Posted on 12/13/2014 8:40:19 AM PST by Brother Cracker
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. Introduction
Sex differences in mortality and admissions to hospital emergency departments have been well documented,1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and hypotheses put forward to account for these differences. These studies confirm that males are more at risk than females. Males are more likely to be admitted to an emergency department after accidental injuries, more likely to be admitted with a sporting injury, and more likely to be in a road traffic collision with a higher mortality rate.1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Some of these differences may be attributable to cultural and socioeconomic factors: males may be more likely to engage in contact and high risk sports, and males may be more likely to be employed in higher risk occupations. However, sex differences in risk seeking behaviour have been reported from an early age, raising questions about the extent to which these behaviours can be attributed purely to social and cultural differences.10 11 12
However, there is a class of risk—the “idiotic” risk—that is qualitatively different from those associated with, say, contact sports or adventure pursuits such as parachuting. Idiotic risks are defined as senseless risks, where the apparent payoff is negligible or non-existent, and the outcome is often extremely negative and often final.
According to “male idiot theory” (MIT) many of the differences in risk seeking behaviour, emergency department admissions, and mortality may be explained by the observation that men are idiots and idiots do stupid things.16 There are anecdotal data supporting MIT, but to date there has been no systematic analysis of sex differences in idiotic risk taking behaviour. In this paper we present evidence in support of this hypothesis using data on idiotic behaviours demonstrated by winners of the Darwin Award.17 18 19 20 21
Winners of the Darwin Award must die in such an idiotic manner that “their action ensures the long-term survival of the species, by selectively allowing one less idiot to survive.”20 The Darwin Awards Committee attempts to make a clear distinction between idiotic deaths and accidental deaths. For instance, Darwin Awards are unlikely to be awarded to individuals who shoot themselves in the head while demonstrating that a gun is unloaded. This occurs too often and is classed as an accident. In contrast, candidates shooting themselves in the head to demonstrate that a gun is loaded may be eligible for a Darwin Award—such as the man who shot himself in the head with a “spy pen” weapon to show his friend that it was real.18
To qualify, nominees must improve the gene pool by eliminating themselves from the human race using astonishingly stupid methods. Northcutt cites a number of worthy candidates.17 18 19 20 21 These include the thief attempting to purloin a steel hawser from a lift shaft, who unbolted the hawser while standing in the lift, which then plummeted to the ground, killing its occupant; the man stealing a ride home by hitching a shopping trolley to the back of a train, only to be dragged two miles to his death before the train was able to stop; and the terrorist who posted a letter bomb with insufficient postage stamps and who, on its return, unthinkingly opened his own letter. Methods
Data for the 20 year period from 1995 to 2014 were obtained from the Darwin Awards............
...http://www.zazzle.com/darwinawards
I suppose they wouldn’t consider the many women who get involved with obvious disturbed men, and then are murdered. For whatever reason, people find dead men funnier than dead women.
Granted, they are doing bone headed things, but they are also in the position to get things done, that most women won't find themselves in.
#1 isn’t really all that stupid as long as his buddies don’t decide to walk away.
Statistics don't lie, do they?
Now let’s see the same chart for Fields Medal winners.
Drug dealers all have girlfriends ... those girls are far dumber than the boys in the pictures you posted.
Men as a group are risk-takers. There are positives and there are negatives associated with risk-taking.
Women as a group are risk-averse. There are positives and there are negatives associated with being risk-averse.
That said, I’m not certain how such a thing would be determined but I suspect women’s idiocies in seeking to avoid risk have gotten many, many men killed. Just watch heavy traffic during any daily commute, the cheery waving in of traffic to be “nice” without looking to see if there’s a truck coming down the lane between them, braking to change lanes or changing lanes at random because the inside lane feels safer or whatever the thought might have been.
I mean, consider my first two marriages. Talk about taking stupid, unreasonable risks with high probabilities of negative outcomes...
” the terrorist who posted a letter bomb with insufficient postage stamps “
Anyone have the original story on this?
Brother that one (#15) hurts to watch!
True. . . but liars use statistics.
Why does lightning hate males.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.