Study: Internet Explorer Users Have Low Risk Intelligence

[Sam_Reynolds]

Days after a Google commissioned report was released stating that Internet Explorer was the second most secure browser – between Chrome and Firefox – a new study has been released by risk consulting firm Projection Point claims that Internet Explorer users have a “low risk intelligence”.

Read more here: Study: Internet Explorer Users Have Low Risk Intelligence | Hardware Canucks

[Perineum]

It was also noted that, “Apple users are the best when it comes to dealing with risk”.

*COUGH*

I'm sure that study is accurate, considering EVERY Apple user of recent years that I know of switched because they kept shitcanning their computer from lack of even basic level knowledge of what not to do. /obvious sarcasm

Given the small sample size of 351, and the lack of published margin of error, the statistical validity of such a survey is questionable.

O RLY?

[geoc]

I kinda feel disappointed in the fact that a reputable site like HWC would post such unsubstantiated, baseless and illegitimate ad hominem attack from a source that has no credibility at all.

Such drivel should have no place in tech news site.

[Sam_Reynolds]

You forgot to read the last line of the article:

"Given the small sample size of 351, and the lack of published margin of error, the statistical validity of such a survey is questionable."

This was on the front page of slashdot, and has been making its rounds through the tech news site world so it warrants reporting.

[le2key]

Wtf does "Poor Risk Intelligence" mean? Does it mean you suck at evaluating risks while browsing the internet, or does it mean that you're just stupid?

The only people that uses Internet Explorer are grandma and grandpa they probably don't even know what "alternative browser" means much less the malicious crap all over the internet.

[Arinoth]

This shouldn't even be an official report. 351 people is a piss power sample size when you think of the millions of people who browse/use the internet on a daily basis. For all we know they could have take one class of students, and used them. For scientific accuracy this study should have been done with I'd say at least 1000 people, though more then likely 10000 to get a better/more accurate study. Also, the lack of error percentage reported I can easily assume its 50%+ or higher, meaning its total BS. Actually really any percentage error over 10% is usually looked at as inaccurate/bad when you deal with the science community (obviously there are exceptions)

[Jebusman]

Originally Posted by le2key

Wtf does "Poor Risk Intelligence" mean? Does it mean you suck at evaluating risks while browsing the internet, or does it mean that you're just stupid?

It means you suck at evaluating risks. It's implying people using IE don't ever think about what they're clicking, and are terrible at actually assessing the situation.

I wouldn't exactly disagree with this (on a general basis), but trying to prove it with a "study" of such small size is just silly.