Study Compares IQ With Browser Choice

rennerik writes "A recent study of 100,000 people taking IQ tests compared the scores with which browser the person uses on a regular basis. On average, Internet Explorer users fared the worst, with IE6 users at the bottom of the pile and IE8 users performing slightly better. Firefox, Chrome and Safari fell in the middle with little difference between them. IE with Chrome Frame and Camino landed on top, along with Opera, whose users scored the highest"

Comments

All of those studies are the same

[Sun]

The smaller the sample group, the more intelligent the average in it, in all recent "technology vs. intelligence" studies. Can we just deduct that the less intelligent flow with the crowd, the more intelligent actually pick what's best for them, and call it quits?

Shachar

Re:All of those studies are the same

[BadAnalogyGuy]

No. If it makes me feel superior to IE users, the story must run.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[vlm]

The smaller the sample group, the more intelligent the average in it, in all recent "technology vs. intelligence" studies. Can we just deduct that the less intelligent flow with the crowd, the more intelligent actually pick what's best for them, and call it quits?

Shachar

Begin "social media" Facebook vs G+ flamewar in 3... 2... 1...

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

The last paragraph sums it up nicely.

Whatever the reason for these results, I wouldn't take them too seriously. They are, after all, comprised only of people who feel compelled to take IQ tests. But if you ever want to argue that Internet Explorer 6 users are too stupid to upgrade, at least now you've got some empirical evidence.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[sakdoctor]

How do you explain the change over time then?
There is only one conclusion: Using IE6/7 actually reduces your intelligence by around 5 points per year.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[somersault]

We already know we're "superior". We're geeks: we're smarter than average (in terms of IQ at least) basically by definition. The more obscure and geeky the browser, the better the mean IQ of the userbase.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

There is only one conclusion: Using IE6/7 actually reduces your intelligence by around 5 points per year.

Probably is caused by the cubicle environment these poor suckers dwell in for their daily grazing.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Smarter by ego, not by definiton.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

The least intelligent can't identify their own browser most likely, and never upgrade. The average user is content with "what works" and IE8/9 works for the majority of users. The more intelligent users will identify what they need and find the product that suits them. In my case, Firefox because I can use Greasemonkey scripts which greatly simplify my browsing of certain sites.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet Explorer does not run on Windows(unless you're some incredibly gifted with smarts or patience) does that mean Windows users are generally idiots?

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we just deduct that the less intelligent flow with the crowd

Possibly the less intelligent don't know the difference in meaning between "deduct" and "deduce"?

Re:All of those studies are the same

[JamesP]

Well, they forgot lynx users...

Unless it was a web-based IQ test

Re:All of those studies are the same

[sakdoctor]

Really? I'm pretty sure I've had IE run on windows before.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[houstonbofh]

So they should show the IQ breakdown by operating system. Vista would be lowest. I think 7 and XP about equal... Mac slightly above. (Smaller group but those that like simple... Tough call) And Linux and BSD users are freaking brilliant!

Re:All of those studies are the same

[houstonbofh]

The smaller the sample group, the more intelligent the average in it, in all recent "technology vs. intelligence" studies. Can we just deduct that the less intelligent flow with the crowd, the more intelligent actually pick what's best for them, and call it quits?

Shachar

Begin "social media" Facebook vs G+ flamewar in 3... 2... 1...

I use usenet, you insensitive clod! I out-think you all! Muahahahaha!

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Jurily]

> We're geeks: we're smarter than average (in terms of IQ at least) basically by definition.

Bullshit. We've just invested significant time and effort into understanding computers. Does that make us smarter than people getting really good at other areas of their life?

Re:All of those studies are the same

[houstonbofh]

Well, they forgot lynx users...

Unless it was a web-based IQ test

Posted with MSIE6.0 :)

Re:All of those studies are the same

[cgenman]

Or, that the kind of people who score higher on standardized IQ tests are the kind that are likely to interact with people who talk about alternatives to default. Or that technical web developers generally score higher on IQ tests, and they tend to use Opera for flexibility and power. Or that people in cities make IQ tests, and people in cities tend to use other browsers. Or that Opera is has become so damned complicated that only the super freaking brilliant would willingly subject themselves to it.

Correlation != causation

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

The smaller the sample group, the more intelligent the average in it...

Unless everyone in the small sample group has below-average intelligence.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[__aamnbm3774]

When you click TFA, it shows two sets of test results. One set from 2011, and one set from 2006.

In 2006, Opera users were the DUMBEST on the list.

Thanks for hyping Opera so much 'sams-a-puss' (or however you say that)

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the email address for that account clearly belongs to someone else. There's no way it could belong to someone who's real name is Shachar Shemesh. NO WAY!!!

In other news: You're an idiot.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Warlord88]

Exactly. It is also one of the reasons why some sites such as reddit start out being genuinely intellectual and as the user base grows, they progressively become just banal - which is what reddit is today.

The study in TFA indicates nothing.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Spy Handler]

no, but it does put us in a group which develops a good understanding of something. So while we might not necessarily be smarter than the medical group or the junk bond group, we're definitely smarter than the average joe that doesn't have a good understanding of anything.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[fahrbot-bot]

Can we just deduct that the less intelligent flow with the crowd...

I'm sure we can deduce this, but am not sure how subtraction will help.
[ Isn't vocabulary fun? ]

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience, on average, Mac users are by far the dumbest. I'm not saying smart people don't use Macs (I know several that do), just that people who find Linux or Windows "too complicated" tend to gravitate towards Macs (although, these days, they probably gravitate more towards iOS), bringing down their average significantly.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

We only think we're smarter because we know how to make the blinky lights come on. Really it's all about interest level.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[micheas]

We can probably draw more conclusions than that from this study. The average IQ of IE users is probably influenced by the assistive technology extensions for internet explorer that are actively sold by companies that know how to navigate the government procurement process.

This is more of, if you have learning disabilities you probably use Internet Explorer.

Opera use is skewed toward mobile devices, which means that mean IQ of mobile device users is higher than the mean IQ of desktop users. This seems reasonable, as assistive technology is more readily available for Desktops than mobile phones.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Arancaytar]

The smaller the sample group, the more intelligent the average in it

So the users of IE for MacOS are both supergeniuses...

Re:All of those studies are the same

[improfane]

I knew I wasn't the only one who noticed that. I could only go on reddit a couple of times before I started feeling dumb.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Sun]

That, or people for whom English is not their first language.

Slashdot USA bias at its best...

Shachar

P.S.
That, and the fact I was trying to get an intelligent "first post" under strict marital time constraints (aka "dinner's on the table"). Wasn't sure about that word, but decided (wrongly) to rely on the spell checker.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[sribe]

Can we just deduct that the less intelligent flow with the crowd, the more intelligent actually pick what's best for them, and call it quits?

From what would you subtract (deduct) that, and how? And why would the more intelligent call it quits after picking what's best for them?

Re:All of those studies are the same

[fbjon]

Well, if least above average is dumbest... and I find it a bit strange that all users in 2006 were above average IQ. Not to mention the suspiciously ginormous difference of over 40 IQ points in the 2011 study (looks like 83 for IE vs. 125 for opera).

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Sun]

How does your experience deal with foreign languages? Or are you one of the ~80% of Americans who have never had a passport?

My name is Shachar Shemesh. "Shachar", in Hebrew (which is the generally spoken language around here) means "dawn". "Shemesh" means "sun". Since my given and family names, usually three letters each (Slashdot doesn't allow Hebrew letters, so explicit spelling omitted), turned into seven letters each, unpronounceable and impossible for indigenous Americans to spell, I decided to spare fellow IRC members (this was back in 1991) the bother of trying to, and used an alias. Since "dawn" is a girl's name in English, I went with my family name.

Since then, the Internet has changed, and I've reverted to using my actual name in most places. My Slashdot ID, however, dates back far enough that an alias is used.

After having ruled out making conclusive statements about a fellow slashdotter intelligence based merely on an apparent discrepancy between his signature and his nick name, we now turn to trying to draw conclusions about a slashdotter's intelligence based on the following criteria:

1. His willingness to stand by their comments by logging in
2. His awareness of the world outside the southern half of north America
3. His willingness to spend one second doing basic research (read: STFW, read the profile or even read the comment's meta-data).

The above criteria was phrased in the male form, due to my sincere hope that no woman would be stupid enough to have written the parent comment.

Dawn

Re:All of those studies are the same

[somersault]

I agree that a lot of being able to use technology comes down to how much effort you put into it, but higher IQ people tend to be able to deal with computers without even needing to put in so much effort. I have direct experience of that after 10 years of IT support, and I can generally tell the dumb and lazy, the bright and lazy, the motivated but dumb, the motivated and bright, etc. Being motivated is certainly a factor in defining the common geek, but it isn't everything.

I'd say proportionally to the general population, computer geeks have a higher IQ. I don't think that's much of a stretch at all. It may depend how you define "geek", of course.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Zencyde]

Well played, sir.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Zencyde]

Can't help but agree. I fulfill the "bright but lazy" category quite adequately. And I abuse the shit out of it on the job. I'll show up an hour late and then spend 20 minutes fixing equipment worth a few hundred that's been broken for years. It's a small student job but it fulfills my desire for intellectual stimulation while also allowing me to slack off to my maximum. :) I can't say I've put a whole lot into learning IT but apparently I'm good at it. Geekhood comes down to your ability to absorb. Not the source of your ability to absorb.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I think we tell ourselves that so when bed-time arrives on Sunday we don't feel so bad about spending our weekends watching a torrented marathon of a television show attractive people have never even heard of.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Artifakt]

Yeah, I got Internet Explorer to run on Windows back in Windows 95 days, AND I GOT IT TO RUN ON THE INTERNETZ!!! Sometimes it kept running for 15 minutes or more. This Anonymous Coward guy is making a mistake, and we can't allow one of those on Slashdot or it might spread to the real internet. Fortunately, we're all incredibly gifted with smarts or patience, so we can either fix it or just outwait Anonymous Coward. He can't keep posting this much for long, his fingertips will wear off.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Artifakt]

Deduce is preferred, but for a few similar usages of deduct, see A. C. Doyle's "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes" or several other works in the canon. Deduct is at least technically acceptable, in the manner of saying "Ruffles are Rugose" instead of the standard potato chip motto.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

well duh, I use net too, and browse it. what are them things you call 'firefox' and 'opera'?

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

But..but the Joe Blowjob might have gonad skilzz on something not related to understanding information. The geeks have just spend their time on practicing and stimulating different parts of their brains than the Joe Blowjob. Service industries can not work without Joe and Jane Blowjobs and Gideon and Gail Geeks exchanging services.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

The same thing happened at Hacker News. Over a short period of time, the popularity of the site grew and it quickly became a cesspool completely taken over by slimy, money grubbing know nothings. Unfortunately, almost all of the interesting technical discussions have moved behind closed doors to spin off sites that require invites.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

"people who feel compelled to take IQ tests"

Kinda like meat heads in the gym. The more they take the tests, the better they are at it. Yet most of these so-called "smart" people probably couldn't think their way out of a cardboard box.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

> The smaller the sample group, the more intelligent the average in it, in all recent "technology vs. intelligence" studies.

I fail to see the basis for this -- medical, sociological, educational or even statistical. Care to elaborate? (though I understand biased samples can be produced to reflect different intended results). But as a result known ex-ante, well, I'd like to know why... (please don't refer to specially crafted samples).

> Can we just deduct that the less intelligent flow with the crowd, the more intelligent actually pick what's best for them

This has been the conclusion of at least one work, according to an article I've read (about male selection in fish -- yeah, I know, lame... but what if meet a mermaid?)

Rather than being stupid, it would mean a preference (in fish, probably to be repeated with humans) for not thinking but rather on trusting on the wisdom of the crowds ("sheep mentality", I think it's the colloquial term). But still, going with the "spirit" of the article (title, at least) and considering IE users are Windows-only, it follows Windows users are stupid. QED.

> Can we... call it quits?

That would be great, but unfortunately we can't.

I just bought a mouse with a wheel. It works on Windows but not on Linux (no button 4 and 5 events, probably could be solved with driver tweaking). It is so uncommon, I don't even check Linux compatibility for mouses anymore. And the company claims the mouse is Linux compatible... I'm gonna test it on another distro and if the problem continues, I'll get a new mouse at work... :-/

The point is that the example shows why the most common choices affect the lives of the ones who choose differently.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[jasomill]

(disclaimer: I am a Mac user, though I have over a decade's experience maintaining and developing for both Windows and *nix and tend to use bash more than the Finder)

people who find Linux or Windows "too complicated" tend to gravitate towards Macs

In my experience, these are some of the "smartest" people in fields of "knowledge work" — natural and social sciences, liberal and creative arts, in both academia and the private sector — not primarily interested in "computers for their own sake." Hell, it's not unusual for researchers in computer science to "gravitate towards Macs" in IT support-poor environments where they're expected to maintain their own systems.

For that matter, I worked in business IT administration and software development for a decade and have had a Mac as my primary personal system since the release of OS X, and as my exclusive choice of personal system since the Intel transition. The average client isn't delighted with the excuse that you were "eating your own dog food" when you deliver a project late, and Apple's offerings have always been geared more towards "self-support" in ordinary, run-of-the-mill senses that don't involve kernel modifications and hardware hacks (of course, in the "middle years," they were also crap — during this period, I was using a combination of FreeBSD, Windows NT, and NeXTSTEP on a slab I recovered from a uni dumpster).

Do you honestly think PhD biologists, say, are "bringing down the averages" because they don't give a damn about device drivers?

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

or the people involved have just invested more of their time in it and hence want to feel 'superior' as a return for that investment.

Personally I dont care what browser it is as long as I can read the stuff I want to on it without any fuss.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[somersault]

I didn't say that geeks are better than everyone, just the obvious that most geeks are smarter than average (ie as a group we have >100 IQ). The other two explained it pretty well :)

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not. I'm guessing there is a bias toward niche browsers from those who are educated with regards to technology and how it works. As this domain is a scientific/right-brain type discipline there is likely a bias toward slightly higher IQs for those who have above average technology skills. Therefore I'm guessing the bias has little to do with intelligent people consciously choosing the niche products but rather that those who are interested in the subject matter and educated enough to make an informed choice having a bias toward slightly above average IQs. See the standard causation vs. correlation, blah, blah, etc. and so on topics. Still make me feel good for not being an IE user, though. =)

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Henriok]

Well.. it _is_ objectively stupid not to upgrade IE from v6, so it's already empirically proven that less intelligent people use it. You don't need this survey to prove that, and it's not even empirically proven by it, just statistically.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I want a new study with Portable Firefox in it ;-)

I NEED TO FEEL SUPERIOR GODAMNIT!!!1one

Re:All of those studies are the same

[somersault]

Hey! I didn't torrent the Bleach I was watching yesterday, I got the DVD from Love Film legally! :p And today I spent 4 hours outside doing Parkour, I'm not online alllll my waking life.. it's only about 80%! ;)

Being smarter doesn't make you a better person, or cooler or whatever. I have no illusions about that. I do know that I am considered smarter than average though. In school I was in the top 5-10% for all classes. I got prizes for being first in the year for physics and computing at one of my high schools. I don't think I'm smart because I'm a big headed asshole, it's just obvious from things like me getting good grades without really trying, and everyday people saying I'm smart when I suggest courses of action for stuff :p

Re:All of those studies are the same

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You're measuring IQ by people's savvy'ness with computers. Let that sink in for a minute.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[X3J11]

Smarter by ego, not by definiton.

I'm smarterer, thank you very much!

Re:All of those studies are the same

[woolio]

The average joe probably knows all the details of the a particular play during 1984 by a Pittsburg NFL team.

[I for one, have no understanding of why the rest of the United States is so damn fond of watching 'football']

Re:All of those studies are the same

[rajafarian]

Well, I like the fact that geeks tend to better at logical reasoning than average plebes. A real geek would never say something silly like "Keep your government off my Medicare!" or "The universe is too complex FOR ME to understand therefore God exists!"

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Hognoxious]

That's not intelligence or understanding; it's memory.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[somersault]

I've had time for it to sink in for years thanks, an extra minute isn't going to change it. It's not that I measure IQ by tech savviness, but there is a strong correlation. By tech-savviness I don't even mean being especially good with computers in absolute terms, I just mean ability to learn and understand abstract concepts, rather than rely on a list of instructions. Some people learn very quickly. Others.. I prefer not to even think about it. One of our departments is thick as mud. My colleague thought I was being harsh at first saying things like that - but after supporting them for a couple of years, he now agrees.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[MrHanky]

You sound like a sore loser who puts far too much weight on what some douchebag on Slashdot says. No one chooses a Mac because Windows is "too complicated". They choose it because other people say so.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Hognoxious]

How does your experience deal with foreign languages?

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Or are you one of the ~80% of Americans who have never had a passport?

I'm not American, but I think you write like a 'tard. But then I think most Americans do too.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow get over yourself. No wonder nobody likes nerds, they claim they get picked on because they are smart when really they are just arrogant.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You're not describing IQ, you're describing interest level.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[spacepigninja]

I bet if they ran a "Browser vs Ability to talk to girls" you'd get the opposite result.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[garaged]

I have a frigin Ph.D. You know?

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Hognoxious]

The smaller the sample group, the more intelligent the average in it

I can't think of any reason why, from a mathematical/statistical point of view, that would be the case.

Is it what the driver of the long bus told you when he didn't let you get on? Did he say you were special?

Re:All of those studies are the same

[RobbieThe1st]

Yup, exactly. Some people would choose chrome, some Firefox. Not many would choose IE.

Oh, and if you're looking for intelligence, just look for the users running Linux. While not true in all cases, generally the people you find running Linux will be more intelligent and interesting to talk to, and certainly more willing to learn new things.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a lot to learn kid.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion, it doesn't make much sense to trust these studies too much. We don't know what the results would be if the smaller sample groups were as large as the others.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[prezkennedy.org]

How can you even stay relevant in business IT administration when you're running the one OS that nobody else in the company but the CEO is using?

Re:All of those studies are the same

[mcneely.mike]

They have ph.d's in engrish?

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

You are incredibly arrogant and ignorant. Everybody invests mental efforts into something. Just because it's not computers doesn't mean that they have a lower IQ.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[RazorSharp]

[I for one, have no understanding of why the rest of the United States is so damn fond of watching 'football']

Do you understand why many geeks are so fond of chess? How about Starcraft? It's the same reason football is so popular. Believe it or not, these games have a whole lot in common. In each case Sun Tzu's Art of War can be used as a strategy guide. Football fans are no different than S. Korean Starcraft fans despite the vast differences in lifestyle.

People - men in particular - love simulating war.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

So is the knowledge that the majority of techs and programmers have. Only a very minuscule number of people in the computer field ever actually come up with something new and groundbreaking. The rest just copy and use tools that the tech "greats" created.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Nursie]

No, not everyone, they don't. Not everyone has much to invest. That's an unfortuante fact of life, we are not all mentally or physically equal.

Also, the IQ test being largely (IIRC) about language based reasoning and pattern matching, it seems to me that even if you think it's a terrible measure of intelligence it probably matches up quite well to computer-related thought.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[rtb61]

The reality is they have very little in common. Computer games are all largely participatory based, participation being largely driven by enjoying the game play. Jock strap games are largely spectator based, with spectator numbers largely driven by mass marketing (you know the crap, watch the "heroes", watch the ladies in revealing outfits, drink beer, drink more beer, drink even more beer and pretend your a hero out there on the field). The pretending for mass media jock strap games doesn't even stop there, barracking for a team somehow makes you a winner when they win, discussing the action on the field somehow makes you part of the "hero" action (beer drinking also helps this activity) and, watching jock strap douche sports shows somehow provides you with intellectual understanding (beer helps here too).

Hmm, it really seems the big difference between computer gaming and jock strap (well failed versions) spectator sports is beer. It seems beer in for drinkin' not for thinkin'.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Vasheron]

IQ measures problem solving ability, various forms of reasoning, linguistic ability, and (sometimes) general knowledge. People who really understand something (a.k.a geeks) have tremendous reasoning and problem solving abilities compared to the average person. They have invested significant amounts of time and energy into ordering their minds, when lends itself to doing well on IQ tests. Geeks are also curious individuals, so they tend to be more informed than most. Naturally, geeks will do better on IQ tests than your average citizen. But if you're still skeptical I could try to convince somebody to perform a study.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Sun]

I can't think of any reason why, from a mathematical/statistical point of view, that would be the case.

I'll do my best to help you out, then.

My basic assumption is that the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are, given one option that sortof works, to search for better alternatives. A fairly direct consequence is that the more obscure the alternative, the more intelligent, on average, the people who even give it a chance.

The final outcome of all of this is that the less intelligent go with the default option, and even when they switch, they switch to relatively common alternatives. The more intelligent go with the best fit, with their distribution of choices more similar to a uniform distribution. As a result, the default options receive more of the less intelligent population, while the obscure options receive more of the more intelligent population, driving the average down and up respectively.

I hope this clears things up for you.

Shachar

Re:All of those studies are the same

[ceoyoyo]

Sure, because none of those South Korean games plays for an audience, and nobody plays sports without an audience and mass marketing. You have a strange view of the world.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Vasheron]

I should also point out that geeks are not limited to computer geeks. There are all kinds of geeks: science geeks, math geeks, business geeks, political geeks, law geeks, medical geeks, car geeks, bike geeks, boat geeks, martial arts geeks, sports geeks etc... The best people in their fields are typically geeks of one kind or another. Being a geek is not about the subject matter, it is about the approach.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Requiem18th]

Part of the reason seems to be that most Firefox, Chrome AND Safari users don't install their own browsers. Safari comes included with Macs and Chrome comes bundled with a lot of crapware, specially all Google stuff. Firefox is installed mostly by nerds yes, but most Firefox installations I maintain are for family members and I suspect this happens a lot. So Opera is installed AND USED, ONLY by nerds for nerds.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

The smaller the sample group, the more intelligent the average in it, in all recent "technology vs. intelligence" studies. Can we just deduct that the less intelligent flow with the crowd, the more intelligent actually pick what's best for them, and call it quits?

Eh, I believe IE with a Chrome frame covers that bias, like hellllloooo. The survey CLEARLY points the finger at the typical vanilla spell-bound IE user that has no idea. Like helllooo, which browser do you use?

I haven't checked out Opera in a while..on it

From the article
AptiQuant concluded. "From the test results, it is a clear indication that individuals on the lower side of the IQ scale tend to resist a change/upgrade of their browsers."

Not especially, there are less IQ users using the newest, full ownership blend of IE so far

& that's not surprising, people racing to get the newest release of viral IE are spell-bound indeed.

Also, I've found allot of clever people stick with XP, rather than upgrade to Windows 6/7 as they're no good, and arguably less secure.

These days, people who use their own homebrew browsers are probably smarter than all that lot combined!

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Sun]

I fail to see the basis for this -- medical, sociological, educational or even statistical. Care to elaborate?

I did in this comment.

Shachar

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Eivind]

No. Computer-experts aren't as a group smarter than say law-experts, biology-experts, math-experts, or other experts.

But anyone who can be said to be an expert in *anything* is likely smarter than the national average, most of which don't really know much about anything.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[fferreres]

I'd argue the difference is that with Starcraft and Chess, you get to play. That's why I don't watch football, soccer or any other game. Watching is for the art or passion. For art, I have other preferences, and for passion, I prefer my family, photography, camping, etc.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[somersault]

Sure, because I can't tell the difference by now *rolleyes* There's one guy in our sales team who has a fucking Computer Science degree, but still had to call me down to switch his monitor on one day. He phoned me up saying his laptop had "frozen on a blue screen of death" just because his laptop screen was showing the default blue domain logon background and his monitor was showing nothing. Being interested doesn't always make you good at something.

In summary, I refer you back to my first response.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Im still not seeing a clear sign of 'low IQ', here. What I am seeing is a situation you could easily find yourself in if you were placed outside of your comfort zone.

He doesn't love computers like you do. I run into shit like that all the time, but this isn't happening with 'dumb' people. I had a coworker misread a checkbox once, thought off meant on. You, specifically, would think he was dumb as dirt. Then I'd show you this person's work, and suddenly you'd change your mind. Again, interest level. You are not measuring smarts.

Im sorry, but so far I'm not convinced you know the difference.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[somersault]

I also know a really clever engineer who is awful with computers (though he is actually interested in trying to fix his problems himself, he also has a nasty porn habit and is really gullible when it comes to fake AV - not a good combination).

Reread my responses to you, and the other responses (some other people made the salient points more clearly than me).

I've not said that "anyone who is bad with computers is likely to be dumber than average (100 IQ)".

The two are mutually exclusive statements, and you keep focusing on the first one, when it's not even the logical opposite of the second statement.

The logical opposite is that people with likely to be computer geeks. I doubt you'll have any anecdotal evidence of such people. Maybe if you looked around online you'd find a few wannabes - but I can't imagine you finding any with a gift for coding or good database design for example. IQ tests measure problem solving, pattern recognition etc. By definition you need to be good at these things to make a good computer geek.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[somersault]

HTML formatting FTL.

First was obviously meant to be " dumber than average (<100 IQ)".

Secondly, I said that geeks are likely to have >100 IQ.

The logical opposite of the second statement is that those with <100 IQ aren't likely to end up as computer geeks. It isn't that anyone who is bad with computers is automatically dumb.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

> We're geeks: we're smarter than average (in terms of IQ at least) basically by definition.

Bullshit. We've just invested significant time and effort into understanding computers. Does that make us smarter than people getting really good at other areas of their life?

When PCs were still a novelty I worked at Harvard Medical School doing desktop support. Many students and faculty were embarrassed that they had to call for help. They thought they were smart they should figure it out. I would explain that if they spent the time on computers instead of on their studies they would. But that wouldn't get them very far in their fields of choice.
Was I smarter because I knew how to write a config file? Not really - I proved I wasn't by writing config files and not studying medicine.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[memyselfandeye]

Yup. Intelligence would be knowing your time is better spent memorizing market facts and mathematical equations instead of sport trivia. That way you can afford to memorize sports trivia once your 401(k) keeps on trucking through the 'financial crisis.'

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Lisandro]

In the immortal words of Homer Simpson: "Aaah, touché"....

Re:All of those studies are the same

[dward90]

Intelligent? Perhaps.
Willing to learn new things? Almost certainly.
Interesting to talk to? You've got to be kidding me.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[RobbieThe1st]

Well, obiously there are nuts, and in certain communities( i.e. #python on freenode) you can have downright nasty people... But if you find a nice community, the Linux users can easily be interesting, if only because they are willing to take the ten seconds to google something and put up an effective arguement. Unlike some...

Re:All of those studies are the same

[bill_mcgonigle]

we're definitely smarter than the average joe that doesn't have a good understanding of anything.

And what sorts of 'average' joes are those? The guy who fixes your car, your HVAC system, finds you the right kind of insurance, keeps the supply lines operating to your grocery store, does the lighting for the TV show you're watching, or does the hiring for your local hospital?

If you mean 'hamburger flippers and grocery store clerks', fine, but they're well below average. The middle class is what keeps a society running, makes up the vast majority of the area under the bell curve, and is described by specialization for division of labor.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[iamhassi]

Nooooo! I must be super intelligent because I use Opera INTERNET STUDY SAID SO!

Pointless study is pointless. This isn't even a fair study: "AptiQuant, a "psychometric consulting" firm that provides hiring exams for businesses, gave online IQ tests to more than 100,000 people. Visitors arrived either through organic searches or through advertisements on other sites, and Aptiquant made a note of which browser each test taker was using."

"Organic searches or advertisements" of what? If I'm searching for a job and this company does hiring exams, guess what browser I'm going to be using with online job forms? IE, since I've seen plenty of online job applications specifically state they are most compatible with IE.

And they used online IQ tests to test the users. Last time I checked those were as fake as a 3 dollar bill. Even companies selling online IQ tests admit they're fake: "There are many so-called ‘IQ tests’ online. The vast majority these or more are not scientifically valid or reliable." (their emphasis)

Re:All of those studies are the same

[digitig]

watch the ladies in revealing outfits, drink beer, drink more beer, drink even more beer

I think those bits are shared by the computer gamers.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[digitig]

Geeks are also curious individuals

Oh, how true!

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

(*) All in this comment is my personal opinion, unrelated to other people or organizations.

Thanks for clarifying. Indeed, it seems the same "reasoning" behind female fish choosing the most popular males: less thinking, less effort.

I agree you have a point; that I didn't recognize it at first tells something about me -- and possibly explains why companies strive to achieve "cult" status.

My final comments still seem to apply (you have to buy what the masses want), nonetheless. On the bright side, the mouse was was not incompatible with Linux, after all -- it doesn't work on WIndows, too (I checked at work)... Yay!

Hey, wait a minute... >8-[

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

And what sorts of 'average' joes are those? The guy who fixes your car, your HVAC system, finds you the right kind of insurance, keeps the supply lines operating to your grocery store, does the lighting for the TV show you're watching, or does the hiring for your local hospital?

...or fixes your computer at Best Buy.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[jayme0227]

Point for point, you are wrong. Pro-gaming culture is nearly the same in South Korea as sports culture is in many other parts of the world. In the US, many kids play sports outside, or at least they have until video games started replacing physical games as the "normal" pastime, there, they play Starcraft. In the US, we have entire channels devoted to sports. In Korea, they have entire TV channels devoted to Starcraft. In the US, we have cheerleaders at our events, in Korea they have pop singers at their events. Here, we have our favorite teams which we live and die with. There, they have their favorite players from favorite teams that they live and die with. Also, replace "beer" with "energy drinks" and you can make the same arguments for video games in general.

Your entire post comes across as pathetic whining because you were(maybe are) one of the kids who got picked on by the jocks.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[dylan_-]

Deduce is preferred, but for a few similar usages of deduct, see A. C. Doyle's "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes"

I just checked it out at Project Gutenberg. There is not a single use of the word "deduct". "Deduce" is used several times.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[ginbot462]

Just as long as I can continue to hate doctors. (Most computer geeks LIKE explaining how things works; most doctors like to handwave thinking I'm not going to understand- this does not apply to all of either group of course).

Re:All of those studies are the same

[glodime]

"If you mean 'hamburger flippers and grocery store clerks', fine, but they're well below average."
I'm not so sure. Without some good survey numbers it is hard to know what is average nationwide. How much is your perception of average being biased by your personal network of family, friends and acquaintances?

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

It is rather simple to explain: the bulk of humanity is getting dumber every year, we already suspected that but this study confirms it.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you got it all wrong -- using a better browser actually improves your level of intelligence. It's a matter of stagnation (resisting change) vs. progress (embracing, and contributing to, change).

Re:All of those studies are the same

[lumbercartel.ca]

Well, they forgot lynx users...

Unless it was a web-based IQ test

You obviously forgot that Lynx is a web browser.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[lumbercartel.ca]

How can you even stay relevant in business IT administration when you're running the one OS that nobody else in the company but the CEO is using?

If you and the CEO are the only ones using the same OS, then you probably have a lot more job security than you realize.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[sergueyz]

He described general intelligence, which measure is most closely approximated by IQ.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Not in the examples he gave.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Quirkz]

Despite being a respectable professional geek now, I have in the past been both a store clerk (on a couple of occasions) and worked in a dishroom. I'm pretty sure my IQ has been the same the entire time. I'm also still solidly (upper) middle class, as are probably most of the people on this site.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[Flea of Pain]

I have to disagree with some of your statement...I hate doctors not because they often don't know what is wrong and hand wave to distract you from the fact that they are taking a guess...even when you are fully aware of what is wrong with you from past experience.

Computer people generally do know what is wrong, and can fix it. So they explain happily while they work. Some doctors may, but a good number do not, so they hand wave. I will give them the fact that a human body can fail in many more ways than a computer, but it is still a frustrating exercise to find a good physician.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[bill_mcgonigle]

Despite being a respectable professional geek now, I have in the past been both a store clerk (on a couple of occasions) and worked in a dishroom. I'm pretty sure my IQ has been the same the entire time.

I've flipped hamburgers and delivered newspapers too, but it's not my chosen career. There are certainly some dishwashing philosophers, but that's not the majority. Do you mean to say that you had previously chosen those jobs as careers and later changed your mind?

It's like people who complain about the clerk at McDonald's who can't make change - that's a sign of a healthy economy. When a fellow with an accounting degree is doing that job we're in a heap of trouble. But ordinarily they aren't.

Re:All of those studies are the same

[rtb61]

No sports is just an empty boring marketing event, emphasis on the boring. PS my entire post is about not ever having to run away and being able to look them in the eye and tell them exactly how boring they were and how boring it all was (learning sports is of partial interest the continued repetition is not). The real difference is one countries who also likely plays what they watch versus substantial portion of the rest of the world locked into a mindless activity "spectating and a singularly repetitious events" as a substitute for actual participation. So why do you feel so vulnerable to criticism of an activity that you need to revert to childish insults a behaviour that does reflect the activity being critiqued.

Opera user

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, now when people ask me why I use Opera I can tell them it's because I'm smarter than they are.

Re:Opera user

[aliquis]

And you are :)

Though Firefox 5 isn't a steaming pile of shit either.

I wonder if they made any comparisons of versions there. Firefox 3 is much worse than Opera 11.5.

Re:Opera user

[somersault]

I thought that sense of smug superiority was the whole point in using it?

Re:Opera user

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

No. The point of using Opera is that web browsing is easier with it. The smug sense of superiority comes from FireFox carbon copying features from it a year later.

Re:Opera user

[93 Escort Wagon]

Great, now when people ask me why I use Opera I can tell them it's because I'm smarter than they are.

Actually, if Opera users were smarter than users of other browsers they'd realize that one can't get a statistically useful number based on just 4 data points.

Re:Opera user

[Artifakt]

Now when people ask me why I use Seamonkey I can tell them it's because we have a horde of unpaid Beta Testers called Opera uses, who debug all the features for a full year before we adopt them. ;-)

Re:Opera user

[Fjandr]

Or in some cases more than a decade later.

Flawed study.

[will_die]

They break up the different versions of IE, if you combine all the IE versions then the IQ levels exceed the others.

Re:Flawed study.

[Teun]

According to your grasp of Lies, Statistics and more Lies you are either running IE6 or Opera.

Re:Flawed study.

[CheeseTroll]

It's an average, not a sum.

(or was that a big "whoosh" I just heard?)

Re:Flawed study.

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess you're an IE user who doesn't understand how averages work. Looks like the study isn't flawed after all.

Re:Flawed study.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this a joke? Or are you perhaps an IE user (hint hint)?

Re:Flawed study.

[hedwards]

It was a joke, but he's an Opera user so he wouldn't expect you to understand it.

Re:Flawed study.

[AchilleTalon]

Shut up stupid!

Re:Flawed study.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's okay. No one understands why anybody uses Opera.

Re:Flawed study.

[Technician]

By the same token, I use IE 6 at work as part of the corporate build, Firefox for browsing external sites, Chrome on a netbook, Opera mini on my phone, By your logic adding scores for different versions, I should be a Mensa club member. I use all of them regularly. I only use IE for the corporate environment as it is the IT build. There are plans to migrate off that soon as the corporate applications are upgraded. They are skipping Vista entirely in the upgrade. That has been a good call.

Re:Flawed study.

[NFN_NLN]

That's okay. No one understands why anybody uses Opera.

I don't use Opera on my PC but I use it on my Android phone. It's lightweight and simple so it's well suited for portable devices. But I like the plugins I get with Firefox so it's my main desktop browser.

Re:Flawed study.

[allo]

Opera (on pc) wasn't always lightweight. But it kept its weight, while the pc got more potent and all other browser got more bloated.

Re:Flawed study.

[lennier]

They break up the different versions of IE, if you combine all the IE versions then the IQ levels exceed the others.

By your browsers combined... I am Captain Blue-E-Planet-Logo!

Re:Flawed study.

[Anonymous Coward]

.... No they don't. Unless you're counting "IE with Chrome frame" which is not a "different version of IE". If you combine IE6 through IE9, you get an average of 85ish. (Including IE w/ Chrome Frame, you would get ~95, which puts it about at IE8 level.

That said -- This graph and study is ridiculously unscientific and pure linkbait.

Re:Flawed study.

[GrumpySteen]

It's simple, really. I use Opera because...
qTuy pzHtLKW yVT Svo3 I0VTuuoTLtLF Oxo3cyovO zMJS0qKW yp
lO 0nTS0 VRxtoTyeM FjtnJ5woU IxnJ5aVTW1qPOh o3DtoT ygnKE
yMPO 0om btD2kio zyh MlO0LJ Wm YPOco aEyM3Wu qTIxV TIgLJ
yfY P OcoaE yM3W uqTIxVUE ipaWyo aDtL 2kcMJ5 0YP OyLKA yV
T9zVT IhLJW fnJ5aY2 Ecp2 Sv oTyhM lOdL KM up2AlnK O0Y 3OfqJq
coaZ iLJ5 coJS0 MJDtnJ1u M2ImYPOw qKA0 o21crzSvnJk cqU xto2
LtoJIhqK ZtLJ 5xVTku rJ91qPjt MzS gnJkcL KW cqUxt XTW yM J4tqK
Acozp tnK Dtp2 yhL2Ht qzIlp2yiov NkYatcVTS hMPO vMJAu qKAyV
Ty0W 3Zt L29hp 2ym qTIhqTk 5VTygpT kyo JIhqTI xVT yhoz9 2L KEcq
zHt MzIu qUIlM KZtr JIupaZ tLzIz o3Wy VUEbM FOiqTuy pvOvp z93p2
IlplO znJ5 uoTk5VU Wy LJkcr zHtVzu yrFj tqTuuqPq mVT RtM2 9iMP
OcMTIu VvOuo zDtL2 9jrFO0 nTIgYt

(encoded twice and it won't decode properly if you don't remove the spaces and carriage returns)

Just downloaded...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just downloaded Opera. I feel smarter already!

Re:Just downloaded...

[will_die]

or you brought down the average for the Opera group.

Re:Just downloaded...

[Anonymous Coward]

but the average for his previous browser went up...

Re:Just downloaded...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just mean.

Re:Just downloaded...

[lumbercartel.ca]

...or a very carefully planned attempt at encouragement (to get smarter then come back to Opera) that also happens to smell a little bit like reverse psychology.

Corrected for income?

[vlm]

I read this a couple days ago (days ago? Come on /.) and I still don't know if they corrected for income.

Dumb people tend to end up poor. Poor people use older stuff because thats all they can afford.

Not thinking its insightful to learn that poor people have cruddier older hardware.

Also smarter people are more likely to admin their own computer, thus be permitted to upgrade... Not sure how or if they accounted for that.

Its possible, that above and beyond the effect of poverty or work I.T. configuration, dumb people do dumb things, but i dunno; that's a pretty cutting edge idea worthy of a Nobel.

Re:Corrected for income?

[Noughmad]

Poor people use older stuff because thats all they can afford.

If only those web browsers wouldn't be so dawn expensive....

Re:Corrected for income?

[Calydor]

Considering my really old and craptastic laptop runs Firefox more smoothly than it does IE, his point really starts to fall apart.

Re:Corrected for income?

[vlm]

If only those web browsers wouldn't be so dawn expensive....

Try running IE9 on windows XP... You'll find it quite the challenge.

Re:Corrected for income?

[livingboy]

Poor != dumb
Rich != intelligent

That from a personal experience.

Actually quite a many computer literate poor people who have older hardware use platform where IE is not even available, Linux.

Re:Corrected for income?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumb people tend to end up poor
wow... just wow.

I have known extremely smart people who end up poor too. Being 'wealthy' I have found over the years is more a matter of opportunity, luck, and enough wherewithal to realize you are getting an opportunity. I have known people who literally have millions in the bank and live in a doublewide.

Being a 'smart person' I would agree with the others and say the study was flawed. But you are using it to fill some sort of preconceived notion of what it is to be poor.

Being poor is not about being intelligent. It just means you do not have enough money...

Poor people use older stuff because thats all they can afford.
Which is refuted by the very article you are using to self fulfill your notion of what being poor is. All of the browsers are *FREE* and run in XP...

Re:Corrected for income?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: If only those free web browsers wouldn't be so dawn expensive....

Re:Corrected for income?

[93 Escort Wagon]

Dumb people tend to end up poor.

I dunno about that - middle managers usually make decent incomes.

Re:Corrected for income?

[Iamthecheese]

Experience has taught less intelligent people that going with the default is likely to fare them better than trying to have ideas of their own. That is all.

Re:Corrected for income?

[klazek]

Dumb people tend to end up poor.

I think it's more like 'Poor people end up dumb'...

Lack of educational opportunities, lack of opportunities in general due to cultural bias and class discrimination. I've seen so many kids (i.e., 18-25 yr. olds) come through the university with plenty good hardware sitting on their shoulders, but absolutely no clue as to how to think or even focus their mind. These are usually the poor ones (first in the family to go to university). OK, this is anecdotal, but I see it over and over.

Re:Corrected for income?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumb people tend to end up poor.

Nice way to believe the lies you've been told by rich people, who have a fairly strong need to convince themselves that the unprecedented gap between rich and poor in today's world is somehow justifiable.

Alternatively: kids of poor people tend to remain poor, since they don't have access to all the privileges that come with wealth, such as proper nutrition as a child, a quality education, free access to information, etc, and these things make them appear dumber.

Don't try telling me that IQ tests are blind to education. There's a reason why IQ scores constantly rise and the tests constantly have to be normalized downwards, and it's not because the human race is evolving that fast ...

Re:Corrected for income?

[owlnation]

"Dumb people tend to end up poor."

That sounds true, but I'm not sure it is.

For example, Paris Hilton, and the aristocracy of Europe. There's a million gold-digging women who can barely tie their own shoelaces, but are seriously wealthy. There's also a great many artists who are impoverished geniuses. There's plenty of high IQ underachievers stuck in call centers and driving taxis. Perhaps if you are really, really smart you realize that working for the man for lots of money isn't the best way of making you happy. A lot of senior managers and VP in corporations are as dumb as a rock, but pushy, greedy and ruthless. Genetics, ethnicity, religious background, attractiveness, social circumstances, parentage, geography are also all major factors in wealth creation.

So basically, I seriously doubt there's any real correlation between poverty and intelligence. In a meritocracy there could be -- but I know of no such utopia.

Re:Corrected for income?

[presidenteloco]

Paris Hilton?

Come on. She's a freakin' genius at the art of self-promotion.

She's even got you and me working for her.

Re:Corrected for income?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumb people tend to end up poor. Poor people use older stuff because thats all they can afford.

When in traffic, when judging on the type of car owned, I can honestly come forward and claim that intelligence has absolutely no correlation at all when it comes to income. Some of the stupidest shits out there often seem to have the most expensive cars. Sometimes to the point where I hope that darwinism works out, and that expensive and fast car makes DIAF happen that much sooner.

The biggest factors in income seem to be inheritance, luck, scheming, willingness to act like a sociopathic dick, and persistence, and likely in that order. The presence of intellectual ability seems to be a side factor rather than a determining one. Rather it seems smart people seem to fall into a bell curve when it comes to income, because they tend to realize money isn't the only thing in life and are more likely to pursue interesting and intellectually challenging careers over profitable ones.

Re:Corrected for income?

[solanum]

Dumb people tend to end up poor.

Awww..... It is almost heartwarming that someone still believes we live in a meritocracy.

If only I didn't find that statement so offensive and, of course, not based on any evidence. I would contend that wealth is largely based on opportunity. For instance, almost all members of the wealthy European aristocracy are dumb as a bag of spanners due to inbreeding (look at Prince Charles and his offspring), also various studies have demonstrated that most (but by no means all) of top income earners come from a high income family background.

I'd like to see the time spent on the IQ test factored in. ie people running IE6 may be in some crummy corporate cube farm with little time to play around and a lower IQ score may represent a rushed test rather than actual IQ.

Re:Corrected for income?

[TERdON]

If only those web browsers wouldn't be so dawn expensive....

On really old computers, new browsers tend to be more sluggish than old ones. Add to that: new versions of some browsers (especially IE) are not available for older operating systems, e.g. XP or 98/ME.

Re:Corrected for income?

[vlm]

Dumb people tend to end up poor.

I dunno about that - middle managers usually make decent incomes.

But they're such a tiny part of the pool as to be statistically insignificant. Take a million kids who's education plan and workforce training plan is "I'm gonna get in the NBA". One kid makes it and makes millions for playing a childs game. The other 999,999 live under a bridge. Same deal.

Re:Corrected for income?

[vlm]

You can't seriously be suggesting that a good life plan is to intentionally do dumb things to improve income and net worth?

If so, this is a classic "I strongly encourage my competitors to implement this idea" moment.

Re:Corrected for income?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this were an OS study, I could think you are right - but there are free OSs.

When we're talking of browsers, an all of them are free as in beer, and some of them (good ones, too) are free as in 'Stallman likes them', man, you're talking nonsense.

AFAIK, poor people has slower connections, so they would be much better using Opera, since it has some spartan settings that allow you to make the most of slow connections.

Re:Corrected for income?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice joke.

More seriously, a browser upgrade can be VERY expensive.

You'd still be running IE 6, too, if you were stuck running Win98. Poor people can't afford the new computer they'd need to run Windows 7.

Conclusion

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Internet Explorer makes you stupid.

This is how statistics work, right?

(Typed in Internet Explorer)

Re:Conclusion

[El_Muerte_TDS]

No you idiot. Correlation does not imply causation.

(Posted with Firefox)

Re:Conclusion

[mikkelm]

Haha, plebs.

(Authored in Opera.)

Re:Conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, what is this?

(Edited in Notepad)

Re:Conclusion

[gman003]

Haha, morons.

(Posted from Lynx (on OpenBSD, even))

Re:Conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there are more stupid people than smart people.

Re:Conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol GUIs.

(Posted using hand assembled HTTP requests using netcat)

(Yes, even the Javascript and captcha [cacaview is awesome])

Re:Conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

I have found what appears to be the official research report for this study:
http://www.aptiquant.com/IQ-Browser-AptiQuant-2011.pdf

My conclusions:

The study is seriously flawed.

They administered the WAIS-IV IQ test through the Internet.
This is not how this test is designed to be administered. It's supposed to be administered 1 on 1 with a trained psychologist. Some parts of the test can't even possibly be administered online because they involve solid objects that the subject is supposed to manipulate (i.e. Block Design).

I believe they adapted the test to be administered online, however this seriously compromises the reliability of the test. On top of that, they do not even explain how they adapted the test to be administered online! This is a serious fault, if they have modified the test in any way, if they have administered it in a way it is not supposed to be administered, they should explain this in their research report. They didn't.

Add to that, since the test was administered through the Internet, it's possible that the browser people were using has affected the administration of the test. This study lacks control as a result.

Also, in the conclusion of the study, the authors claim "The study showed a substantial relationship between an individual’s cognitive ability and their choice of web browser". The WAIS-IV is an intelligence test, not a neurological test. Cognitive ability is not the same thing as IQ or intelligence. A professional psychologist would know that. It's a surprise these people were even allowed to access the WAIS-IV.

Finally, the study lacks many elements that would make it a true scientific study.
There is no discussion of the results, only a conclusion. The names and credentials of the researchers are not mentioned anywhere. There are no references. There is no discussion of the statistical tests used to analyze the results: there should at least be a hypothesis test, to determine whether or not the difference in results and means between samples is statistically significant or has too high a chance to be the result of chance alone.

This study is absolutely not professional and a complete joke. I also see no indication that it was peer-reviewed and deemed fit for publication in a scientific journal (it would never be published the way it is written anyway).
I question how these people have accessed the WAIS-IV and if they were qualified enough to access it. I question whether they have any degrees in psychology.

Do not be fooled people, this study should not be taken seriously. It is flawed and not a true scientific study.
And frankly, seeing what true scientific researchers must go through to earn degrees and credibility, I find it insulting that some people would publish such papers on flawed and fake "studies" and pass them off as science.

Re:Conclusion

[macraig]

Haha, plebes.

There, fixed that for you.

(Dictated in Lynx.)

Re:Conclusion

[interkin3tic]

I'd come up with a witty reply and say I was using Camino, except I'm pretty sure they just made it up.

Wiki tells me it's an alternative browser for Macs, but it seems like it would be heresy for a mac owner to imply that Safari did not meet their needs, and they'd be burned at the stake. Therefore it cannot possibly exist.

(posted via something other than Camino)

Re:Conclusion

[MaxBooger]

Bah. Google knows how smart I am!

(Tracked via Chrome)

Re:Conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Bull, slashdot does not render on Opera.

(Posted from nc.)

Re:Conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

lol @ teh geeks

Sent from my iPhone

Re:Conclusion

[Chemisor]

No, no. Stupidity caused Internet explorer.

(Typed in elinks)

Re:Conclusion

[colenski]

I find your lack of faith disturbing. -Sent from my ducking iPhone

Re:Conclusion

[mikkelm]

Haha, plebs.

There, fixed that for you.

(Dictated in Lynx.)

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Conclusion

[woolio]

They also know your real name, address, pet history, tax history, and the real reasons for all your social and romantic failures.

Re:Conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Imbeciles.

(posted though telnet on port 80)

Re:Conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be smart, if you're posting it from LYNX Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority

Re:Conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory xkcd

Re:Conclusion

[Lehk228]

Unemployed louts

(blackberry browser 5)

Re:Conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Sniff.

(Authored in Amaya.)

Re:Conclusion

[zAPPzAPP]

Lynx is not in the list.
There is only one explanation: Every single Lynx user was too dumb to even finish the test.

Re:Conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh. Posted using manually crafted HTTP request, the underlying TCP connection, IP packets, AND Ethernet frames.

((cue the butterfly guy))

Re:Conclusion

[Metabolife]

You're all noobs.

(Posted from the future)

Re:Conclusion

[ginbot462]

>> the real reasons for all your social and romantic failures.
that' shouldn't be too hard to figure out with an alias of MaxBooger.

Re:Conclusion

[lumbercartel.ca]

Imbeciles.

(posted though telnet on port 80)

That's impressive!

Re:Conclusion

[lumbercartel.ca]

Everyone should fire up Lynx and browse to that web site so they can start wondering what mystery is behind all the Lynx activity the next time they analyze their access.log file.

So corporate is smarter than me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Our corporate office uses IE exclusively. I have valid reasons to dispute this but many are related to apps that work exclusively under IE and no fucking way around it.

Re:So corporate is smarter than me?

[ColdWetDog]

Our corporate office uses IE exclusively. I have valid reasons to dispute this but many are related to apps that work exclusively under IE and no fucking way around it.

Therefore, it's clear that dumb people work for big companies. Check your browser at work, folks.

Re:So corporate is smarter than me?

[Sfing_ter]

And thus is the "corporate mentality" proven to be sufficiently deficient. Though I suspect you don't run IE on your own computer.
Posted with FF5 on Linux...

Re:So corporate is smarter than me?

[RamblinWreck33]

Related to this, try finding a gov't online form that doesn't require "IE or netscape". I know for a fact that security clearance online forms do. Some of them don't recognized IE9 either. After going through the hassles of that paperwork, I'll draw my own conclusions about the average IQ of the people who have to use IE exclusively... the forms are making them less smart!

And those of us who use SeaMonkey

[countertrolling]

have pegged the meter...

Still the best

Re:And those of us who use SeaMonkey

[Lord Lode]

Agreed, still the browser with the best interface for me. Unfortunately SeaMonkey started having random crashes with 'RenderBadPicture' in the X Window error at least a few times a day, so I had to abandon it for Firefox a few months ago :(

Re:And those of us who use SeaMonkey

[FoolishOwl]

Why Seamonkey?

I haven't got around to trying it, but I thought it was basically just Firefox, Thunderbird, and a few other odds and ends, with a common menu system. I used the Mozilla Suite ages ago, which was fine, but I didn't see any particular benefit to that arrangement.

It does seem like Seamonkey has some committed partisans, so there must be some advantage, but I don't know what it is.

Losers

[wumpus188]

I use lynx. Does this make me a God?

Re:Losers

[Dan667]

I think it is probably only a predictor that the MMO games that you play are mostly MUDs.

Re:Losers

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but it does make you a backward Luddite who probably hasn't been fucked since Emacs was first released.

I'd say I feel sorry for you but I'm laughing too hard, maybe later.

Re:Losers

[Urkki]

I use lynx. Does this make me a God?

Yes, absolutely! Now wait there while your IP is tracked, and nice people dressed all in white will come and take you to meet other deities in... Mt. Olympus institute for... gods.

Re:Losers

[Anonymous Coward]

ROFLMAO! Daaaamn dude. If I wasn't crying tears of laughter I'd mod this +1 flaim bait. Still. Good one sir. Good. One. Sir.

Re:Losers

[mikael_j]

It's more likely that you suffer from some form of mental illness...

Re:Losers

[couchslug]

"I use lynx. Does this make me a God?"

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your religion.

(Browsing from Lynx, now.)

Re:Losers

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope; the "browser" of gods is omniscience.

Re:Losers

[Anonymous Coward]

I use wget. Why should I wait on a browser?

Anyway, Lynx and others are off the charts. Literally.

Re:Losers

[owlstead]

Yes, but only on your console.

Re:Losers

[archen]

Probably not, but your productivity without porn is admirable.

Re:Losers

[pipedwho]

I use lynx. Does this make me a God?

Only if you'd first downloaded lynx using a direct HTTP/HTML incantation into netcat, followed by a hand scripted decode to an executable file.

Re:Losers

[Tony Isaac]

No, but you might have to BE a god to make sense of today's Web sites using only Lynx!

Re:Losers

[SleazyRidr]

I didn't get fucked when Emacs was first released... Was that a special promotion they ran or something?

Re:Losers

[lumbercartel.ca]

It's not a religion -- it's the Atheist Frontier.

Sounds about right.

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes a genius to be able to work Opera.

And Chrome Frame in IE for all those intelligent businessmen!

Read the article posted just in front of this one

[Anonymous Coward]

That is all that you need to know that the IQ study is pretty solid.

Does it run Linux?

[Teun]

My first thought was, yeah sure, of course those running Linux compatible browsers are smarter!

But then I realised of all IE browsers it's IE6 that runs on Linux...

:)

Re:Does it run Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it doesn't run on Linux.
It runs on Windows.
It just happens to be, that Linux can make itself look like Windows, with the use of Wine.
(I knew alcohol had a dumbing-down effect, but I didn't know that's also true for computers. So Futurama was all wrong?? ;)

I use several different browsers at work and home

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm either stupid or intelligent? This is about the most flawed and biased study I've seen in a long time. But run of the mill for the haters on Slashdot.

Full report

[Ironix]

The full report can be found here.

Re:Full report

[houstonbofh]

Where is the raw data? I want to see the breakdown by OS!

Mine is off the charts

[Anonymous Coward]

It really is.

I wonder as well....

[c1ay]

In the vast majority, over 90%, of the calls I make to people's houses to clean infected PCs the browser most often used is IE. I realize part of this is their larger market share but I also wonder if a higher percentage of regular IE users are more easily tricked into clicking on links they shouldn't.

Re:I wonder as well....

[J.J. Dane]

Most likely, most of your calls are to people who simply don't care what browser, office suite, or mail program they have installed as long as it does more or less what they want it to. They consider a pc a home appliance and probably spend as much time thinking about patches, security and upgrades as they do about proper vacuum cleaner maintenance.

Not a question if IQ, just priorities.

That said, anybody caught sending cash to a member of the Nigerian royal family probably shouldn't be allowed to breed...

Re:I wonder as well....

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize part of this is their larger market share but I also wonder if a higher percentage of regular IE users are more easily tricked into clicking on links they shouldn't.

Smart people can be tricked just as easily as dumb people. The only difference is the bait.

My guess is that the reason you see the disparity is that IE is far more prone to being infected than FF. FF remained unhacked in the latest pwn2own contest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn2own, while IE 8 was exploited.

I thought IQ was totally invalid as a measure

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue debates about measures of IQ calculated across different groups and the typical arguments against it as a concept.

Re:I thought IQ was totally invalid as a measure

[houstonbofh]

Cue debates about measures of IQ calculated across different groups and the typical arguments against it as a concept.

Better not. It was patented last week! [rimshot]

I use Opera...

[rizole]

...for porn. Sooo; intelligent and turned on. Good combo.

What about me?

[rebelwarlock]

I have to use everything on that list (other than IE6) to test my web programming. Does that mean I get to add them all up or do I have to "not cheat"?

Re:What about me?

[houstonbofh]

Well, do you feel dumber while testing in IE6?

Re:What about me?

[me.at.work]

Following proper test methodology he should give himself a few good whacks over the head with a mallet before commencing IE6 tests.
Also, following proper procedure, IE6 should be tested last of all. I'll leave it up to the reader to figure out why.

Methods in report are impossible

[Anonymous Coward]

As a professor of psychology who has used intelligence tests in research, have given them clinically, and have taught students to use them, I just wanted to say to be very skeptical of this report.

The report is very sketchy.

It claims, for example, to have given the WAIS-IV online, the WAIS-IV being probably the most commonly administered intelligence test in existence.

The problem with this claim is that the WAIS-IV can only really be given in person, by a trained examiner. There are subtests on the WAIS-IV that would be impossible to actually give online. I.e., not only would it be a bad idea to not given them online, without a trained examiner, it would be physically impossible.

It's possible the firm claiming this study gave tests similar to the WAIS-IV, or gave portions of the WAIS-IV, but it is actually not possible to do what they actually claim in the report. They also don't give enough details to actually know what they really did, either, so you can't know.

I actually think the results they report are what I would expect, if I were forced to make a prediction, but the whole thing has a cloud cast over it by the fact they're claiming methods that are impossible (and actually perhaps illegal, given that the WAIS-IV is copyrighted and strictly controlled).

Keep in mind this report is being released by a for-profit company trying to benefit from publicity, using methods that are sketchy at best. Take it with a huge grain of salt, if at all.

Re:Methods in report are impossible

[dogmatixpsych]

It's beyond sketchy. From the report: "The age-appropriate Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (IV) test was given. Mazes, an optional subtest, was omitted from the WISC-iV [sic]." Which is it, the WAIS (adult intelligence scale) or the WISC (intelligence scale for children)? They are for different age groups (adults vs. kids). Further, Mazes was from the WISC-III, not the WISC-IV (it wouldn't be given to adults in the first place).

Some of the WAIS-IV could be given in an online format but it hasn't been designed for it, nor has it been authorized for it. The test administrators might have designed some tests similar to the WAIS but it couldn't have been the WAIS. Given the fact that they are saying that's what they gave (when they don't mistakenly say they gave the WISC), the test results are not to be trusted. If this was a report given in court, I as an opposing expert witness (my training is as a neuropsychologist) would tear it to shreds.

Re:Methods in report are impossible

[westlake]

I actually think the results they report are what I would expect, if I were forced to make a prediction

Why?

The results boost the Slashdot geek's own self image. This is a story he desperately wants to believe --- are you certain it isn't a story you want to believe?

It's possible the firm claiming this study gave tests similar to the WAIS-IV, or gave portions of the WAIS-IV, but it is actually not possible to do what they actually claim in the report. They also don't give enough details to actually know what they really did, either, so you can't know..

Anything.

Re:Methods in report are impossible

[Anonymous Coward]

As a reader of stuff on the internet, I just wanted to say to be very skeptical of this report and the comment above.
I have recently discovered that people on the internet, they LIE. Not only do they LIE, but they make up statistics and reports. Finally, they take actual reports and quote things out of context in order to support their LIES.

Full disclosure: I am not a professor of psychology, but I am the smartest man on the planet, and on top of that, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Seriously, I'm a TSA agent. That makes me the most powerful and unrestricted authority in the US. Hell, I can have your toddler body cavity searched because you gave me lip. How do you like that, peasant?

Re:Methods in report are impossible

[Anonymous Coward]

The numbers are also improbable. They are reporting something slightly above 80 for the IE6/7 users. That's what wikipedia calls "Borderline intellectual functioning." Opera users are above 120. This seems far too large of a gap.

Re:Methods in report are impossible

[marcosdumay]

"That's what wikipedia calls "Borderline intellectual functioning."

There is a joke here somewhere...

Re:Methods in report are impossible

[marcosdumay]

You mean that this research conducted on a self selected group can not be trusted?

I just don't know if I answer it with a "woosh" or by asking people to moderate you up. I miss that old foot icon of /. it made the editors intent clear so we could laught with them, instead of them...

High school much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was the study done by high schoolers? :)

Chromium? Konqueror?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chromium? Konqueror? What about these?

Camino!

[otis wildflower]

LOL! Has that been upgraded lately? LTIC it was dog slow compared to Chrome, and ISTR that it wasn't terribly well threaded (loading in one tab cold slowdown loading in other tabs).. Has it kept up with Firefox Gecko?

Re:Camino!

[Lord Lode]

Maybe the one person running Camino happened to have a high IQ :)

Re:Camino!

[Anonymous Coward]

Feature-wise, how does it compare to Safari (which is one of 4 browsers I use on my other PC - others being IE8, Chrome, Firefox and Flock. Yeah, yeah, I know Flock is no longer around, but my Flock hasn't stopped working, so I use it. I have a reasonably good malware protection.

In particular, I want to know whether Camino allows one to stage RSS shortcuts as pulldowns on the bookmarks bar, like Firefox does, and like IE8 more recently does. Actually, that's the one browser that was done for the Macs, including PPCs. So does it support this? Also, how good is its support of firefox compatible sites? I post on a website that has forum codes, and it works on Flock and Firefox, but not w/ Safari.

Survey has bias against firefox users...

[Anonymous Coward]

...who were all waiting for some plugin to get ported before they would take the test.

What about the IQ of the people running the study?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the IQ of the people that believe the results of the study??

so

[obarthelemy]

Since I have 4 browsers on my PC
- If I want to appear very smart, I should use Opera
- Smart, but not frightening (when looking for a date ?) = Chrome
- Bland = IE

and if I want to crash, I'll fire up firefox !

Re:so

[Anonymous Coward]

let me guess .. you wrote that comment in firefox?

Re:so

[Anonymous Coward]

and if I want to crash, I'll fire up firefox !

I've used Firefox for years and years and literally can't recall the last time it crashed. There are almost zero applications I can say that about. I have no idea what you could possibly be doing.

It's merely because Internet Explorer is a default

[FoolishOwl]

Let's assume, for sake of argument, that the browsers mentioned are all of equal quality, and each can be used for every browser application, but each is slightly better than others for some specific application. It would follow that for any specific application, one has a choice of using the default browser, or installing some other browser; let's assume that knowing which browser is better for a specific application is an indication of intelligence, and the more obscure the browser, the more intelligence is indicated by the knowledge that the obscure browser is better for a specific application. The effects would be moderated by the assumption that the default browser is better for a specific application.

The upshot would be that, assuming all browsers are of equal quality overall, the average intelligence of users of the default browser would be lower than that of users of non-default browsers, especially obscure non-default browsers.

Internet Explorer is the default browser in all versions of Windows since Windows 95, and Windows is the most widely used operating system by far; I think my argument would explain why the average IQ of Internet Explorer users is slightly lower than the average IQ of users of other browsers, and that therefore the study cited doesn't really say anything about Internet Explorer, per se.

(I prefer Firefox -- which is the default in Ubuntu and in Fedora, but not in Windows.)

And in other news...

[j33px0r]

"The study showed a substantial relationship between an individual's cognitive ability and their choice of web browser," AptiQuant concluded. "From the test results, it is a clear indication that individuals on the lower side of the IQ scale tend to resist a change/upgrade of their browsers."

AptiQuant also conducted studies looking for possible correlations between intelligence and beer choice, peanut butter choice, and favorite ice cream flavor, results forthcoming courtesy of News Corp.

Opera?

[Anonymous Coward]

All this shows is that even people who are really smart have a hard time finding the option in Windows to stop using Opera as their default browser.

The perfect troll.

[westlake]

This is a PR stunt by a company that wants to sell personality testing to your boss.

Visitors arrived either through organic searches or through advertisements on other sites, and Aptiquant made a note of which browser each test taker was using.

This is add-driven self-selected polling. Manipulative and fraudulent.

The chats do not distinquish between the browser at home and the browser at work. That matters a lot when you looking at Internet Explorer.

Re:The perfect troll.

[drb226]

The chats do not distinquish between the browser at home and the browser at work. That matters a lot when you looking at Internet Explorer.

I imagine the people who work for companies dumb enough to still be using IE6 are themselves not that bright.

Re:The perfect troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. Most opera/firefox users do not see ads, so those are much more likely to arrive by "organic search" (WTF is that, btw?). So these people there interested in intelligence tests, and as most people are interested in self-gratification (esp. on the internet) they probably expected to score highly.

Re:The perfect troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting people are less intelligent at work?

Re:The perfect troll.

[Wolfling1]

Agreed.

Can we have an IQ test for /. moderators?

Re:The perfect troll.

[brim4brim]

Organic Search must be a marketing term for they looked for it themselves and were not lead by a misleading breadcrumb trail of links :P

Re:The perfect troll.

[lumbercartel.ca]

Visitors arrived either through ... through advertisements on other sites, and Aptiquant made a note of which browser each test taker was using.

I've clicked on many of those I.Q. test advertisements and answered them, just for fun. I found them very easy (because the questions were ridiculously simple), so if these were the same tests then that means I effectively "voted for Opera" at least 30 times during the past 12 months. (For those who scored really low on those tests, I prefer to assume that they were just drunk or high.)

Um

[sgt scrub]

So people that can afford a Mac or machine with a new version of Windows are smart, people that build their own machines are average, and people that have shitty old computers are stupid? Oooooh K.

Re:Um

[houstonbofh]

...and people that have shitty old computers are stupid?

If they can not figure out how to download Firefox, yes...

Re:Um

[mikael_j]

Well, that actually kind of makes sense, doesn't it?

It's only correlation and I haven't bothered reading up on their methodology but it does make sense, an individual with a low IQ is likely to have a lower income and also most likely not be as knowledgeable about computers as an individual with a high IQ. This doesn't mean every low IQ individual is poor and knows nothing about alternative browsers or software updates or that every high IQ individual has a high income and knows a lot about computers, just that it makes sense more generally.

I really don't know all that many truly stupid people who are good with computers or have high incomes (most of them are still good people, they just aren't very smart and they don't exactly have high income jobs).

Re:Um

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera, Firefox, etc., all run fine on old hardware. Not sure what your point is, or even if you have a point.

Re:Um

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't too far from the truth.

Re:Um

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds about right.

Small sample group

[PenquinCoder]

and a self-selected type of IQ test. Not very 'scientific'. Oh, and this was 'news' about three days ago, but even then, hardly worth classifying as news worthy.

Re:Small sample group

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a yes-or-no poll. For such a long test, over 100 thousand people is not a small sample group.

And unless you think smart MSIE users (and dumb Opera users) are less liklely to take the test, then the fact that it's self-selected doesn't really affect distribution; at most it might affect the overall average, but the results are normalized, so that's not really relevant.

I've been using Opera as my main browser since the Windows NT days. It had tabbed browsing, plug-in and pop-up blocking, cursor gestures, instant back & forward, zoom, etc., years before other browsers did. Everyone I know who has used Opera exclusively for one week (after I nagged them to try it) has stuck with it, and that includes some pretty stupid people. The difference is stupid people are less likely to try alternatives on their own, or to put in the effort to learn a slightly different interface. They're used to MSIE and they get scared by the slightly different icons in Opera (or Chrome, Firefox, etc.), so they never find out their advantages.

Overlooked By Survey

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I use 3 different browsers regularly and have an IQ of 162, how is it that I do not feel represented in this survey?

Re:Overlooked By Survey

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to separate out the raw scores rather than sum them. HTH.

Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Opera user is pretty smart!

The real question

[DuChamp Fitz]

The real question is which browser users are evolutionarily superior. I.e. which browser gets you laid?

Re:The real question

[lumbercartel.ca]

Whichever one runs on FreeBSD: http://images.google.com/images?q=freebsd

And in other news...

[j33px0r]

"The study showed a substantial relationship between an individual's cognitive ability and their choice of web browser," AptiQuant concluded. "From the test results, it is a clear indication that individuals on the lower side of the IQ scale tend to resist a change/upgrade of their browsers."

AptiQuant also conducted several studies looking into possible correlations between intelligence and beer choice and favorite ice cream flavor. Results forthcoming courtesy of News Corp.

Next study prediction

[AchilleTalon]

Provided the stupid guys are using IE.
Provided they are aware the smart guys are using Opera.
Provided they are stupid.
Provided stupids are the mass.

Then, the stupid guys will switch to Opera over the next years in the hope to become smart or at least look smart.

The next study will then show us stupid peoples are using Opera.

Re:Next study prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Most truly stupid people think they're smart.

Re:Next study prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Provided they all visit slashdot and have access to this "news piece". And if it's not the case... well, they should look pretty bright to us all.

First post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Posted with Internet Explorour.

Intelligent people run Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

Until Opera and the others support AdBlock Plus, NoScript, and Flashblock then I can't use anything other than Firefox.

Sure, some others browsers have similar functionality they still suck compared to those specific extensions.

On top of that, Firefox is the only one that supports PKCS#11 which is a requirement for anyone serious about security (it lets you use hardware tokens).

Re:Intelligent people run Firefox

[brim4brim]

I'm using Opera with ad sweep and have the same results as using Adblock. think they might even share the same filter lists. It supports ghostly now too. Opera also allows you to select whether extensions can operate on private tabs which I thought was interesting. It probably isn't up to Firefox's standards but getting closer every day.

Re:Intelligent people run Firefox

[Fjandr]

Opera has built-in flashblock and noscript, and since ads pay websites that I like in order to stay in business, I prefer to selectively block ads rather than take away all ad revenue from sites I use.

In the current era of broadband, blocking non-intrusive ads that pay for free sites to operate is a pretty shitty choice to make in my opinion. That makes the Opera adblocker much more preferable to me than AdBlock. All in all, it just works better. Don't have to deal with plugins and updates, and everything works just fine. I can even selectively block parts of sites that are annoying, rather than actual advertisements.

Which group does this fall in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which browser do I have to use to be smart enough to not give a shit about "studies" that have no value outside of fanboi mental masturbation?

I use Lynx!

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are :)

Though Firefox 5 isn't a steaming pile of shit either.

I wonder if they made any comparisons of versions there. Firefox 3 is much worse than Opera 11.5.

I use Lynx which makes me superior to all of you! And many times, I just use telnet as my browser which makes me a God compared to all of you! Your pathetic intellects are just .... pathetic!

Pray to me! Pray to me as your God!

Oh praise Anonymous Coward! Superior because he used Lynx! Praise to be the Lord AC!

AMEN!

next up: why Emacs users are the World's greatest - God's gift to computer programming!!!

P.S. Everyone on this thread are pretty stupid for getting sucked into this ridiculous article.

Re:I use Lynx!

[aliquis]

Atleast it takes some effort to pick Opera.

Atleast if you know why you picked it.

Lynx? Well. There's not very many good reasons to use lynx as your only browser ..

I think that is part of the thing. Why is people still using their IE 6 compared to the people who for whatever reason has ended up with Opera?

Re:I use Lynx!

[instagib]

Lynx? Well. There's not very many good reasons to use lynx as your only browser ..

I'm too stupid to get X running, you insensitive clod!

Oh! I just switched

[Quantum_Infinity]

Damn! I just switched from Opera to Chromium.

Huh, looks like...

[zullnero]

...there's going to be some seriously ego-bloated Opera users who still love their one time ad-bloated fad from the 90's that couldn't properly spoof itself as IE or Netscape no matter how much they said it could. But I'm sure it's "Much better now!".

Oh, yeah, and the trick about IE being the browser used by dumb people...well, duh. It comes preloaded with the operating system sold on the cheapest mass marketed PCs that don't give dumb people aneurysms looking at the boot screen.

A step above that is Chrome, a browser that is often distributed along with various other software products in a manner not unlike spyware. And Firefox, which the media publications told Windows users to use because it was safer (which means slightly more intelligent people were paying attention and downloaded it instead of being absolutely ignorant). And Safari, which comes along with PCs that are fairly more expensive, mainly status symbols, and owned by people who generally are of a higher pay grade.

As for Camino and Chrome Frame, those are probably being used by nerds because 98% of the population haven't even heard of those options. I have, but I just don't care about them all that much. And of course, Opera, which is only being used by people who are stubbornly holding onto a notion of technical superiority and heightened security that Opera hasn't had in several years. And they're probably using it on Linux to boot.

So yeah, I can see how that survey kind of sets itself up nicely. You probably don't have to even survey people, it kind of all falls into place quite well if you've paid attention to anything browser related over the past 15 years.

Re:Huh, looks like...

[Anonymous Coward]

re: opera, it's the only browser with a location bar with no 'awesomeness' in it. People that are capable of categorization and have decent recall (ie, ability to use bookmarks) appreciate that. People with those traits tend to be more intelligent, too. IE, FF, and Chrome seem to be in extreme dumbing down mode, at least opera has not-idiot configurations that can be used. The 'study' is probably crap but no surprise opera is on top.

Re:Huh, looks like...

[Anonymous Coward]

re: opera, it's the only browser with a location bar with no 'awesomeness' in it. People that are capable of categorization and have decent recall (ie, ability to use bookmarks) appreciate that. People with those traits tend to be more intelligent, too. IE, FF, and Chrome seem to be in extreme dumbing down mode, at least opera has not-idiot configurations that can be used. The 'study' is probably crap but no surprise opera is on top.

I love stories like these. It brings out regressive people like you and I get a good laugh.

Fuckers, I'm off the scale.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuckers I'm off your scale, with Konqueror, Chromium, and Nightly. :-)

Translated to Marketing this gives:

[Anonymous Coward]

I am waiting for some IE marketing guy to claim:

IE6 is the easiest and most intuitive browser to use, as even the simpletons can use it, whereas all other browsers are so difficult that you need a post-grad IQ to be able to use them.

Next update from MS:
" A recent study has shown that IE6 is the most consumer friendly browser, and it was decided that IE10 will go back to the roots. "

IQ correlates with motivation

[Colin Smith]

e.g.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427171638.htm

Unmotivated people are unlikely to screw around with their computers.
 

Check out the big brain on Brad

[HangingChad]

You might use Chrome but do you know what a Quarter Pounder with cheese is in French?

Re:Check out the big brain on Brad

[Anonymous Coward]

Omelette du fromage!

Que all non-opera users complaining the study is f

[SmallFurryCreature]

Que all non-opera users complaining the study is flawed.

Me? I used Opera when it was still pay-to-be-awesome.

It is simply the best browser for browsing. Firefox for development and Chrome for when I want to watch a Google Chrome only demo.

And like Debby, I don't do windows.

Netscape

[Anonymous Coward]

It was found that Netscape users were most likely to tell you get off their lawn.

Butthurt IE user?

[Anonymous Coward]

just wondered...
 
You're probably right in what you say though.

Re:Que all non-opera users complaining the study i

[Zancarius]

I wonder what it means if you happen to use all three (Firefox, Chrome, and Opera), often at the same time? Triple the IQ? Sadly, I don't think it's additive. Oh well.

On the plus side, studies such as this one give Opera users some validation. I don't like Opera, I've tried it numerous times, and it's just not a browser I'm fond of. Nevertheless, it's good to see the underdog get positive press coverage even if most of the posts here are likely to be flamebait.

Wow, Those averages are pretty low...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess people really are stupid!

Not surprisingly

[Dunbal]

The group with the lowest IQ of all is the group that actually believes this study, regardless of browser type.

Smugly sit backs in Opera....

[brim4brim]

and watches the IE users desperately attack the survey. Then points out that IQ tests are usually extremely flawed anyway so if you take a flawed test and a flawed survey, you obviously get an accurate result :P

Re:Smugly sit backs in Opera....

[lumbercartel.ca]

Is your real name Douglas Adams, by any chance?

Nobody's smarter than I!

[Khyber]

I don't even need a browser, I just read what the internet has to say via my direct neural connection.

You lamebrains with your screens and mechanical input devices.

Re:Nobody's smarter than I!

[Mashiki]

Pft. Neural connection? I use osmosis. I simply touch my head to my monitor and I feel everything, I KNOW EVERYTHING!

Re:Nobody's smarter than I!

[TheDugong]

Osmosis? Pah. I use spooky action at a distance. I had read your comment before you had even posted it.

Re:Nobody's smarter than I!

[Khyber]

Okay, I lost this round!

Re:Nobody's smarter than I!

[lumbercartel.ca]

You can probably still upgrade...

Re:Nobody's smarter than I!

[Khyber]

I've already programmed the next Big Bang to accommodate me.

Re:Nobody's smarter than I!

[lumbercartel.ca]

Ha! Now you're just making theoretical computing as fun as theoretical physics!

Opera users and IE6

[Anonymous Coward]

When Opera users switch to using IE6, they raise the average IQ of both groups.

Re:Even

[TaoPhoenix]

What browser supports the pigeon protocol?

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/10/south-african-pigeon-transmits-data-faster-than-local-dsl/

moderating variables?

[drolli]

Could it be that switching away from the standard choice preinstalled on your computer requires understanding on why you invest the time?

Could it be that you freedom in the job correlates with your intelligence?

Could it be that intelligent people earn more and have more mobile devices (e.g. opera)?

My hypothesis is that if you would install firefox as the default browser and put ie on expensice mobile devices, the picture would be reversed.

And then...

[fuego451]

Next up: Comparison of penis length and brand of toothpaste. Don't ya love 'science'?

Re:And then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Those with large penises are confident and have good oral hygiene; thus, obtaining lots of pussy.

Re:And then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like this "study", I wouldn't call your proposed study science. I would call them marketing campaigns.

Re:And then...

[mjwx]

Next up: Comparison of penis length and brand of toothpaste. Don't ya love 'science'?

This man is a dentist. We cant show you his face but we can show you his giant purple python.

Re:And then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Next up: Comparison of penis length and brand of toothpaste. Don't ya love 'science'?

I'd rather see a comparison of real IQ vs fashion IQ (yes many people out there really do test their 'fashion IQ') . I suspected inverted proportions but a study would be nice.

Re:And then...

[lumbercartel.ca]

What about super-lazy fat slobs with large, ha ha ha?

Ad driven all right!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to say, isn't Opera still full of ads unless you pay for it? I'd question the intelligence of any one how likes to see ads or pays for a browser! I even have Safari for Windows along with Chrome, Chromium, Firefox in 4 versions and of course IE, oh yeah, Konquerer and Elinks and probably a few others on Linux. They probably have it backwards, not that I'm an IE fan, but with the corporate use of IE and the home use, just a lot more of it out there! To me Opera should be dead last!

Re:Ad driven all right!

[Fjandr]

No, it's not full of ads and hasn't been for years.

Re:Even

[gman003]

IPoAC support is usually done at the OS level, not the application level.

Try looking through this page on a standards-compliant implementation of IPoAC. Includes a tarball of the source used.

with IE6 users at the bottom of the pile

[magical liopleurodon]

with IE6 users at the bottom of the pile

And that explains all the businesses running IE6. Ah business people.....

Study Compares IQ With Browser Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is Epiphany Browser in this study????

Re:Study Compares IQ With Browser Choice

[brim4brim]

Both users were unavailable for comment :P I kid, I kid ;)

Even worse

[Chemisor]

Their tests don't work in elinks, who surely are on the very top of the IQ curve. If you aren't, you would very quickly explode from frustration once you realize that all web site designers hate you.

Oh please (or tales from the front line)

[shoehornjob]

That theory is flawed. I probably take upwards of 30 calls a day at work. I troubleshoot internet and voip mostly and my customers are from all walks of life. Most of these people are technically challenged and assume that IE is THE only browser. Whenever a new version of IE comes out we always have issues with people logging into our site. They call and I check the version of IE and advise them that right now it's not compatible and you need to download another browser. Inevitably the next question is "What's a browser?". Now remember that I talk with people from all walks of life here. I advise them that Firefox and Chrome (somewhat) are compatible with our site. The next question is "So where do I go to get this?". Now keep in mind that the average customer is COMPLETELY incapable of distinguishing the search bar from the address bar. Inevitably they end up searching for the site and sometimes it gets so bad that I have to email them a link (what's a link) to get to the page. If they did not have me to help them this would surely go on forever. My point is; people's awareness of basic internet skills is not based on their intellignece. It's based on their willingness or possibly their need to learn. Most of the older folks that I talk to have no clue but sometimes I'll get a guy that is truly interested and I won't have to explain anything to him. I got a doctor one time (insisted that I call him doctor instead of Mr) that was so full of himself but he couldn't even find the damn start button. He used it all the time but he couldn't find it. People call in all the time asking me if I can talk to their kids becuse they can't even tell me what the problem is. Intelligence is not an accurate measure of web savvy or you're not getting a diverse sample.

Re:Oh please (or tales from the front line)

[ginbot462]

Yea.. some doctor hate. I love it (I always love humble doctors too, all 4 of you). Half the time, I don't bother ... and play dumb like I don't know what's in what they are prescribing me. I can be dumb too; one time, I didn't look at the effects for when you STOP taking a certain something (and I am NOT talking opioids/anit-dpressents here) nor was a I told. I like to know that shit a head of time. I blame the manufacturer more though.

Re:Oh please (or tales from the front line)

[lumbercartel.ca]

I know of a user who just last week replaced Microsoft's broken Java from years ago (remember when Sun won that lawsuit against Microsoft?) with Sun's Java (which now also has the Oracle name on it) -- it was like pulling teeth, but they finally agreed to update it so that they could get on a web site that uses a Java applet.

This just goes to show

[twoears]

that the choice of Internet Explorer is a no brainer.

Apathy?

[edelbrp]

Seems that users who are too lazy to upgrade their default browser might be the same people who would rush through the test just to get the Starbucks gift card or whatever the incentive was. This compared to somebody who is OCD who has to use the latest nightly build of some obscure browser.

where are lynx users?

[Nyder]

But seriously, what's better (or smarter) then firefox with noscript & adblock plus?

Yea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Camino is only available on OSX computers. Does this mean that some apple customers are smarter than ALL
PC customers? I can't accept that. I've used every browser on every platform. I think that the study should have
considered that some browsers are more difficult than others to use, and that cognitive function would tend towards
browsers that are easier to use for both the most brilliant(I.E. smart enough not to waste time) and the
least intelligent(I.E., not able to handle interfaces more complicated). And what about development platform users?
Surely we have the highest cognitive function of all, since we must intelligently deal with the bugs constantly
thrown at us.

It is a prank...

[jorlando]

The "study" was realeased one week after the domain being created, by a gatech student. This guy must be ROFL.. look at this: Domain Name: aptiquant.com Registered at http://www.dynadot.com/ Registrant: Gill Web Services Tarandeep Gill 7867 138 St. Surrey, BC V3W7b5 Canada Administrative Contact: Gill Web Services Tarandeep Gill 7867 138 St. Surrey, BC V3W7b5 Canada taran@gatech.edu +1 7782429002 Technical Contact: Gill Web Services Tarandeep Gill 7867 138 St. Surrey, BC V3W7b5 Canada taran@gatech.edu +1 7782429002 Record expires on 2012/07/14 UTC Record created on 2011/07/14 UTC

selection bias

[cthlptlk]

Visitors arrived either through organic searches or through advertisements on other sites, and Aptiquant made a note of which browser each test taker was using

Targeting people who google for IQ Test seems like a great recipe for cherry-picking self-important douchebags. It's no wonder that they use niche browsers.

Re:Que all non-opera users complaining the study i

[Fjandr]

Yeah, it seems like a good deal of the anti-Opera posts are from people who haven't even looked at it in the last 10 years and bash it with claims that haven't been true in as long (or ever, in some cases).

Re:Que all non-opera users complaining the study i

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest, Opera 10 years ago was about the same as Firefox 3 years ago. Just about every "modern browser feature" started in Opera (cursor gestures, tabbed browsing, zoom, inline search, etc., etc., etc.).

The reason why smarter people tend to use Opera is that they're not afraid of change, and can see the benefits of new "weird" features that other browsers don't have yet (but always end up copying 1 or 2 years later).

Re:It's merely because Internet Explorer is a defa

[EdIII]

Let's assume, for sake of argument, that the browsers mentioned are all of equal quality, and each can be used for every browser application, but each is slightly better than others for some specific application. It would follow that for any specific application, one has a choice of using the default browser, or installing some other browser; let's assume that knowing which browser is better for a specific application is an indication of intelligence, and the more obscure the browser, the more intelligence is indicated by the knowledge that the obscure browser is better for a specific application. The effects would be moderated by the assumption that the default browser is better for a specific application.

That is not true though.

All browsers are certainly not of equal quality. Not by a long shot. Chrome is by the far the best right now, however:

Internet Explorer is pretty good for enterprise implementations because of its tight integration with security and policies. Also, most of the time when a specific browser is better at something, that comes down to rendering a document and client/server communication. The recent stuff, when programmed correctly, works cross-browser fairly well. The ones that don't, are by and large, Internet Explorer. They either require an Active X component, or have some limitations due to a .NET or .ASP requirement. I would not know really, just what I experience as a user. As a developer I would never ever touch IE or its technologies with a 10 foot pole, but that is because I would choose open standards and open source, not a direct attack on IE itself.

Firefox sucks balls. It's like the hottest 19 year old Hollywood hottie in the movies that burns holes through the screen going from 11 to super-fucked-up-uggo in 10 years. We all have examples like that right? Firefox used to be better than IE, only because it *was* better. Even the latest pales in comparison to Chrome, and well, even IE9. I sincerely doubt that Firefox would be better for any specific application over Chrome or Opera.

Opera is pretty decent. It's different and I like how the interface can be switched up. I don't like it as much as Chrome though, and that is mainly about daily usability and satisfaction with the speed and interface.

Safari *sounds* like it would be good, but it is marginally better than Firefox. I have seen Safari render stuff so retarded it honestly makes you question if Apple is pulling a Microsoft IE6. You would think Apple would make stuff that just "works" like some of their other products, but they fall short on this one. Once again, I cannot possibly imagine any website best displayed in Safari. Apple may have screwed the pooch, so far, but they are working with standards, something IE has only recently figured out.

Chrome keeps getting better. Initially, it was that each tab was its own process. However, in the current versions I am able to routinely crash the whole thing. Totally unresponsive. Killing the chrome processes one by one does nothing... until I kill the right one, which causes all other chrome processes to crash. So it is the main that crashes, not the spawned processes, but the spawned processes are still unresponsive. Still, if anything, Chrome is better right now because of speed. That is the edge that Chrome really has and the interface... that IE9 and Firefox are all knocking off.

If you truly look at this from a specific application standpoint it only makes a difference when Microsoft proprietary tech is required.

The whole study is flawed. I know of plenty of companies that are still forced to use IE6 because of legacy platforms. Also, I know plenty of pretty smart people that prefer IE. They just like the interface more and the look of it. Not to mention the programmers that develop specific applications that require IE. They tend to use it, because they are debugging in it all day long.

Granted, it's funny, and a nice b

Because Windows is fugly inside and out?

[presidenteloco]

Might be a good reason to choose a Mac (and you can do Unix stuff on it without too much trouble.)

Seriously though I am wondering what features Opera has in mid-2011 that chrome/FF don't have now?
Why would I switch to Opera if I were brilliant, at this point?

You just lost the game.

[Anonymous Coward]

and I use telnet on port 80 to browse websites, and applescript runs in my brai. white and nerdy.

Means nothing without the error bars.

[yogalok]

Seems like it is the author who is low on IQ, if s/he does not understand this.

Here is the actual report

[Rhabarber]

Here is the actual report: http://www.aptiquant.com/IQ-Browser-AptiQuant-2011.pdf

Yes, the whole thing is a PR stunt. So what. It made me smile ;)

The summary is a summary of a summary. Figure 2 in the original report is much more informative. The majority of the highest scoring people use Firefox (35%) or Chrome (20%). The majority of the lowest scoring people use IE7 (35%) or IE9 (20%). Opera and ChromeFrame are not used by people scoring lower than average.

As for correlations I would guess the following:

IE7 -> low score.
Firefox -> average to high score.
Opera and ChromeFrame and Camino -> high score.
Safari -> not much correlation at all.
Other IEs -> not much correlation, tendency to lower scores.

Anyways, it's nothing but a joke.

Firefox + NoScript

[dicobalt]

I wonder what that IQ would be?

Somethings fishy here.

[Anonymous Coward]

This can't be right, I run IE and I'm by far the smartest person I know.

Opera = "The 'SUPERIOR WARRIOR'"... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Imo @ least, You'd have to be silly to NOT use Opera!

Mainly, because:

---

1.) Opera's generally, over time, been the FASTEST OVERALL & over decades now... & I can produce a load of benchmarks to that effect from many years to present date if anyone requests them (I have them bookmarked here).

(AND, not just in javascript which it's always done well in, but FF & Chrome seem to have "taken the crown" there lately from tests I've seen recently... Javascript speed = faster way to get "ill online" really! Javascript speed seems to be the "big deal" lately in speed tests, but it's also the "harbinger of doom" typically as far as malware infestations as well (double-edged sword))

---

2.) Opera has the most options "natively built in" also which other browsers copied from it OR had to have addons put into them for such functions.

---

3.) HOWEVER - What I like MOST about it, is its flexibility in security-related features, in its "By Site Preferences"!

(Which I set to GLOBALLY turn off plugins, javascript, frames/iframes, cookies, popups, & far more... & I only "turn those on" for sites that DEMAND their usage in order to function (which, for MOST sites, they don't really)).

So, who NEEDS a "sandbox", if you're not pouring gas all over yourself & lighting matches in essence?

Sure - It would be NICE to see that tech in Opera too (as well as a 64-bit Windows build also), but... I get by just fine!

(No infestations since 1996 in fact here, but that's also due to a lot of "layered-security/defense-in-depth" work I do to Windows NT-based OS too per this -> http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE )

* Makes sites faster too not using all that stuff imo as well... if you DON'T NEED THEM? Why leave them on by default then??

That's like leaving your lights on in your home during the day - Dumb (almost like running services/daemons in your OS of choice too that you don't need - senseless waste of CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O as well as a security hazard potential too!).

---

4.) Opera, year-in-&-year-out has shown the LEAST OVERALL SECURITY VULNERABILITIES of the "big 3" in IE, FF, & Opera since man... I don't KNOW when even (ages, & far longer than Chrome's been around, that's certain) per SECUNIA.COM stats, typically.

---

Opera = "The 'SUPERIOR WARRIOR'" online in the way of webbrowsers... My IQ typically scores between 130-135 on tests I've taken for it over time.

APK

P.S.=> So - Does it mean you are "smarter" for using Opera? Perhaps it does, but, more for the reasons above than some IQ test...

However, I also think other browsers are coming along great as well (Chromium, FF Nightlies, & IE9 specifically)...

... apk

Re:Even

[moonbender]

Script started on Sat Apr 28 11:24:09 2001
vegard@gyversalen:~$ /sbin/ifconfig tun0
tun0 Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol
                    inet addr:10.0.3.2 P-t-P:10.0.3.1 Mask:255.255.255.255
                    UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:150 Metric:1
                    RX packets:1 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
                    TX packets:2 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
                    collisions:0
                    RX bytes:88 (88.0 b) TX bytes:168 (168.0 b)

vegard@gyversalen:~$ ping -i 900 10.0.3.1
PING 10.0.3.1 (10.0.3.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=6165731.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=3211900.8 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=5124922.8 ms
64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=6388671.9 ms

--- 10.0.3.1 ping statistics ---
9 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 55% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 3211900.8/5222806.6/6388671.9 ms
vegard@gyversalen:~$ exit

Script done on Sat Apr 28 14:14:28 2001

Awesome.

At least link the correct story

[thsths]

So slashdot runs a story that links to a story that links to a story that links to the report.

I wonder what that says about the readers here. I feel like the good times of slashdot are over, and only idiots and nostalgic users are still around.

Re:At least link the correct story

[Legion303]

"I feel like the good times of slashdot are over, and only idiots and nostalgic users are still around."

Don't forget us trolls!

Re:At least link the correct story

[lumbercartel.ca]

"I feel like the good times of slashdot are over, and only idiots and nostalgic users are still around."

Don't forget us trolls!

Hey! Stop lumping me in with the trolls, you damned troll!

The way I see it...

[Anonymous Coward]

IE was both on the bottom and near the top. "IE w/ chrome frame" is still IE.

A browser is only a tool.

[lsatenstein]

As we get older we get lazy to learn new tools, unless forced to. I switched to FFox and while I have from time to time used Google's Chrome, I did not make it my default. The reason -- the browsers are faster than my dsl network. Ergo, my network activity is io -bound. As FF does the job, I will exercise my laziness. I also like certain utilities present in Ffox, and that is a second reason why I don't consider switching. What about my IQ. Well, my two son's are Mensa level IQs, but me, I am just on the high side of average. Yes, they too use Firefox.

ANOVA or it didn't happen

[jdeisenberg]

Yes, there are differences, but are they statistically significant? If the people who did this study are a "Psychometric Consulting Company," the very least I would have expected to see in the PDF was the result of an Analysis of Variance.

Browser demographics

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this is a very interesting phenomenon.

My website statistics consistently report that >85% of my e-books "The Goldilocks Effect" and "Unusual Perspectives" are downloaded to Opera users.

Bearing in mind that Opera represents just a few percent of the market, this is quite remarkable. Presumably the users of that browser (which for many years has included myself) indicates a higher IQ and/or ability to think outside the square than the average punter.

Breaking News

[qxcv]

"Journalist IQs found to be inversely proportional to the number of premature conclusions they draw"

Sample sizes

[krisbrowne42]

I suppose it makes sense that all 10 people who use camino might have a higher average IQ than the billions who use IE versions.

Bunch of Bull

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, nice slashvertisment, I'm sure both of the geniuses using Opera think this survey means anything.

FWIW, my IQ is well above average (top 1% blah blah blah) and I use firefox and a bit of chromium.

So fucking stupid.

[TxRv]

This isn't news, it's intellectual masturbation.

Re:So fucking stupid.

[TxRv]

Well looky looky. Everyone got so caught up in the anti-MS circle jerk that they don't even realise the whole thing is fake. Of course has this been a study that concluded IE users were the smartest, slashdotters would have pointed out the inconsistencies right away.

That's selection bias for you, folks.

Konqueror & Epiphany

[Anonymous Coward]

People who use these default browsers of KDE & Gnome - which end do they fall?

great idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

If all webmasters that think IE suck would put a small IQ test on their front page, that one cannot click away, and appearing only for IE, then I think IE would lose market share really fast :)

--
why, slashdot, can I not login at the moment of posting my comment???

Score me 100

[foolish_to_be_here]

I use all of the browsers mentioned for one reason or another. Score me 100.

Re:Score me 100

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, you're perfectly average because all your browsers average out. So what.

Say it together: correlation != causation

[Legion303]

Shit, I'd better start using Opera so people think I'm smrt! I mean smart!

Re:Say it together: correlation != causation

[lumbercartel.ca]

I can see it now -- Opera's new slogan:

"Get Smart! Get Opera."

Does it even prove anything?

[eyenot]

Does it even prove anything?

It did cause me to go one-further in my own browser experience. Allow me to relate.

["tl;dr"? I double-checked to make sure I made the right choice with Chrome.]

I recently hit a milemark with this old laptop and finally chose something besides IE as my "default browser". I was looking for a new OS for computers I get in donations for resale and had looked into Chrome-OS. This naturally led me to look at the browser, and I found that in comparisons it got a lot of praise. I wanted a new browser because Firefox 5 disappointed the hell out of me to the extent that I still kept a shortcut for Firefox 4 right next to it. Even Firefox 4 had just enough problems that the question "as my default browser" was always answered "no".

Granted, I don't like my programs calling my browser willy-nilly in the first place. The appearance of IE on my screen unbidden is a black mark against whatever program was responsible, unless I've capitulated to an "online help" feature requirement and forgotten that I have the help stored in a folder somewhere instead of behind the F1 key. I also like the idea of leaving the registry of Windows XP well enough alone. I don't like programs that want to use my browser, I prefer calling my browser explicitly myself using my own controls. To me, browsers are sort of clunky and shouldn't be treated like a self-contained subroutine.

Anyways, I passed that milestone on this machine once I'd used Google Chrome for about ten or fifteen minutes. If some annoying program insists on calling my browser I feel better knowing it's just loading up Chrome. To the extent that I haven't really spent any time using the Firefox 6b3 I recently downloaded.

That being said, since I was still in hot-mode with Chrome, the article on High-IQ = Opera had me anxious to check out Opera and see if I wasn't yet missing out on browser excellence. But, the last experience I had with Opera was when I was trying to get a 386 dx4/100 running DR-DOS online with fossil driver sockets in the year 2000. Opera was the only browser with a recently-compiled version for DOS in the year 2000, so I used it. So to me, that was the last time I had come across Opera in any form. So imagine that all these years I've been reading about Opera, I've been laughing wondering what kind of cheap person is still using equipment old enough and pinching pennies tight enough to still use Opera. It didn't occur to me that I could just as easily have assumed that the company that updated in 2000 probably has updated since then, as well, or that they had done anything besides a DOS browser. So I was always laughing when I read about people using Opera, scratching my head and wondering wtf.

Anyways, I decided to just go out, read some articles, and rate Opera based on hearsay.

Link (Article, "Sixrevisions.com"): "Performance Comparison of Major Web Browsers", web:
http://sixrevisions.com/infographics/performance-comparison-of-major-web-browsers/
(That's the article, the only article I read as for browser comparisons actually, that led me to try Google Chrome.)

Link (Article, "ghacks.net"): "Web Browser Benchmark Results Comparison", web:
http://www.ghacks.net/2011/03/17/web-browser-benchmark-results-comparison/
(Today I decided to be slightly more mature about it and add some kind of objective comparison.)

The Sixrevisions article puts Chrome way out in the lead with Opera in third behind a tie for 2nd. The ghacks article puts Chrome in a sort of scary middle-land, where Internet Explorer holds two gold medals and Firefox goes home with three booby prizes. What to do? I want to go into detail about the various tests used, but I think it would be best represented if I simple made a big ascii table conglomerating all the results and applying my own arbitrary plus and minus system to

Consumerism

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there is an element of consumerism here that pollutes the results too. Most users don't actually choose Internet Explorer or Safari anymore than they choose to use the floor mats in their new cars. It was what was there and does the job they need it to do. I don't use IE because I use Debian. I use Iceweasel (firefox) and my own browser. Though I did use it a bit when I ran windows eons ago, and I used Camino and Mozilla on my iBook but only because Safari was so painfully slow. People do not reject or choose browsers purely as a result of intelligence. A user commented above that more intelligent people tend to use what works best for them. That is true but we have to be careful not to read any prejudice into it. It does not assume that IE and Safai do not work just fine for very intelligent people, and if it does not it does not assume that those very intelligent people are tech savvy or interested enough to know that there are options and install those options and them learn the new applications. The entire philosophy department at my university uses, for the most part, the browser that is bundled with their OS and they are highly intelligent practitioners, some of whom are very highly regarded the world over. U would not dare assume that those among them who use IE are less intelligent than those who use firefox or opera, I assume instead that they are too busy being great philosophers and educators to worry about such things. The floor mats in my car are the same ones that were in my car when I bought it not because I am less intelligent or lazy, but because they do the job I need floor mats to do. Internet Explorer, like it or not, does the job of browsing websites and does it admirably despite how much I personally hate Microsoft.

Also, where does this study leave those of us who code our own browsers? Are we the stupidest of all?

YAY!

[Johann Lau]

This does not surprise me at all!

signed, Opera user since 2000 :D

Article is nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

I yooz IE6 and beleeve mee, i m C-A-T smart.

meh

[Anonymous Coward]

I would imagine people willing to take online IQ tests are pretty retarded to begin with.

Banks, Insurance Companies

[elkto]

"I" am ignorant for allowing Banks and Insurance companies (even CNN) author sites that require IE to function properly.

"Others" are much more intelligent than I for futility attempting to get theses sites to function with other browsers.

"Kahn, I am laughing at your superior intellect"

We are all equally ignorant, so inhibit arrogance

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider the total amount of information that has been written down. Estimate that n% of that information is unique.

If a person could read one book-equivalent per day for their 50-year working life, they would have read 50*50 book-equivalents, which is an infinitesimal part of that total knowledge.

A huge amount of knowledge has never been written down, e.g. primitive people's relationships, concepts, skills used in living. A huge amount of knowledge is not yet known.

Thus, we humans don't differ in our knowledge bases until 20 or so digits to the right of zero, which is my definition of 'equally ignorant'.

This is not to say we know equally much, nor that we are equally intelligent. But it does remind us that we can't afford to be arrogant, because the dummy sitting next to you probably has some deep insight into something important, maybe even useful to you, if you only take the time to discover that aspect of their being.

Re:We are all equally ignorant, so inhibit arrogan

[Anonymous Coward]

5*50*50 book-equivalents, which is still infinitesimal.

I re-read that sentence half a dozen times before posting. I bet the code I am writing this AM will not be perfect either.

Congratulations, you've been trolled.

[Phaid]

This is an obviously fake site. Do a whois on aptiquant.com and you'll see that it was registered two weeks ago by a Georgia Tech graduate student named Tarandeep Gill. Further, you'll find that the majority of the content on the site was copied verbatim from http://www.centraltest.com/, which is apparently a "real" psychometric evaluation firm. Even the "about us" page features the same profile pictures, but with some of the names and credentials changed.

But it sure was funny watching y'all pat yourselves on the back about how smart you are.

Improve my IQ

[iliketrash]

Awesome--an easy way to improve my IQ.

I still use telnet

[uninformedLuddite]

and I be very smart

Re:I still use telnet

[JoeDuncan]

Bah! Telnet!

You kids and your new fangled tech!

Gopher is where it's at!!! If I can't find you on WAIS you might as well not exist!

Re:I still use telnet

[uninformedLuddite]

I've been yelling at my tin can all day and night and I can't hear you

Go slashdot, go!

[kuzb]

Post more irrelevant scientifically questionable bullshit, please.

God, this site is such garbage now. I don't even know why I bother to come here.

Looks like it's fake

[Simon321]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14389430

I develop for the web

[circletimessquare]

so my desktop is usually running opera/ safari/ ie/ firefox/ chrome all the time

does that mean i have multiple personality disorder?

Re:I develop for the web

[Anonymous Coward]

You could make a movie about psychotic zombies. That would be great.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Que all non-opera users complaining the study i

[Zancarius]

Yeah, it seems like a good deal of the anti-Opera posts are from people who haven't even looked at it in the last 10 years and bash it with claims that haven't been true in as long (or ever, in some cases).

To be fair, I believe some of the responses were tongue-in-cheek. Certainly, some of them are outright bashing Opera, but I'm not sure how many of those are sincere.

Again, I don't like Opera (personal preference, purely); it's a nice browser, as it is small, fast, and works well. But I agree: It doesn't justify bashing it for some of the reasons espoused up the thread.