Study: Dumb People Use Internet Explorer
Pages: 12
I thought this was funny:
Study: Dumb People Use Internet Explorer
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2389463,00.asp
Study: Dumb People Use Internet Explorer
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2389463,00.asp
| CEO Leonard Howard wrote: |
|---|
| I just want to make it clear that the report released by my company did not suggest that if you use IE that means you have a low IQ, but what it really says is that if you have a low IQ then there are high chances that you use Internet Explorer, |
Lol and if you're stupid enough you'll believe that equality really isn't commutative.
As soon as Firefox decides they WANT to target the corporate market I'll consider switching: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/enterprise/368290/mozilla-forget-businesses-we-re-here-for-regular-users
All I want is a browser that doesn't require a Java framework. Is that really so much to ask for? Does it make me "not cool" to be the guy who is not willing to install every modification in my office BY HAND?
All I want is a browser that doesn't require a Java framework. Is that really so much to ask for? Does it make me "not cool" to be the guy who is not willing to install every modification in my office BY HAND?
Well, this is mildly amusing. I just posted in the IQ thread.
I prefer and use internet explorer over firefox/chrome/opera/whatever.
And I do have a low IQ.
I prefer and use internet explorer over firefox/chrome/opera/whatever.
And I do have a low IQ.
| Lol and if you're stupid enough you'll believe that equality really isn't commutative. |
Be careful when you abuse scientists in their field.
I don't know if this was your intent Duoas, but your reply looks like a personal attack, especially since you added a "defend the scientists" justification.
I think that the CEO is trying to create a state of ambiguity with regards to the "discoveries". Because his tactic simplified, is to add a "maybe" to the "IE == dumb" and then split it into "IE(maybe) <= dumb" and "IE ! => dumb". From which you can no longer draw a conclusion.
I think that the CEO is trying to create a state of ambiguity with regards to the "discoveries". Because his tactic simplified, is to add a "maybe" to the "IE == dumb" and then split it into "IE(maybe) <= dumb" and "IE ! => dumb". From which you can no longer draw a conclusion.
As with all studies, they can only provide data that suggests something, hence the 'high chances' comment. Here, the data suggests
LowIQ -> UseIE. As Duoas said, conditionals are not commutative and this, as your quote said, does not also imply UseIE -> LowIQ.
It sounds perfectly clear to me. "Most idiots use Internet Explorer", which is what the title of that article says, is a very different statement from "most Internet Explorer users are idiots".
If the uncertainty is what's bothering you we can easily remove it. Then we get "all idiots use Internet Explorer". Without more information, this is still not the same as saying "all Internet Explorer users are idiots". We can't even say that "most Internet Explorer users are idiots" without knowing how many idiots and how many Internet Explorer users are there.
If the uncertainty is what's bothering you we can easily remove it. Then we get "all idiots use Internet Explorer". Without more information, this is still not the same as saying "all Internet Explorer users are idiots". We can't even say that "most Internet Explorer users are idiots" without knowing how many idiots and how many Internet Explorer users are there.
Perhaps a more down to earth example of the lack of commutativity would be helpful:
All rubies are red, but clearly not all red things are rubies. This statement about rubies is identical in structure to the CEO's statement about IE users. Sorry Catfish (nothing personal =P), but I don't think the CEO's statement suggested equivalence rather than implication.
You'll find the CEO's treasure there =P Of course, you only need two coordinates on the surface of the Earth, so it may well be in space or underground.
All rubies are red, but clearly not all red things are rubies. This statement about rubies is identical in structure to the CEO's statement about IE users. Sorry Catfish (nothing personal =P), but I don't think the CEO's statement suggested equivalence rather than implication.
| chrisname wrote: |
|---|
| Are these co-ordinates? |
You'll find the CEO's treasure there =P Of course, you only need two coordinates on the surface of the Earth, so it may well be in space or underground.
Last edited on
Yes, and yes... but the PC Magazine article title != AptiQuant study conclusions.
PC Mag says, "this article says you are stoopid if you use IE."
But the testing company did not say that; they said, "People who use IE tend to demonstrate a lower IQ than those who use other browsers."
Keep in mind also that they do not appear to have addressed important issues comconnusant to the results, such as: computer savvy people tend to be better educated, and tend to do things like, say, install other browsers. Little old ladies who like to play solitaire and check their email couldn't care less whether their browser is IE or FF etc. Astrophysicists likely know a thing or two about their computers.
PC Mag says, "this article says you are stoopid if you use IE."
But the testing company did not say that; they said, "People who use IE tend to demonstrate a lower IQ than those who use other browsers."
Keep in mind also that they do not appear to have addressed important issues comconnusant to the results, such as: computer savvy people tend to be better educated, and tend to do things like, say, install other browsers. Little old ladies who like to play solitaire and check their email couldn't care less whether their browser is IE or FF etc. Astrophysicists likely know a thing or two about their computers.
I'm going to have to look up two of those words =P
EDIT: Oh, AptiQuant is the name of the company. Make that one word...
EDIT EDIT: comconnusant get *no* hits on Google. Typo? Or if not, what does it mean?
EDIT: Oh, AptiQuant is the name of the company. Make that one word...
EDIT EDIT: comconnusant get *no* hits on Google. Typo? Or if not, what does it mean?
Last edited on
| But the testing company did not say that; they said, "People who use IE tend to demonstrate a lower IQ than those who use other browsers." |
Oh, alright then. However, I don't think there is an issue with that anyway, since (according to their study at least) that is a statistical fact. But the study does not seem to be that careful seeing as the report is about 5 pages...
Last edited on
Er, sorry, that's a specialized word I picked up some time ago that few people have heard.
Comconnosance is an actual computer programming term that carries negative connotations. It is used to describe code that knows too much about itself --or rather, that relies upon the inner workings and structure of other pieces of code.
Despite 30 years of emphasis on modular programming paradigms, it is still very possible (and very common, alas) to write code that knows the inner workings of parts it shouldn't. I like the word because it very succinctly expresses an exact concept very well; unfortunately very few people seem to have ever heard (of) it. (I read it in some obscure [but very good] paper.)
/after all that
I simply meant that the results do not address stuff that affects the results.
comconnusance (correct spelling)
comconnosance (variation in spelling)
com - with
connusance -
(old word)
syn: cognizance
"1. Conscious knowledge or recognition; awareness." (Answers.com)
"1. The condition of being aware." (Answers.com)
Not to be confused with:
connsonance - melodic harmony (con - with, sonance - sound)
|
Comconnosance is an actual computer programming term that carries negative connotations. It is used to describe code that knows too much about itself --or rather, that relies upon the inner workings and structure of other pieces of code.
Despite 30 years of emphasis on modular programming paradigms, it is still very possible (and very common, alas) to write code that knows the inner workings of parts it shouldn't. I like the word because it very succinctly expresses an exact concept very well; unfortunately very few people seem to have ever heard (of) it. (I read it in some obscure [but very good] paper.)
/after all that
I simply meant that the results do not address stuff that affects the results.
Don't be sorry - this way I've certainly learnt something from all this. There are loads of uncommon words which many people either don't know or worse refuse to accept as words (e.g. integrous), and if we don't fight for them who will XD I shall subsequently be sharing comconnusance on my blog/Twitter...
I had got the gist of what you meant, I just wanted to be sure of the details.
| I simply meant that the results do not address stuff that affects the results. |
I had got the gist of what you meant, I just wanted to be sure of the details.
closed account (zwA4jE8b)
| Opera users reported the highest average IQ score |
Nice. I have been using Opera for years.
Also explains why it has such a small following... :P
Last edited on
Pages: 12