> 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 needs to review their correlation/causation definitions. Resisting change is one plausible explanation, but the only thing the data clearly show is that the people who scored low on this IQ test tended to be using out of date browsers at the time they took the test. "Resistance" implies agency, which correlation studies do not establish.
I choose to go with the reverse explanation: older browsers actively reduce user intelligence.
> I choose to go with the reverse explanation: older browsers actively reduce user intelligence.
Do you have any reason for that? Because frankly it just sounds ridiculous.
It would make sense that someone with a higher IQ would be able to consider the possibility that their browser was replaceable and take the necessary steps to replace it. But I don't see how which browser you use could have an appreciable effect on your intelligence.
Comments
> 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 needs to review their correlation/causation definitions. Resisting change is one plausible explanation, but the only thing the data clearly show is that the people who scored low on this IQ test tended to be using out of date browsers at the time they took the test. "Resistance" implies agency, which correlation studies do not establish.
I choose to go with the reverse explanation: older browsers actively reduce user intelligence.
> I choose to go with the reverse explanation: older browsers actively reduce user intelligence.
Do you have any reason for that? Because frankly it just sounds ridiculous.
It would make sense that someone with a higher IQ would be able to consider the possibility that their browser was replaceable and take the necessary steps to replace it. But I don't see how which browser you use could have an appreciable effect on your intelligence.
It was a joke, along the lines of xkcd comics. See: http://xkcd.com/925/
you and inconditus are both correct - the 'reverse' explanation is ridiculous.