{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
View Entire Topic
Edited by New Radical:
4/11/2013 3:29:27 AM
16
"Women and Children First" is a Myth
[quote]We went through a list of over 100 major maritime disasters spanning three centuries to see if we could find data on survival rates of men and women. We ended up with data on 18 shipwrecks, involving 15,000 passengers. In contrast to the Titanic, we found that the survival rate for men is basically double that for women. We only have data on children for a limited number of shipwrecks, but it is evident that they have really bad survival prospects: just 15 per cent.[/quote]
[url=http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/shipwrecked-women-and-children-first]Other interesting reading on the subject[/url]
Just though you all should know.
-
2 RepliesEdited by VerticalGradient: 4/11/2013 3:32:39 AMI watched Titanic last night/this morning. Coincidence. I also saw a data chart approximating the number/percentage of people (divided in women, men, children, social class/status on ship) who survived or died after Titanic sank. Of course, not every single person can be accounted for, but it's an interesting sight, you can see it on the Titanic wiki page. I think it's just likely due to the fact that men are generally going to have an advantage in a survival situation at sea. From another view, a woman can only bear a child or two at a time, so from a reproductive/regrowing society standpoint, saving more women than men is sort of logical. And because of that disadvantage, it's possible that men might feel compelled to put their survival over their own.
