Report Use Internet Explorer? You're Probably Dumb, Study Says -UPDATE (fake story)

[The Helper]

People who use Internet Explorer have lower IQs than people who use other browsers like Firefox or Google Chrome, a new study finds.

AptiQuant, a Vancouver, B.C., company founded in 2006, administered 101,326 IQ tests to people who visited their website over a four-week period. Researchers hypothesized that since tech-savvy people are typically smarter, those who adopted new browsers in recent years probably had a higher IQ. They were right.

"A significant number of individuals with a low score on the cognitive test were found to be using Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) versions 6.0 to 9.0," the study found.

Visitors to AptiQuant's website arrived via search engines and ads looking to take a free IQ test. The company told them it was collecting some personal information for a study, but didn't reveal the nature of the study.

More about it here.

-------------------------
Come to find out this is a hoax. A pretty elaborate hoax that fooled most every major news outlet. The fake site lifted most of the content of its site from another French site and looked pretty convincing. Convincingly Fake!

 

[xPass]

Is this even true??? :trololo:

 

[WildTurkey]

usin firefox atm but feel lie iq is lower than noral thanks to tooweyss new. gppd times

 

[Slapshot136]

not too surprising - now I hope they release the data for people on linux/mac as well, and then also the data for people in Europe (where Microsoft supposedly offered alternative browsers), that would be interesting to see

 

[Vestras]

Use Safari? You're completely retarded, study says.

 

[FireCat]

Hmm, what happens if you use all of those browsers. eh? This has to be the dumbest study in history.
Seriously, there's absolutely no connection between browser choice and intellect.

 

[phyrex1an]

Seriously, there's absolutely no connection between browser choice and intellect.

This study suggests that there is a connection. I think you're confusing connection with causation.

 

[Chile]

This is an interesting hypothesis. However, I'll counter-hypothesize that intelligence and "tech-savvy" are not relational at all. And, because this is the Internet, I'll do like this firm did, and not qualify my hypothesis with strong supporting data.

Additionally, there are plenty of very intelligent and non-intelligent people who are too busy to waste time on an Employment Consulting Website taking IQ tests because:

1. They were smart enough to hire the right employees the first time and already have what they need.
2. They already found the right career and are likely too busy being successful to troll the Internet for a new job.

Just sayin'

 

[phyrex1an]

I'll do like this firm did, and not qualify my hypothesis with strong supporting data.

100,000 people, even if only from a small demographic (site visitors that takes free IQ tests), is a very strong supporting dataset. Your dataset of "this is the Internet" is rather weak in comparison. Some scientific integrity please?
Edit: I just realized that you're probably talking about this statement from the paper:

Because cognitive scores are related to tech-
savviness

In that case, agreed completely. Making a statement like that without any reference is pretty bad. It doesn't affect the actual study though since that was only the motivation, and not an assumption, for doing the study.

If I where to attack this study it would be on the grounds that it might be made up to attract attention to the company behind it. It has worked well so far at least.

 

[celerisk]

> ads looking to take a free IQ test

Let's face it, if that's what got you there, you *are* dumb. That most of these were using IE is just a coincidence.

 

[Slapshot136]

> ads looking to take a free IQ test

Let's face it, if that's what got you there, you *are* dumb. That most of these were using IE is just a coincidence.

so if we did a study as to who clicks on ads, and found that IE users are most likely to do so, then we can conclude that IE users are dumb?

 

[Romek]

> so if we did a study as to who clicks on ads, and found that IE users are most likely to do so, then we can conclude that IE users are dumb?
This. :thup:

 

[Slapshot136]

> so if we did a study as to who clicks on ads, and found that IE users are most likely to do so, then we can conclude that IE users are dumb?
This. :thup:

and this survey has already collected this information, but just hasn't released it?

 

[MasterOfRa]

so if we did a study as to who clicks on ads, and found that IE users are most likely to do so, then we can conclude that IE users are dumb?

Nope, it clearly means that IE has the worst ad-blocker(s).

 

[tom_mai78101]

I'm just too lazy to go download other browsers.

Besides, I have my IE set to automatically connect to the modem at startup via Network Connections. If I tried Firefox, I don't think they support that. Not sure with Chrome and Safari.

I haven't heard of a browser that integrates Network Connection in your Control Panel other than IE, as of this moment.

 

[celerisk]

> browser that integrates Network Connection in your Control Panel

I'd give Google's Chrome a try, as it uses the same connection and proxy settings as Windows.

 

[annihilator127]

I'd give Google's Chrome a try, as it uses the same connection and proxy settings as Windows.

Not to mention that it's faster, as advertised. I'm writing this on Google Chrome right now
IE beats Chrome in only two areas as far as I'm concerned:

1. Its InPrivate Filtering helps get rid of ads (but also makes some sites not work)
2. The Home of the Minecraft Painterly Pack has been known to crash occasionally on Chrome.

[The editor page crashes. annihilator127 reloads it.]

 

[tom_mai78101]

In that case (the Reason #2), I'll stick to using IE.

 

[FireCat]

Just a little bump. Well, wanna hear a funny story? hehehe

Internet Explorer story was bogus

A story which suggested that users of Internet Explorer have a lower IQ than people who chose other browsers appears to have been an elaborate hoax.
A number of media organisations, including the BBC, reported on the research, put out by Canadian firm ApTiquant.
It later emerged that the company's website was only recently set up and staff images were copied from a legitimate business in Paris.
It is unclear who was behind the stunt.
The story was reported by many high profile organisations including CNN, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and Forbes.
Questions about the authenticity of the story were raised by readers of the BBC website who established that the company which put out the research - ApTiquant - appeared to have only set up its website in the past month.

Read Moar here

 

[phyrex1an]

If I where to attack this study it would be on the grounds that it might be made up to attract attention to the company behind it. It has worked well so far at least.

It was made up: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14389430

Edit: Omg firecat beat me to it by a few seconds