Trollololol, BMJ


So, it is pretty funny that the British Medical Journal is trolling us.

 

Participants, setting, and design

To be eligible participants had to be part of a couple and willing to take part in the study. We carried out a parallel trial with one man and one woman in their own home. It was decided without consultation that the female participant would prefer to be right and the male, being somewhat passive, would prefer to be happy.

The male was informed of the intervention while the female participant was not (this form of pre-randomisation is known as the Zelen method2). The female participant was blind to the hypothesis being tested, other than being asked to record her quality of life.

Discussion

The results of this trial show that the availability of unbridled power adversely affects the quality of life of those on the receiving end.

Strengths and weaknesses

The study has some limitations. There was no trial registration, no ethics committee approval, no informed consent, no proper randomisation, no validated test instrument, and questionable statistical assessment. We used the eyeball technique for single patient trials which, as Sackett says, “more closely matches the way we think as clinicians.”3

Generalisability

Many people in the world live as couples, and we believe that it could be harmful for one partner to always have to agree with the other. However, more research is needed to see whether our results hold if it is the male who is always right.

 

It’s even funnier that the science correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, the Huffington Post and Medical Daily fell for it hook, line and sinker and, inevitably, Men’s Rights Activists are up in arms. 

Trollololol. Season’s Greetings, friends.

Comments

  1. Sans sanity says

    “inevitably, Men’s Rights Activists are up in arms.”

    Your link goes to a forum post with 8 comments, the general tone of which is “No shit” (and also, “Dude needs game”).

    Heck, the OP’s only commentary was to say it made him smile.

    MRAs are up in arms indeed…

  2. tyrion says

    Proving that not one of these journalists asked a doctor for their informed opinion before publishing.

    This is a WAG (wild assed guess), but I’d say around 98% of doctor’s would have responded ‘Is this in the christmas BMJ?

    For those not in the know, the christmas BMJ is the issue full of bizarre studies, parody studies and other silliness. It’s where doctors let their pants…I mean hair…down. Even if you’re not in healthcare, it’s worth the six dollars or so for the online edition. Dare I say that when I was in the UK, I used to look forward to this issue landing on the mat…

  3. eigenperson says

    Cadbury Roses? Quality Street?

    Maybe they should try the study again using actual chocolates.

  4. avern says

    “…inevitably, Men’s Rights Activists are up in arms.”

    Oh, please. Once again, your feminist bias and addiction to pointless MRA-bashing are showing again.

  5. tyrion says

    Sans sanity:

    I loved that one too. Christmas BMJ 2005.

    At my current workplace they appear to have read this study and given up. Most of our cutlery is stainless steel, but we get a bag of 250 plastic disposable teaspoons every week.

  6. well says

    Mathieu encourages her psychotherapy clients “to try to live in the gray. There are a million shades of gray” (although a recent erotic novel suggests there are only 50) “…Two participants were eligible and both (100%) were randomised…The harms were estimated as 100% as all participants who received the intervention reported a serious adverse event…The study has some limitations. There was no trial registration, no ethics committee approval, no informed consent, no proper randomisation, no validated test instrument, and questionable statistical assessment

    He.

  7. redpesto says

    The survival time of chocolates on hospital wards: covert observational study

    I want a comparison study of the ‘survival time’ of chocolate mice and Easter Bunnies, with a voice-over from David Attenborough.

  8. Superficially Anonymous says

    This is an amusing accident but let’s not pretend certain other opinion positions do this kind of thing too.

  9. mildlymagnificent says

    Sans sanity

    May I say thankyouthankyouthankyou for that ‘displacement of teaspoons’ item. It’s now winging its way to dozens of shortly-to-be-highly-delighted recipients.

  10. Nick Gotts says

    Sueprficially Anonymous@13,

    What were you trying to say? Because whatever it was, I think you failed.

  11. carnation says

    @ Avern

    Your grammar is flawed. Or as you would have it, your grammar are flawed.

    Pointing out the ridiculousness of MRAs is not pointless, it’s laudable. Charitable, in fact. The odd one with a modicum of self-awareness will realise the crass stupitidy he’s touting and change.

  12. avern says

    @Carney

    “Your grammar is flawed. Or as you would have it, your grammar are flawed.”

    Lol! You must have an auto-erotic foot fetish, since you can’t seem to keep your foot out of your mouth. This is what I wrote:

    “Once again, your feminist bias and addiction to pointless MRA-bashing are showing again.”

    “Feminist bias” and “addiction to pointless MRA-bashing” add up to two things that “are showing again.” Plural, not singular. Subject-verb agreement–I has it. You don’t.

    “Pointing out the ridiculousness of MRAs is not pointless, it’s laudable. Charitable, in fact. The odd one with a modicum of self-awareness will realise the crass stupitidy he’s touting and change.”

    Oh, stop frothing, dipshit.

  13. Superficially Anonymous says

    @14. Yeah what I meant to say was that this isn’t the only time a pressure group has grievously misused poorly understood statistics but that since it’s the MRAs this time I guess we can laugh rather than pretend that it’s not cause for concern when we catch a group pushing for change on the back of made up statistics.

    Teach me to comment from a phone.

  14. avern says

    Oh, you poor, sad, pathetic thing. You are absolutely *not* correct. When the subject is a group of singular nouns, the verb has to agree with the group as a whole, not just the last singular noun. For instance, you wouldn’t (at least I’d hope you wouldn’t) say, “my mother and my aunt is going to the store.” You would say, “my mother and my aunt are going to the store.”

    Give it up.

  15. carnation says

    @ Avern

    Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day…

    I would say, however, that your crass stupidity, and blind allegiance to MRA theory, is what stops you being taken seriously.

  16. kraut says

    “Strengths and weaknesses

    The study has some limitations. There was no trial registration, no ethics committee approval, no informed consent, no proper randomisation, no validated test instrument, and questionable statistical assessment. We used the eyeball technique for single patient trials which, as Sackett says, “more closely matches the way we think as clinicians.”3″

    How much of a hint do those science reporters need? A slap with a hammer across the brow?
    Sadly exposes the whole shitpile that goes for science reporting today

  17. carnation says

    @ Avern

    With every new comment you confirm your denseness.

    I won’t be responding to your juvenile theorising from now on, but look forward to the embarrassment of riches that your supine MRA devotion will provide.

    Engaging with fanatical MRAs is often fun but it is the season to be jolly.

    Merry Christmas :-)

  18. avern says

    @carney

    “With every new comment you confirm your denseness.”

    LOL. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a more hopeless case of projection than this statement. How can my explaining to you your grammar failures, failures you had no choice but to concede, confirm *my* denseness? You are on total mental autopilot here, and I think, deep down, you know it, but since you are completely incapable of self-reflection, you choose to mindlessly froth instead.

    Well, froth on, you pointless dullard, froth on.

  19. summerblues says

    The study: duh, of course the man would be unhappy.

    Chocolate: touch my chocolate and suffer the consequences. I will get you your own chocolate.

    Avern: thank you for the condolences (sp?) earlier. That being said, is your only purpose here to insult? That gets boring, man. Add some substance to your comments. Most folks here want meat, not lettuce.

  20. wtfwhateverd00d says

    So Fogg, when you say teh MRAs are up in arms, what you mean is you found one thread of 10 comments on one forum.

    Fogg is a great name for you. Did you adopt it after graduating, or when you became a pundit?

  21. John Morales says

    [meta]

    wtfwhateverd00d @28:

    So Fogg, when you say teh MRAs are up in arms, what you mean is you found one thread of 10 comments on one forum.

    He didn’t say that. Look at the actual claim, if you care to determine what Ally actually wrote.

    (As for nominative determinacy, that’s a silly conceit, d00d)

  22. J. J. Ramsey says

    Is MGTOW the male equivalent of political lesbianism?

    ManBoobz certainly described it that way, although as far as I know, the MGTOW movement doesn’t involve gay sex. Then again, political lesbianism doesn’t necessarily involve it either, so there you go.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>