24h購物| | PChome| 登入
2014-12-13 23:39:25| 人氣1,927| 回應2 | 上一篇 | 下一篇

英國研究-MIT

推薦 6 收藏 0 轉貼0 訂閱站台

20141213

全球318人「笨死」 近9成是男性
【張渝萍綜合外電報導】英國科學家近日研究美國「達爾文獎」(Darwin Awards20年來列出的最蠢死法後發現,近9成「笨死」事蹟的主角是男性,證明男人真的比較蠢。

被退回炸彈信炸死

美國女科學家諾斯卡特創建半開玩笑性質的「達爾文獎」,蒐集最蠢的自殺或自宮案例,得主須符合「用愚蠢的方式消滅自己或失去繁殖能力,來提升人類基因庫品質」的標準。
著名例子包括,一名恐怖份子因打開自己寄出後被退回的炸彈信而被炸死、有男子拿砂輪機自慰不慎割掉自己的睪丸(他事後修復睪丸後就從得主名單中除名)、一男子為搭便車,偷走超商的手推車綁在火車後端,不幸活活被拖死。
英國紐卡索大學學者分析19952014年達爾文獎得主的事蹟,發現在318件案例中(已排除男女共同做的笨事案例),有282例的主角是男人,佔88.7%
領導研究的藍卓博士表示,研究結果完全符合「男性愚蠢理論」,也就是男人較會去做蠢事的假說,但他補充:「現仍未有較具系統性的分析,證明男性比女性容易嘗試有危險性的愚蠢行為。」該研究刊在《英國醫學期刊》聖誕版。

Men really are more stupid than women, research shows

Male idiot theory (MIT) that states men are idiots and idiots do stupid things 

It's official! Men really are stupider than women, accounting for 90 per cent of people who have died in foolish ways, according to the Darwin Awards

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 survival of the fittest, it recognizes those who have inadvertently improved the gene pool by eliminating 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 behavior are well documented, little is known about the gender gap in idiotic risk taking behavior, 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 behavior, 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 behavior."

He said an honorable 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!"

======================================

英國出的研究報告有時很無厘頭,怎麼蠢死的死法不但要記録,還要統計分析死者的性別。

得出男人比較笨的結論就算了,還縮寫成[MIT],大家要引以為戒,不要犯同樣的錯喔!

台長: Makuhan
人氣(1,927) | 回應(2)| 推薦 (6)| 收藏 (0)| 轉寄
全站分類: 男女話題(愛情、男女、交友) | 個人分類: 看笑話學英文 |
此分類下一篇:英文的奧妙
此分類上一篇:這不叫[打臉], 什麼才叫[打臉]?

Justy
噗哈哈
很有趣的報導XD
2014-12-14 07:59:39
版主回應
我也嘴角失守了.
2014-12-14 21:51:29
Tellme
wa o wa o .........
2014-12-14 11:07:18
版主回應
小哥智商高,不在那名單之內啦!
2014-12-14 21:53:07
我要回應 本篇僅限會員/好友回應,請先 登入
TOP
詳全文