
Update: Internet Explorer IQ story was bogus - ColinWright
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14370878#
======
ColinWright
So, after all the stories, all the submissions, and all the hype, perhaps the
whole thing was a hoax after all.

Also interestingly, it looks like the BBC have changed the text on the
referenced page. Originally it reported the story, but now it claims it's a
hoax. Can anyone get the original text? I've not been able to get it from the
Google cache.

Here are some of the submissions of the story:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2818847> : aptiquant.com <\- This has all
the comments

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2822935> : conceivablytech.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2822162> : mashable.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2823776> : cnn.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2823808> : msn.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2823947> : pcworld.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2823949> : theatlanticwire.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2827618> : theregister.co.uk : killed

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2832782> : telegraph.co.uk : killed

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2832818> : pcmag.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2832948> : telegraph.co.uk : killed

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2833997> : (unknown) : killed

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2837736> : bbc.co.uk : killed

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2838228> : npr.org

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2838474> : bbc.co.uk

~~~
imurray
_Can anyone get the original text?_

It is a bit annoying how the BBC non-transparently correct their articles. The
old version is cached here: <http://www.webcitation.org/60evsCAry>

~~~
retube
We run a web content monitoring service, every media organisation changes
their articles as they get new info. No reference is ever made to these
changes. It's actually really interesting seeing how stories get updated.

~~~
iamdave
I'm sorry, but there's a difference between changing your article for updates
and editor required corrections, and changing your article to look as if you
never bit the bullet. BBC did exactly the latter, they didn't put an "Update:
It has been determined this was a hoax" or "Please forgive our error, we have
made a mistake..." anything.

Reading the cached article, and then going back to the original, I think it is
fully within your duty to inform your readers that the article has been
updated specifically for the reason of clarification and acknowledging a
mistake was made, and that new information has come to the fore.

Trying to hide behind that by virtually rewriting the article is just
unsavory, and I expect better from the BBC News.

Sorry if it seems like I'm taking a high road here, but I am; retroactive
continuity has NO place in journalism.

~~~
retube
You're right, and I agree with you. But yes we've seen stories get changed
considerably with no reference to the update. Unfortunately retroactive
continuity seems to be pretty much the norm. From a publishers perspective,
that's the beauty of the web: unlike print you can change your spin at any
time.

------
olefoo
Even ignoring the obvious problems with the study as described, it was likely
to be a hoax just based on how pat the conclusion was and how it fed into the
prejudices of those of us who must deal with IE6 on a daily basis.

It does make for an interesting study as a weaponised meme though; and it's
exposure as a hoax is not likely to hobble it's effectiveness in spreading the
idea that people who use IE are drooling idiots barely able to finger a
computer. As a piece of agitprop it's quite effective, and although it's being
called out as a hoax the velocity and intensity of the debunking is much less
than that of the original.

I think I speak for more than a few of us if I say that it's veracity is
completely irrelevant if it manages to embarrass a company director or two
into decreeing upgrades. And it's a damn good prank.

~~~
jokermatt999
Confirmation bias is a tough thing.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Persistence_o...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Persistence_of_discredited_beliefs)

I know about confirmation bias, so I should consciously look closer at things
that confirm my prejudices, but it's not easy to remember. In this case, was
actually wary of the conclusions (unless I'm misremembering, which is a whole
other issue), but I think that's largely because it was such an obvious
example.

------
ars
"...had invited 100,000 web users to take IQ tests..."

Besides the hoax, someone forgot about: "Voluntary response data are
worthless." <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2772603>

Because of that, this should have never even been published.

~~~
jpr
So are you saying that no response data ever should be published, or people
should be _forced_ to take surveys and what not?

~~~
Cushman
Getting good survey data requires that the subjects agree to take a survey
before you tell them what will be surveyed. This still biases respondents,
obviously, but it puts all surveys on an equal playing field.

------
jsherry
Journalism lives and dies by SEO. And if they take their time to carefully
check their sources on every story before posting it, then they'll find
themselves on the 6th page of Google b/c everybody has already beaten them to
the punch. Speed and verification of sources are in total conflict with each
other - it's a tough business.

~~~
walexander
Well, I also heard the report on NPR yesterday during the news highlights.
This was big news for more than just the PPC crowd.

Sadly, I don't think the retraction will be more than a blip.

------
BasDirks
I know plenty of scientists and researchers who use windows because their
programs run on it. The kind of professor who ask their kids why there are 20
toolbars in their browser, and the same night write up a quick 200 line python
program to test some algo they read about in their favorite journal.

~~~
mrspandex
I'm assuming you mean IE, not Windows

------
ryandvm
So the good news is that the use of Internet Explorer is not strongly
correlated with IQ. The bad news is that falling for hoaxes is...

~~~
seles
No, just because it was a hoax doesn't mean it isn't true anyway.

You could make a hoax webpage with bogus information about how the earth is
not flat. Doing so would not make the earth flat.

------
simplycomplex
If it was true, then IE could be the most user friendly browser because even
users with lower IQ could use that.

~~~
rbanffy
You base your statement on the premise lower IQ people use IE correctly.
Considering the volume of malware that infects Windows boxes through IE, I'd
assume the opposite.

~~~
simplycomplex
You can't say, an application is not user friendly because it has got many
security holes.

------
sebkomianos
However IE and IQ are connected, I can't get how this kind of articles are of
interest to the Hacker News community.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean any offense, it's only that I see this kind
of "news" quite unworthy.

\- "Cool guys wear Nike" \- "Powerful men drive Mercedes" \- "Independent
women buy Prada"

etc..

~~~
mattgreenrocks
The subtext of the story is insulting, and easily disproven: we're supposed to
think that choice of browser somehow reflects on a person's intelligence. It
is ridiculous that HN picked it up in the first place.

In other words, even if it was true, what can we do with this knowledge? Oh,
right: continue to judge people for their choice in a trivial matter.

The tech industry really needs to get over itself.

~~~
ayrnieu
If it were true that stupid people prefer X, then yes: your preference for X
would suggest that you were stupid. Preferring X, however, wouldn't _make_ you
stupid if you weren't, just as your IQ won't leak out to 'fill the vacuum'
were you to attend a Stupidity Convention.

It's just statistics; it's not black magic. Assertions about groups are not
assertions about individuals, so don't just treat one as the other.

> In other words, even if it was true, what can we do with this knowledge?

Advertise differently.

> Oh, right: continue to judge[!]

Falsehoods won't do anything to stop that.

~~~
JadeNB
> If it were true that stupid people prefer X, then yes: your preference for X
> would suggest that you were stupid.

This is not correct. Stupid people prefer eating over starving, but a
preference for eating does not suggest that you are stupid.

~~~
sesqu
Sure it does. And since most smart people prefer eating over starving as well,
that preference also suggests that you are smart. If you combine these
suggestions with an assertion of excluded third, you can say that a preference
for eating over starving implies a qualifiable intelligence.

That is to say, suggestion is not implication. I can reasonably suggest that
you are stupid without it being the most reasonable suggestion.

------
ZoFreX
Even if it wasn't a hoax, it's still fairly meaningless. It doesn't seem
unlikely that more intelligent users would be more likely to look for other
options rather than using the OS-provided default. For the sake of
illustration lets simplify: Users with an IQ over 100 look for alternatives,
below 100 and they do not. Even if 80% of the higher IQ users ultimately
choose Internet Explorer (which would indicate that it is very high quality),
there would be a very significant difference of average IQ between IE users
and users of other browsers.

I also find it very distressing that the BBC, CNN, and a whole slew of other
outlets all reported this without carrying out the kind of basic checks _I_ do
when presented with new information, and I'm not a reporter!

~~~
spauka
While I agree that people should look for alternatives, I do not necessarily
agree with your analysis. I do research in Physics at the University of
Sydney, and the proliferation of Internet Explorer is quite high within the
research staff, and I can assure you that the IQ's there are not low...

~~~
ZoFreX
My analysis wasn't meant to be correct in the "this is how things are" sense.
I was trying to demonstrate that, given the data "IE users have lower IQs on
average" you cannot actually conclude anything about IE, as there are multiple
factors that could drive that result. I was just providing one example,
showing that a situation where IE is the best browser but still has lower IQ
users on average could _potentially_ exist.

------
UrLicht
"A story which suggested that users of Internet Explorer have a lower IQ than
people who chose other browsers appears to have been an elaborate hoax."

"'It's obviously very easy to create a bogus site like this - as all phishers
know it's easy to rip-off someone else's webpages and pictures,' he said."

So setting up a fake site with fake data is elaborate? Seems like these news
agencies are the ones with IQs in the ~80s.

------
rjd
"free online IQ testing" as the source didn't give it away?

~~~
rjd
Secondly browser use is often contextual. I have reasons for using most major
browsers, at any given time I may be falling into any demographic... I'm sure
many here are the same.

~~~
a3camero
One big one is enterprise portals/software that seem to always be IE-only.
It's common at my workplace to use IE + Chrome/Firefox.

------
jamesbritt
My favourite part of this was seeing the report that referred to "less
smarter" people.

[http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190038/20110731/less-
smarter...](http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190038/20110731/less-smarter-
users-tend-to-use-ie-more.htm)

They've since corrected the text, but the URL shows their original headline.

Ah, schadenfreude ...

------
cabalamat
This particular story might be bogus, but a few years ago I remember an online
IQ test site that collated data about its users, and people using IE or
Windows did have lower average IQs than people who used other browsers or
OSes.

------
gotrythis
Faked or not, it helped me convert two IE users to Chrome that day.

------
pointyhat
That's hilarious. What a good high profile prank that was. Well done to
whoever perpetrated it :)

------
smcj
"I believe these figures are implausibly low - and an insult to IE users."

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

------
wooUK
Ergo BBC reporters must use IE.

------
johnx123-up
OT: Did Bill Gates _fixed_ BBC?

------
mricardo
Well, I thought the "study" to be ridiculous from the start...

------
thestranger
I'll probably get downvoted to oblivion for this, but here goes...

I think there may be some truth to this rumor. I do a lot of advertising on
TrafficVance which is basically pop-up advertising on computers with adware.
One thing I noticed regarding the traffic I received to my landing pages was
that a disproportionately high number of my visitors were using Internet
Explorer. The percentages were so disproportionate that some of the
advertisers I was working with flagged it as "suspicious." (This was
thankfully cleared up when I explained to them how I get my traffic.)

For whatever reason, it seems like more Internet Explorer users have adware on
their computer than users of other browsers. To me this shows that users of
other browsers are more technologically literate than IE users, as you
wouldn't expect a technologically literate person to have adware on his/her
computer.

Does technological literacy correlate with intelligence? I don't know, that's
not really for me to say, but I don't think we should be so hasty to dispel
this notion simply because a study was faked.

~~~
jokermatt999
_I'll probably get downvoted to oblivion for this, but here goes..._

Please don't bring this phrase to Hacker News. The only time to complain about
downvotes is when you're sure you've been unjustly downvoted.

I think it's completely reasonable to expect alternate browser users to be
more technologically literate than IE users though. Unless their alternate
browser was installed by someone else, installing one is a choice that
requires enough technical knowledge to find, install, and use another browser.
I'd assume these people would be more knowledgeable than most about adware
because it would make sense for those skills to be correlated.

On a completely unrelated note from this story, how do you justify supporting
adware? I assume this is why you thought you'd be downvoted.

~~~
thestranger
I like money.

