http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7094

Abstract
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.

 

That seems reasonable to me that the Darwinian selective elements are most expressed against males. Since females are limited to about one child per year, and males can father an almost unlimited number of offspring per year, particularly NFL and NBA athletes, it seems only reasonable that the selection forces should be more focused on males.

Unfortunately, that study did not include a special stratification for blonds.

John

 

If only I could get my wife to quit using whiteout on the computer monitor, I'd be a happy chappie.

 

They needed to do a study on this?

 

They needed to do a study on this?

Sure, don't you want to know why they did this while 'other villagers fled in terror':

For example, the three men who played a variation on Russian roulette alternately taking shots of alcohol and then stamping on an unexploded Cambodian land mine.

http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-07.html

 

Sure, don't you want to know why they did this while 'other villagers fled in terror':


http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-07.html

Which is why I've always thought; why do the horror people put the village idiot running toward danger and not away.

Sometimes "Truth is stranger than fiction"

Cheers, and Merry Christmas AAC

kv

 

A simple rule to not win a Darwin Award.

 

A simple rule to not win a Darwin Award.

I'm sorry; but AAC please humor me.

I now suddenly remember the one corridor of freeway we have here. And many of those; who I might say are educated and well purposed that can't seem to get enough of gore.

It took me miles to find that it was not an accident that needed time to clear; rather a simple fire off the exit in the triangle of the freeway, overpass and exit. The space in-between was on fire.

Look....it's a fire.......rubber necking.......well. You get the story 15 miles of bumper to bumper 2 hrs later; only to see nothing in-between a triangle of grass. Just smoke.

I'm just saying............?

kv

 

That male behavior is more idiotic is no big mystery... idiocy is one of nature's way to accelerate selection:
http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7094
http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/new-study-says-men-are-idiots-do-stupid-things-n267616

 

A lot of testosterone driven idiots do stupid things in public.
It is not one sided. A lot of estrogen driven idiots do stupid things in private.
I would not elaborate or defend this position in a public forum because the things I've seen are not fit for public description and the responses by other people could be disruptive to the site.

 

I would not elaborate or defend this position in a public forum because the things I've seen are not fit for public description and the responses by other people could be disruptive to the site.

Quite true... real freedom of speech has never existed, there are always limits... and maybe that's the way it should be...
the question would be then, where do you draw the line?

 

the question would be then, where do you draw the line?

I think I disagree. The question is not in where you draw the line about public speech in order to comply with the topic of this thread. The question is, "Do women act as stupidly as men, but they are (usually) more discrete about it?"

I think so.

 

[QUOTE="#12, post: 793217, member: 105487"The question is, "Do women act as stupidly as men, but they are (usually) more discrete about it?"[/QUOTE]
You're right... maybe lack of discreetness and an eagerness to show off is hardwired into the male's genes...

 

Short story time but a little bit relevant.
This one time 10 years ago I "had" to go to the roof at my ex-girlfriends place to position her microwave antenna. This was on the 3rd floor and the easiest way was to go through a roof window with more than 45° slope and climb an old ladder tied to the chimney. This was not my idea and she sure as hell wouldn't have done it herself yet somehow I ended up doing it. Nagging moves mountains apparently.

This does not however explain the male urge to impress women since that is self explanatory

 

This does not however explain the male urge to impress women since that is self explanatory

Yeap... as I said before... it's in our genes!

 

Yeap... as I said before... it's in our genes!

Do men act that way because it's "in our genes", or "in our jeans"?

 

Do men act that way because it's "in our genes", or "in our jeans"?

I think the correct expression here would be "under our jeans"...

 

We seem to have an almost perfect example of MIT here.
http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/2014/12/22/teen-punch-friend-crossroads-high-school/20786777/

 

We seem to have an almost perfect example of MIT here.
http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/2014/12/22/teen-punch-friend-crossroads-high-school/20786777/

Man... what a horrible, tragic story....

 

Man... what a horrible, tragic story....

Completely tragic because of all the ways this could have been avoided by simply asking yourself , would an idiot do this?