http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/...shows.html

Found this "gem" of an article. Its utterly stupid and the methodology is illogical, but atleast it provides an entertaining read. Bet all the feminists are getting wet over this.

Quote:Quote:

It's enough to start a new battle of the sexes, but when it comes to needless and untimely deaths, men win hands down.
A 20 year study of the Darwin Awards, an annual review of the most foolish way people have died, found almost 90 per cent were 'won' by males.
Named after Charles Darwin, who postulated the suvival of the fittest, it recognises those who have inadvertently improved the gene pool by elimiating themselves from the human race by astonishingly stupid methods.
Worthy candidates have included a 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 it was able to stop, and the terrorist who unthinkingly opened his own letter bomb on its return after he posted it with insufficient stamps.
Other examples include the man who shot himself in the head with a 'spy pen' weapon to show his friend it was real, and the thief attempting to purloin a steel hawser from a lift shaft - and unbolted it while standing in the lift which then plummeted to the ground, killing him.

Of 332 independently verified nominations 14 were ruled out of the analysis because they were shared by male and females - usually overly adventurous couples in compromising positions.
Of the 318 valid cases remaining, 282 (88.7 per cent) were awarded to males and just 36 to females, a gender difference entirely consistent with male idiot theory (MIT) that states men are idiots and idiots do stupid things.
Writing in the Christmas edition of the British Medical Journal, the researchers say it is puzzling that men are willing to take such unnecessary risks - simply as a rite of passage, in pursuit of male social esteem or solely in exchange for "bragging rights".
Although sex differences in risk seeking behaviour are well documented, little is known about the gender gap in idiotic risk taking behaviour, so the researchers reviewed data on the Darwin Awards between 1995 and 2O14, noting the sex of the winner.
Dr Dennis Lendrem, of the University of Newcastle, said: "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.
"There are anecdotal data supporting MIT, but to date there has been no systematic analysis of sex differences in idiotic risk taking behaviour."
He said an honourable mention must go to the 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, so he did not qualify for an award and was eliminated from the analysis.
The researchers admitted the study has limitations because women may be more likely to nominate men for a Darwin Award, or the sex difference may reflect differences in alcohol use between men and women.
But Dr Lendrem said: "Despite these limitations there can be little doubt Darwin Award winners seem to make little or no real assessment of the risk or attempt at risk management. They just do it anyway. In some cases, the intelligence of the award winner may be questioned.
"For example, the office workers watching a construction worker demolishing a car park in the adjacent lot must have wondered about the man's intelligence.
"After two days of office speculation - how does he plan to remove the final support to crash the car park down safely? - they discovered, on the third day, that he didn't have a plan. The concrete platform collapsed, crushing him to death and flattening his mini-excavator."
He said anecdotal data support the hypothesis alcohol makes men feel 'bulletproof' after a few drinks, and it would be naive to rule this out.
"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.
In case you were wondering, the mine eventually exploded, demolishing the bar and killing all three men.
The researchers believe male idiot theory deserves further investigation, and, "with the festive season upon us, we intend to follow up with observational field studies and an experimental study - males and females, with and without alcohol - in a semi-naturalistic Christmas party setting."
Dr Lendrem said he was surprised by the overwhelming gender gap among those who have met an untimely demise through acts of sheer idiocy, with males accounting for 88.7 per cent of these events.
Though he added: "It is significant the females in my office were not as surprised, which I suppose says it all!"

Men are the one's actually out there doing the productive work. You know... the Patriarchy? The more we do, we have more incidents of failure. Law of Averages.

Women are the ones who sit on their fat cunts, to nitpick everything we do wrong. She forgets that a man raised the cattle, slaughtered the cattle and made the machine to produce the cum-stained, fishy stenched leather couch she's sitting on.

When Larry Summers talked about the other tails of the bell curves for male and female intelligence he practically got run out of town.

"Journalists are still terrible at writing accurate headlines, study shows"

I made it to the first sentence...in what world does:

"It's enough to start a new battle of the sexes, but when it comes to needless and untimely deaths, men win hands down."
=
Dumber

I'm sure this statement is as reliable and fair to men as everything else I've read in the media recently.

Haha fucking retards. When I read this 'news' the first thing that popped to mind was that it speaks against feminist talking points.

Men are in danger because we take risk.

They don't understand that acknowledging the downsides of different behavior between the sexes, is logically followed by acknowledging the upsides of this risk-taking, e.g. rewards of social and professional guts. (They don't realize it, because they don't need to. No one requires them to have intellectual consistency.)

Men fail, because we want to succeed. Men die more often in stupid accidents, because we are wired for deviating from the norm. Women don't have this innate tendency, thus they neither lose much nor gain much in life. Then they laugh at the men at the bottom and whine at the men at the top.

Infantile cognition, but nobody to set them straight.

Men are responsible for nearly every single invention and innovation. Men built civilization and hold it together. That renders any of these discussions pointless.

Quote: (12-12-2014 04:28 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  

I'm sure this statement is as reliable and fair to men as everything else I've read in the media recently.

This is why really high-IQ occupations tend to be male dominated: the right tail is fatter, and at the high extreme men outnumber women significantly. It's also why the kernel behind this piece is true: the left tail is fatter, and men outnumber women significantly at the bottom end too. Remember back in school. How many special ed kids were male? Most of them.

The article is kind of a troll piece, but in saying that there are more extremely stupid men than extremely stupid women it sort of gives the game away on the other end of the spectrum too.

Well men do suffer more untimely deatha than women.

Of course any problem effecting women would be treated as a national emergency. When men die, it is a joke.

Men are both stupider and more intelligent then women. That's not a contradiction as it would seem at first glance. Grange's chart clarifies it more.

Funny that the award is a play on Darwinism -- a groundbreaking theory posited by a person of a gender responsible for every breakthrough in human history -- the gender claimed to be dumber.

Quote: (12-12-2014 05:06 PM)Grange Wrote:  

Quote: (12-12-2014 04:28 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  

I'm sure this statement is as reliable and fair to men as everything else I've read in the media recently.

This is why really high-IQ occupations tend to be male dominated: the right tail is fatter, and at the high extreme men outnumber women significantly. It's also why the kernel behind this piece is true: the left tail is fatter, and men outnumber women significantly at the bottom end too. Remember back in school. How many special ed kids were male? Most of them.

The article is kind of a troll piece, but in saying that there are more extremely stupid men than extremely stupid women it sort of gives the game away on the other end of the spectrum too.

It's always a breath of fresh air when someone statistically literate weighs in on these types of issues.

Aside from this being (if anything) an issue of higher male variance rather than lower average, the measure is self-evidently fucking idiotic too. Leftists say IQ tests are a poor measure of intelligence, and then the alternative measure they trot out is... whether or not your death was a Darwin Award? Even if mostly tongue-in-cheek it's still retarded.

Quote: (12-12-2014 05:53 PM)DrewP Wrote:  

Quote: (12-12-2014 05:06 PM)Grange Wrote:  

Quote: (12-12-2014 04:28 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  

I'm sure this statement is as reliable and fair to men as everything else I've read in the media recently.

This is why really high-IQ occupations tend to be male dominated: the right tail is fatter, and at the high extreme men outnumber women significantly. It's also why the kernel behind this piece is true: the left tail is fatter, and men outnumber women significantly at the bottom end too. Remember back in school. How many special ed kids were male? Most of them.

The article is kind of a troll piece, but in saying that there are more extremely stupid men than extremely stupid women it sort of gives the game away on the other end of the spectrum too.

It's always a breath of fresh air when someone statistically literate weighs in on these types of issues.

Aside from this being (if anything) an issue of higher male variance rather than lower average, the measure is self-evidently fucking idiotic too. Leftists say IQ tests are a poor measure of intelligence, and then the alternative measure they trot out is... whether or not your death was a Darwin Award? Even if mostly tongue-in-cheek it's still retarded.

DrewP, your problem is that you're letting facts and figures get in the way of the narrative.

Quote: (12-12-2014 05:06 PM)Grange Wrote:  

Quote: (12-12-2014 04:28 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  

I'm sure this statement is as reliable and fair to men as everything else I've read in the media recently.

This is why really high-IQ occupations tend to be male dominated: the right tail is fatter, and at the high extreme men outnumber women significantly. It's also why the kernel behind this piece is true: the left tail is fatter, and men outnumber women significantly at the bottom end too. Remember back in school. How many special ed kids were male? Most of them.

The article is kind of a troll piece, but in saying that there are more extremely stupid men than extremely stupid women it sort of gives the game away on the other end of the spectrum too.

Actually that graph isn't really accurate. That's the PC version that's been passed around for the past few decades. Men do have a higher variance but they also have a higher mean iq:


Now it turns out that you can explain most of the difference by height. Taller people are smarter and men are taller than women. A 5'10" woman is actually likely to be smarter than a 5'10" man. But both the 5'10" man and woman are going to both be much smarter than a 5'5" man and woman - on average.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-...gent-women
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-...ter-people

You don't need fancy graphs of the sort mentioned above.

Watch youtube. Both sexes can be dumb asses and get killed but I have yet to hear of a man plunging off a cliff/sea wall because they were trying to take a selfie.

Men really are more stupid than women.

We fall in love with them.

Quote: (12-12-2014 07:46 PM)Ensam Wrote:  

Quote: (12-12-2014 05:06 PM)Grange Wrote:  

Quote: (12-12-2014 04:28 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  

I'm sure this statement is as reliable and fair to men as everything else I've read in the media recently.

This is why really high-IQ occupations tend to be male dominated: the right tail is fatter, and at the high extreme men outnumber women significantly. It's also why the kernel behind this piece is true: the left tail is fatter, and men outnumber women significantly at the bottom end too. Remember back in school. How many special ed kids were male? Most of them.

The article is kind of a troll piece, but in saying that there are more extremely stupid men than extremely stupid women it sort of gives the game away on the other end of the spectrum too.

Actually that graph isn't really accurate. That's the PC version that's been passed around for the past few decades. Men do have a higher variance but they also have a higher mean iq:


Now it turns out that you can explain most of the difference by height. Taller people are smarter and men are taller than women. A 5'10" woman is actually likely to be smarter than a 5'10" man. But both the 5'10" man and woman are going to both be much smarter than a 5'5" man and woman - on average.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-...gent-women
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-...ter-people

I concur standardized tests undervalue men:

Quote:Quote:

A recent study that quantified male advantages found that older adolescent men out-performed women on average by 6 IQ points on items involving numerical reasoning and 13 IQ points on items involving mechanical reasoning. This is about a half standard deviation and a full standard deviation respectively.4 A full standard deviation advantage on spatial reasoning tasks is a LOT and goes a very long way in explaining the dearth of women in STEM and the low numbers of female electricians or mechanics. Having a high spatial reasoning has been shown to be essential to the pursuit of the inorganic sciences among the smartest people.6,7 It should also be noted that brain development continues into the twenties which means that it is very possible that these numbers underestimate the extent of the gender gap in adulthood.

Considering the importance of spatial ability to scientific endeavors and success, it is curious that these types of tasks are conspicuously absent from aptitude tests which are supposed to identify people qualified for STEM; tests including the SAT and the GRE.6,7 In both tests, there is a verbal component, a numerical component, and a writing component. The writing component is really just a more subjective way to measure verbal aptitude. One study7 comments on the current state of the GRE (the SAT shows the exact same pattern) thusly:

Based on approximately 2.5 million GRE test takers assessed in 2002–2005, 30% scored P700 (out of a top possible score of 800) on GRE-Q (ETS data: all examinees tested between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2005, N GRE-V = 1,245,878, N GRE-Q = 1,245,182). The GRE-Verbal was not compromised by ceiling effects, with only 3% scoring P700. Indeed, the GRE-Q mean of 591, with a standard deviation of 148, reveals that the mean is 1.4 standard deviations from the GRE-Q ceiling; whereas the GRE-V mean of 467, with a standard deviation of 118, places this mean at 2.8 standard deviations from the GRE-V ceiling (twice the distance). This results in 10 times as many scores P700 for GRE-Q than GRE-V! Of the two most critical specific abilities for commitment to and excellence in STEM educational–occupational tracks, selection criteria for advanced education and training in the US are severely compromised by ceiling effects for one (mathematical reasoning) while the other (spatial ability) is totally neglected.

What this means is that a large range of ability in numerical reasoning is clustered together in the high range of the GRE quantitative test and is thus preventing the possibility to distinguish high ability students from exceptionally high ability students. By making the top score of the test (the ceiling) low, you can ensure that the very able and exceptionally able have roughly the same score. Individuals who excel in spatial ability are unidentified because that method of mental reasoning is completely ignored. Meanwhile, the verbal ability test is designed such that exceptional talent can readily distinguish itself thanks to a much larger difficulty ceiling. Not only that, but verbal is double weighted by a second exercise which also exclusively focuses on verbal reasoning. (Un)coincidentally, this is exactly how you would design tests if you wanted to obfuscate gender differences that showed men doing better than women. On the GRE-Q, super-exceptional men get the same scores as merely able women because they can’t demonstrate their greater talent with a higher score than the low maximum. By making numerical tests ineffectual at the upper ranges of ability and ignoring spatial reasoning entirely, these tests ignore two essential factors in creativity and intelligence which are relevant for any field, but especially relevant for STEM. The testing of abilities which women have a sex advantage in are remarkably over-emphasized and makes men and women appear more intellectually equal than they really are.

http://atavisionary.com/how-standardized...alues-men/

Quote: (12-12-2014 10:42 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

...The testing of abilities which women have a sex advantage in are remarkably over-emphasized and makes men and women appear more intellectually equal than they really are.....

http://atavisionary.com/how-standardized...alues-men/

I agree that the test makes men and women look more equal than they are.

However, another issue is that the GRE math aren't supposed to require calculus are they? That would disadvantage non-science majors.

There's no way you can do calculus without having had courses in it.

This lack of the ability to add Calculus and beyong in the test would contribute to a ceiling effect I think.

They should still change it.

Also the lack of spatial reasoning in academia is interesting because it sort of explains the many, many millionaire auto mechanics.

Quote: (12-12-2014 11:39 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Quote: (12-12-2014 10:42 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

...The testing of abilities which women have a sex advantage in are remarkably over-emphasized and makes men and women appear more intellectually equal than they really are.....

http://atavisionary.com/how-standardized...alues-men/

I agree that the test makes men and women look more equal than they are.

However, another issue is that the GRE math aren't supposed to require calculus are they? That would disadvantage non-science majors.

There's no way you can do calculus without having had courses in it.

This lack of the ability to add Calculus and beyong in the test would contribute to a ceiling effect I think.

They should still change it.

Also the lack of spatial reasoning in academia is interesting because it sort of explains the many, many millionaire auto mechanics.

That's what the GRE Math is for , and why top mathematics and statistics programs require it.

That covers Calculus, Algebra (linear and abstract), and also stuff like Analysis, Topology, Statistics.

Also, so ETS can make more money.

The balance between GRE Quant and GRE Verbal is actually better nowadays on the new GRE (which is out of 170 for both Quant and Verbal).

Currently, a perfect score of 170 on Quant is a 98th percentile--before it was a 92nd percentile at a perfect score of 800. A 169 on Verbal puts you at 99th percentile--previously, a 740-750 already put you at the 99th percentile.

Thus, if you were a white or Asian male and/or an international student, not achieving a perfect score of 800 back in the day could had been instantly fatal to your graduate school chances at top programs in Pure/Applied Mathematics, Physics, Statistics, Economics, and the like.

You guys are overthinking things. Both sexes are intelligent, but where the greatest genius is concerned the record of history is crystal clear.

PC-leftists are actually generally averse to acknowledging that men out-number women on the left-tail (empirically true), much less cheerlead it.

As this observation would nullify their "X% of all CEOs are men" and "Women earn 70 cents on the dollar"-type narratives.

Also, because blacks and latinos greatly outnumber whites and Asians on the left-tail, proportionately-speaking. And empirically, this is due to a difference in mean IQ, which is much more ostensible than a difference in variance (which seems to be the case for men vs. women).

Another gaping hole in the article is they're failing to acknowledge or entertain the idea that people are more hesitant to publicly ridicule the death of a woman. Men are more expendable and therefore fair game.

One of Donovan's tactical masculine virtues: courage. Men take risks, sometimes doing really stupid shit. When they succeed, they have a cool story to tell, when they fail, they die.

"Research"


This fucking thing even made it to the local newspapers in Switzerland, who usual cover nothing of that sort.

One female co-worker said she will get the article framed and is glad research finally proved what she always knew.

I said: "My research shows that 100% of females who quote the headlines haven't read the study" , but my attempt at humor was lost on those who were present.