The British Medical Journal is an esteemed research publication often reporting breaking medical news of great import. Sometimes not.
This article “The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behavior (BMJ 2014;349:g7094)
http://www.bmj.com/...
takes a look at the Male Idiot Theory (MIT) which states that “men are idiots and idiots do stupid things.” Previous research studies have shown that men tend to engage in more risky behaviors more often and wind up in emergency rooms and morgues much more frequently than their female counterparts. The authors posit that the males of the species at times, tend to take greater risks for little or no benefit and for very limited or no good reason.
Follow me below the orange Darwin+ allele below for more.
The authors of the study draw on data from the Darwin Awards showing that males have a definite preponderance for being named the winner of a Darwin.
For those unfamiliar with the Darwin Awards http://www.darwinawards.com
they were developed by Wendy Northcutt who runs the website and has written extensively on the Darwins.
Requirements for a Darwin Award:
*Winner must be dead or rendered sterile
*Winner must show astoundingly stupid judgment.
*The winner is the cause of his own demise.
*The winner must be free of mental defects and capable of sound judgment (or at least was capable of sound judgment before the event leading up to the nomination.
*There must be adequate documentation of the event.
There are also Honorable Mention Darwin Awards for those who meet the above criteria but failed to remove themselves from the gene pool (though they may be living in the shallow end thereof.) One example is the gentleman who decided to commit suicide by swallowing multiple nitroglycerine pills (a medication used to treat heart disease), who then repeatedly threw himself against a wall trying to make the pills explode.)
Having recently used alcohol or other intoxicants does not remove one from the running to receive a Darwin. As in this example:
(t)hree men who played a variation on Russian roulette alternately taking shots of alcohol and then stamping on an unexploded Cambodian land mine. (Spoiler alert: the mine eventually exploded, demolishing the bar and killing all three men.)
But failing to completely remove oneself from the gene pool is grounds for disqualification. The authors cite this example:
(t)he man who slipped when using a belt sander as an auto-erotic device and lost a testicle. Repairing his scrotum with a staple gun, he was able to salvage his remaining testicle thus failing to eliminate himself completely from the gene pool.
The authors reviewed over 300 recipients of the Darwin Awards given over the last 20 years. Their data shows that 88% of the winners were male, only 12% female. Several of the females won Darwins because they were part of a male-female couple and the male may have played the more active role in getting the Award for both. The authors cite a few examples of male excellence at receiving Darwin Awards over the years. They make a very good case for the success of Male Idiot Theory in the general population.
For some unknown reason, the cases I looked at didn’t show a preponderance of politicians receiving the Award. I’d think that there are so many government officials who are sterling examples of MIT that they would be in the majority of winners. Perhaps there is something in their genes that stops them short of becoming recipients. There are certainly no shortage of potential candidates in this population as multiple news stories attest on a daily basis. Or, perhaps, as the authors admit, further research is necessary. It might be the case that a sub-category of the Darwin needs to be developed. Something like "Politicians Who Are too Stupid to Receive Darwin Awards."
For some examples of Darwin recipients and honorable mentions you can go here:
WARNING: Some of the clips show painful accidents.
https://www.youtube.com/...
https://www.youtube.com/...
https://www.youtube.com/...