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.
We men, males of the universe of human beings, are recipients of enough grief from our opposites. Why,would these researchers undertake this??
They have proffered an empirical corroberation to that intuition, 'an old wives tail'.
Competing interests: No competing interests
We men, males of the universe of human beings, are recipients of enough grief from our opposites. Why,would these researchers undertake this??
They have proffered an empirical corroboration to that intuition, 'an old wives tail'.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Women are supine and open, but men are prone and alone, mere drones.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I think this is not a rigorous scientific paper.
Darwin Awards are not scientific awards, there are a lot unknowns on nomination, election and confirmation procedures. Its aim is “black humor entertains some of us” [1]. The data derived from this is questionable. With view of evidence-based medicine, this source of data probably cannot be graded.
“Idiotic” is an interchanging definition in the paper. In the dictionary [2], “idiotic” has these meanings: 1. Showing foolishness or stupidity; 2. exhibiting idiocy. “Idiotic” has no relation with death. But according to the Darwin Awards standard, idiotic behaviour must lead to death. I am convinced that just a small part of the idiotic behavior involved in this paper.
To determine whether a person's behavior is “Idiotic” is very subjective, mostly based on the consensus of the majority. But some geniuses can also be considered idiotic at some stage. So this issue is not simply a matter of science, in other words, it is hard for science to define idiotic behavior.
Even if the methods and results of this paper are correct, the conclusion should only be “idiotic behavior of men is easier leading to death." Meanwhile, I think idiotic behavior in women can reflect in their face and clothing. Just like the Darwin Awards said: “If you want to understand the humor, is to consider an evil person who earns her ill-gotten rewards.” [1]
I prefer to read this paper as a personal blog, because this paper has a relative gap between The BMJ’s “longstanding advocates of peer review and evidence-based medicine” [3].
Anyway, Christmas is coming, Merry Christmas!
[1] http://darwinawards.com/misc/faq.html
[2] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
[3] http://www.bmj.com/
Competing interests: No competing interests
It is of note that the observed ratio of male/female Darwin Award Winners (88.7%) is virtually identical to the observed ratio of male/female Carnegie Hero Medal Winners (91.1%) but not to the more equal 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 environment1. All of these heroic actions share the extreme physical risk common to potential Darwin actions as well. However, there are two notable commonalities between Darwin Award actions and Carnegie Hero Medal actions. First, they both may indicate a low level of deliberation – in the case of the Darwin award because the action lacked common sense and in the case of the Carnegie Hero Medal because the decision-making process was largely intuitive2. Second, both the Darwin Award and the Carnegie Hero Medal are examples of accolades3 bestowed by observers rather than the actual psychological process of the person taking the action. In both cases, nominating individuals need to observe the action (or its aftereffects) and make a judgment that this is a very stupid or very brave thing to do. Such judgments reflect decision-making on the part of observers and may reflect societal biases. Thus, the question remains if the observed sex differences rest in a differential willingness to risk one’s life with little deliberation or if they rest in our cultural perceptions of men and women.
1. Becker SW, Eagly AH. The Heroism of Women and Men. American Psychologist 2004;59(3):163-78.
2. Rand DG, Epstein ZG. Risking Your Life without a Second Thought: Intuitive Decision-Making and Extreme Altruism. PLOS: One 2014;9(10): e109687.
3. Pury CLS, Starkey CB. Is courage an accolade or a process? A fundamental question for courage research. In: Pury CLS, Lopez SJ, eds. The psychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue. Washington, DC US: American Psychological Association, 2010:67-87.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Amusing as everything about the Darwin awards always is, although on a slightly serious note why remove couples from the staistics?? If they were included the percentages will alter.
For further details on using percentages in medical statistics read Gerd Gigerenzer
Competing interests: No competing interests
Unfortunately, "men are idiots and idiots do stupid things" is not an explanation, and, as the authors recognise in the discussion, merely pushes the question back a level... why are men engaging in these risky behaviours?
Evolutionists have previously suggested that the sex difference in risky behaviour may stem from fundamental differences between the sexes with respect to their reproductive strategies. That literature does not seem to be consulted here.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Perhaps because men can produce numerous offspring and women are limited to one every few years, men are more expendable. So if risky behaviours produces some benefit for the clan, it is worth losing a few along the way.
Competing interests: No competing interests
The conclusion uses value laden glossary. Does the term Idiotic relate to IQ? "Stupid". Is that a Scientific term?
Does the article deal with Gender differences or there is playing to Galleries? Any reference to Epidemiology of Accidents could have thrown light on the risk seeking behavior.
There is denominator bias. What about the risks taken and reward gained? Do the females undertake such risks? Is it not a case of comparing apples with oranges? Is a single chi-squared test sufficient to draw infernce? What is the hypothesis? What is the evidence adduced? Is it appropriate and sufficient? Is the method consistent with the hypothesis testing?
I wonder if the article was peer-reviewed. Even granting for X-mas mood, the article makes mockery of scientific method. There shoud be a special issue for such articles on 1st April
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour
Not to be too picky about this, but I would question the use of the term "idiot" (male or otherwise) in the context of the Darwin Award and its nominees or recipients.
One of the stated criteria for nomination is "The candidate must be capable of sound judgment."
The current definition of "idiot" from no less an authority than Google is: "a stupid person". The synonyms given are: "fool, ass, halfwit, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, moron, imbecile, simpleton".
Even stretching things a bit I find it difficult to see how someone fitting the definition of "idiot" would be at all "capable of sound judgement", or vice versa, for that matter.
I suspect even H.R.M. King Edward VI would agree.
Competing interests: No competing interests