmation procedures. Hence, the data derived from this are quite unreliable.
5- What is the exact hypothesis of this article? Is the method consistent with the hypothesis testing? Is a single chi-squared test sufficient to draw an inference? How does the result of the study provide evidence in support of MIT?
The observed ratio of male/female Darwin Award winners (89.%) is similar to the male/female ratio observed at Carnegie Hero Medal Winners (91%). Do the editorial Board of The BMJ pay attention to the ratios of other heroic actions such as rescuing Jewish people from the Holocaust, becoming a living kidney donor, or volunteering for humanitarian work in a dangerous environment? Shall we conclude from the number of male Nobel award winners that some sexist jokes about women are true? If someone uses the male/female ratio of Nobel Award winners or top mathematicians and physicists to provide support of some sexist joke about women's mental inferiority, do The BMJ publish it?
As a BMJ reviewer, I am really disappointed and I strongly believe that the Editorial Board of The BMJ needs to explain why they allowed this study to appear in The BMJ given its overt appeal to sexism against men, poor methodology and inappropriate language.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
15 December 2014
Amir Alishahitabriz
MD, MPH,PhD candidate, Department of Health Policy and Management The Gillings School of Global Public Health University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Rapid Response:
I write this letter in response to the article published on 11 December 2014 in The BMJ titled “The Darwin Awards: Sex differences in idiotic behaviour” by Lendrem and colleagues.
In this article, the authors tried to provide some evidence in support of Male Idiot theory. I have some criticisms of the article which are levelled at 5 main angles:
1- The term “idiotic risk”, which is mentioned in the introduction section, does not have a citation.
2- The main reference for the male idiot theory (MIT) is “McPherson J. Women are from Venus, men are idiots. Andrews McMeel, 2011.” as the author cited in footnote 16. Maybe I am not aware of that, but is this book a scientific reference? Can I reference Harry Potter as a reference for the ability of talking to snakes?
3- The authors claimed that “There are anecdotal data supporting MIT”. Again without providing any citation.
4- The authors mentioned “paper we present evidence in support of this hypothesis using data on idiotic behaviors demonstrated by winners of the Darwin Award”. The Darwin Awards are not scientific awards and there are many unknowns on nomination, election and confirmation procedures. Hence, the data derived from this are quite unreliable.
5- What is the exact hypothesis of this article? Is the method consistent with the hypothesis testing? Is a single chi-squared test sufficient to draw an inference? How does the result of the study provide evidence in support of MIT?
The observed ratio of male/female Darwin Award winners (89.%) is similar to the male/female ratio observed at Carnegie Hero Medal Winners (91%). Do the editorial Board of The BMJ pay attention to the ratios of other heroic actions such as rescuing Jewish people from the Holocaust, becoming a living kidney donor, or volunteering for humanitarian work in a dangerous environment? Shall we conclude from the number of male Nobel award winners that some sexist jokes about women are true? If someone uses the male/female ratio of Nobel Award winners or top mathematicians and physicists to provide support of some sexist joke about women's mental inferiority, do The BMJ publish it?
As a BMJ reviewer, I am really disappointed and I strongly believe that the Editorial Board of The BMJ needs to explain why they allowed this study to appear in The BMJ given its overt appeal to sexism against men, poor methodology and inappropriate language.
Competing interests: No competing interests