Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Stats Technology

Internet Explorer Users Have Low Risk Intelligence 264

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the lemmings-browsing-the-web dept.
First time accepted submitter benne2011 writes "A hoax report earlier this year claimed that people who used Internet Explorer had a lower IQ than those using other browsers. Inspired by this bit of fun, Projection Point decided to carry out a real study comparing the risk intelligence (RQ) of people using different browsers. We found that Internet Explorer users performed worse than everyone else; they had lower RQ scores and were grossly overconfident."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Explorer Users Have Low Risk Intelligence

Comments Filter:
  • by solune (803114) <peteseyeview@nOSpam.yahoo.com> on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @12:17AM (#38352150) Journal
    ...Of my lack of faith in these studies.
  • by pipingguy (566974) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @12:18AM (#38352154) Homepage
    Perhaps many IE users are at work and don't care...
  • Where's the test? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cowtamer (311087) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @12:20AM (#38352164) Journal

    This study would be a lot more believable if they didn't use phrases like " users of monopoly software" and actually linked to the test they gave.

    (For the record, I'm not an IE user either. But the article isn't too far from spelling Microsoft with a dollar sign)

  • Not fair. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slackware 3.6 (2524328) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @12:31AM (#38352210)
    Most of your Window users are technologically illiterate. IE is there it works why fart around with it. To use a sort of car analogy how many people look under the hood of their car? Never mind improve it beyond stock. Now I bet the guys that heavily modify their cars have higher intelligence than the average stiff. Any person inclined to tinker with or improve things most likely is smarter than the average Joe. Average Joe is most likely to push the largest shiniest button with a flashing red light whatever the case may be, especially is the button say "Do not touch".
  • Uh, (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @01:07AM (#38352348)

    there's no such thing as "risk intelligence". It's a fucking made-up word by the idiot blogger in TFA. Go ahead, TRY to look it up.

  • by fluffy99 (870997) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @01:18AM (#38352394)

    This study would be a lot more believable if they didn't use phrases like " users of monopoly software" and actually linked to the test they gave.

    (For the record, I'm not an IE user either. But the article isn't too far from spelling Microsoft with a dollar sign)

    And perhaps they could give the error margins for their results. I'd put money on the error margin being a lot bigger than differences in the user group results.

  • by UBfusion (1303959) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @01:26AM (#38352424)

    From their website: "We define Risk Intelligence as the ability to estimate probabilities accurately."

    Are they not aware of the pioneering and Nobel prize awarded studies of Tversky and Kahnemann in the 70's which demonstrated beyond any doubt that humans are terrible at estimating any kind of probability (especially risk-related ones)?

    What about the 10-step percentage scale they used? Seriously, is any person able to differentiate between being "70% sure" and "80% sure" regarding any statement?

    What about latent variables like the OS used? How can one possibly compare any feature of a Windows user with features of Mac or Linux user?

    I can't locate any samples of the questionnaire used and I don't need to see any, because I'm 89.345943% sure they don't know what they're talking about.

  • by LordLucless (582312) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @01:29AM (#38352444)

    It's not a study. It's an online poll. The participants self-selected

  • Re:{Shudder} (Score:3, Insightful)

    by smart_ass (322852) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @01:44AM (#38352504)

    Watching is OK ... its believing that can get you in trouble.

  • Re:{Shudder} (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki.gmail@com> on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @01:48AM (#38352538) Homepage

    I think it'd be more of an issue for the masses that watch MSNBC, or listen to NPR.

  • Re:No proof (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @02:02AM (#38352578)

    A sample size of 351 and the scores are 57.5, 59.8, 60.2, and 61.8. That proves what exactly?

    The margin of error is +/- 5%

  • Re:Please no... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @06:37AM (#38353576)

    Should I get her on to Chromium instead?

    It is enough to get her stop using yahoo.

  • Re:Please no... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jellomizer (103300) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @08:35AM (#38354238)
    The study went to collage campuses at around 10:00pm on Friday They pulled all the people partying, drinking, and smoking pot and other stuff what browser they used then they went to the computer science labs and pulled the students working in the lab.

    Dewey Defeated Truman when the pollsters only pulled people in country clubs. The math was correct... The sample size was good, the problem was the sample wasn't random enough.

    Or pull questions that can be used to direct people into answering the questions in a particular way."Do you believe that a mother has the right to kill her own baby?" or "Do you think the woman has the right to choose how to live their life?"

    Am I the only one who is quite frustrated by the abuse of Math in modern society, where numbers and percentages are spat out without giving us the data to make recheck the decision ourselves and evaluate the data. I mean we have protests and people getting arrested and some hurt and killed over their particular summarized summary of the data. Those 99%ers vs the 53%ers. Where everyone thinks they are the majority because the numbers that have been manipulated shows them to be right.

    Give us the raw data. Let us see and and peer check it ourselves see if we come with the same conclusion. I much rather be wrong and know the truth then think I am right and live a lie... But I may be the minority on that, I didn't collect any data on that.
  • Re:Please no... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by psyclone (187154) on Tuesday December 13, 2011 @11:42AM (#38356496)

    If she is using NoScript in a "medium" security manner -- meaning temporarily trust the parent domain of the site, but only whitelist external scripts (which means a fair amount of clicking "Temp allow akami / googleapis / disqus / some-image-service / etc") then that is MUCH better than Chome. Even NoScript in a "low" security method that temp-allows all scripts on a page but still blocks XSS, ClearClick, and anything else you choose like Java applets and iframes is still better than allowing all javascript and all plugins.

    On the privacy front, try BetterPrivacy (never touch it after first time config) to flush all local Flash storage on browser start+stop. (You can of course whitelist LSOs from your bank or whatever.) Additionally, try CookieMonster in whitelist-only mode. It's just like NoScript, but for cookies so you can permanently allow all the sites she logs into, and temp allow any random page with a form.

    Even just trying some extra plugins or stronger security settings will help everyone think more about security as they're learning more about security.

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Working...