A very BMJ Christmas
December 16, 2014 6:54 AM   Subscribe

While I know you shouldn't read the comments, the indignant protests of man-children on phys.org over the Darwin Award study amused me greatly. Sadly, I generally question the wisdom of phys.org to include comments, for they are rarely worth the pixels they imprint upon.
posted by bouvin at 7:43 AM on December 16, 2014

The criteria in the first "study" is pretty brilliant and I have seen quite a few terrible offenders in my day.
posted by Sophie1 at 7:56 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]

In case people don't R all the FAs (and really, there are a lot of them, so it's justifiable) it's important to highlight the Darwin Award study's hypothesis, which is, and I quote, "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."
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:41 AM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]

We excluded cases in which injury was related to swallowing items other than swords, such as glass, neon tubes, spear guns, or jack hammers.
That seems only fair.
posted by Songdog at 8:59 AM on December 16, 2014

I always wonder why the Darwin Awards don't require proof that the recipient hasn't already procreated. And, thinking about it now, it should also require proof that the recipient doesn't have an identical twin still extant.
posted by birdsquared at 2:00 PM on December 16, 2014

"Acronym evaluation

The evaluation consisted of both positive...and negative (CHEATING, obsCure and awkHward usE of lettArs Trying to spell somethING) criteria"

posted by Bugbread at 11:02 PM on December 16, 2014

Thank god someone else did it this year.
posted by alby at 8:42 AM on December 17, 2014

« Older A dark reimagining of a Hollywood list   |   Bulletproof Nutrition Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments