The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour
BMJ 2014; 349 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7094 (Published 11 December 2014) Cite this as: BMJ 2014;349:g7094
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Peter Symes questioned the exclusion of couples from the statistical analysis.
Mixed sex couples do not contribution information on sex differences. For this reason they were excluded.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Efstratios Charitos raises an important point on the interpretation of sex differences.
We agree. Even if the sex difference we observed is robust, and not simply attributable to sampling and other sources of systematic bias, it is still open to interpretation. While the sex difference is not inconsistent with male idiotic risk taking behaviour, there are alternative interpretations.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Thanks to Arne Ring for valuable suggestions.
We agree that some evaluation of sampling bias should be possible based on a better understanding of the Darwin Awards data collection methods. If the observed sex difference proves to be robust to sampling and other systematic biases then a complete explanation of male idiotic risk taking behaviour would be incomplete without addressing the evolutionary basis of such a sex difference. If real, we suspect that differences in attitudes to idiotic risks might be based in the reproductive strategies of males and females.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Charles Gardner raises a number of interesting points.
Without a full understanding of the nomination and selection processes it is difficult to evaluate the observed sex difference in Darwin Award winners. However, we agree that if the observed sex difference is shown to be robust to methodological and sampling issues then it has important implications for injury prevention and health education.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Glenn Shrom raises the issue of intelligence and sex differences in IQ.
While intelligence may be an issue, our interest was in idiotic risk taking behaviours. In truth, we suspect that idiotic risk taking behaviour is more prevalent in males. Until we understand fully the reasons for this males will continue to be over-represented in emergency medicine admissions.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Bravo! The medical ethic of ambivalence to stupid patients should be given priority in these dark days of NHS cutbacks. It is so exciting to pause and wonder if Human hygiene will no longer be considered a dirty Nazi term. It is titivating to dare believe that the moral validity of Human hygiene is rising from the ashes of mediocracy to take its rightful place as the preeminent moral philosophy of the 21st. Century. Human hygiene is indeed the answer to so many of the problems facing mankind today!
Ok! You nearly got me! ..........but I get it....the moralist is a bore and the artful satirist a valued dinner party guest.
A skilful satirist will inspire mankind to correct human vice and hypocrisy....and I admit you did get me up on my soap box for awhile. Apparently, I can be a bit naïve. However, if a satirist is inept or disingenuous , human vice and hypocrisy may become normalised.
Sincerely or possibly ironically,
The Iron Lady
Competing interests: No competing interests
An alternative explanation is that men are associated with more dangerous occupations and have more regular access to power tools, etc.. It's likely that a higher percentage of women are in the kitchen, office, or doing service work, and a higher percentage of men are in the workshop or working with power tools or heavy machinery. If true, the female-dominated activities are less likely to cause death when lapses of judgment occur.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I was under the impression that discrimination had been outlawed. This is a joke article but the joke is not funny; the joke is on the BMJ and the authors.
Perhaps it would have been funnier if your source data had not been obtained from a list of, however idiotic, tragic deaths of real people. Some of these people would have been living with learning disabilities, mental disorders, or doing things that, although admittedly foolhardy, were brave or necessary.
This damages men and boys, by undermining our self-esteem and ability to live as we choose for fear of being called stupid, just as using nepotism to give an author a citation in a prestigious journal damages the scientific community by impeding those without family connections.
Competing interests: No competing interests
The article was a bright spot in an otherwise dreary and depressing world. I did not take it seriously, and I don't think anyone else should. It was funny, and there is not much difference between it and stand-up humor, which can offend some of its audience, depending on the topic. The only difference was that it was published in an esteemed medical journal.
I commend the BMJ for publishing it and not taking itself too seriously. The same should apply to the audience.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour
Yes! the source of the data for this "silly science" was up there with "silly".
Just google/ You Tube "Darwin Awards " and you will see the basis upon which this research is based is really silly...... However, it is important to prevent this silliness from diverting attention from the difficulty men seem to have consulting doctors in both acute and chronic circumstances. Alternatively self destructive behaviour in men is more often than not more violent/ effective....than in women. As I tried to say before, irony must be carefully constructed and conveyed .......or else it becomes sarcasm ...which is the lowest form of wit.
Yours truly
Irony
Competing interests: No competing interests