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:g7094All 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.
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
If a member of my family were to die in an accident, I hope that I wouldn't see the details used for cheap laughs in The BMJ.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Congratulations!
I think this is the best "scientific prank" I´ve ever read. The press release was widely quoted in major german newspapers so far, so it worked quite well! Either journalists don´t read studies behind press releases or they don´t get british humour. Or both. And both is inexcusable in my opinion.
I hope there will be more studies from Mr. "BAD Lendrem", provided that Mr. John McPherson (Footnote 16) will continue to deliver great scientific material. Don´t forget the homework for school! :)
Thanks again for tons of laughs.
Milosz Matuschek, Paris
www.drstrangelove.blog.nzz.ch
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir,
I found the publication of this study astonishing.
If a woman crashed her car because she was applying her makeup while driving, would we the take this as evidence of a trait of self-destructive vanity in all women? Or might we understand that few men wear make-up and so are less likely to be in that position?
Simply adding a few of the many caveats that might influence your outcomes into an article does not justify publishing as science a vast extrapolation of a small amount of highly selective anecdotal "evidence".
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to document the genetic tendency to suicide in Sauropods. After all, there a none of them around any more.
Competing interests: No competing interests
If we assume authors did not mean total idiocy when failing to define this term, that failure is not critical at all; in fact most people recognize the tendency identified, anecdotally. Thus, was intrigued by the comment on similar finding in squirrels (academic ones, at any rate), as I had been wondering if relatives of Darwin winners could be tested for T and other hormone levels (adjusting for genetic causes of levels, if possible)…
Competing interests: No competing interests
The answer to why men (in particular young men) are idiots is obvious. If they weren't, they would not go to war. As such, they would quickly be removed from the gene pool when their communities were over run by the idiots from the neighbouring community. There is a definite evolutionary advantage to being an idiot.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Although the study results would only be altered slightly, there one component is missing in the statistical analysis of this paper: The period of contribution to the gene pool is different between males and females because of fertility.
While males in the western world might be fertile for about 60 years, the same period for woman is maybe about 30 years only. Hence the analysis should rather be based on fertility adjusted events. Furthermore accounting (or at least attempting) for the reporting bias appears to be rather simple.
I think this good idea for the BMJ Xmas edition has not used its full potential.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Have you written up anything yet about the risk-taking, foolish to the naked eye, "she did what?" ladies? (You know, the minority population of your research... ) By a certain age, many ladies get bored having to sit in the ER with someone, regardless of gender, who is there because they pulled another dumb stunt. (Unless that someone is a child who doesn’t know better yet.) Just like we get irritated having to drag relevant communication out of other adults like we're drilling for oil. But I would read about other women who die trying! I think I would find a strange sense of solidarity in that. And I might learn a valuable lesson from a woman who was onto something, but took just that slight of a wrong move. Perhaps I'm not actually concerned with idiotic behavior, now that I think about it. But I am intrigued with fatal miscalculations. Being a woman in tech for 10 years, I am not attracted to what the average woman is, I guess. My requirements are wit, kindness, confidence, loyalty, and honesty. What else really matters?
Competing interests: No competing interests
Imagine if a study was done claiming that women were not as smart as men because most of the world's top mathematicians and physicists were men, I am absolutely sure that it would never get published in the BMJ because of its overt appeal to sexism against women and misogyny.
The Editorial board of this journal needs to explain why it allowed this study to appear in BMJ given its overt appeal to sexism against men and misandry.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour
Speculation as to the root causes of this phenomenon is very tempting: I would like to suggest both that much-maligned hormone, testosterone, and societal expectation of male boldness vs female caution (and such societal expectation seems too ubiquitous to rule out offhand). Possibly even a role for evolution, favouring higher-risk mentalities among men visavis reproductive strategies, even though some men fail to pick up on the "high gain" side of that equation.
Love the article, though. A credit to the Christmas BMJ tradition.
Competing interests: Male