• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Smart Women Drink More

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
Are intelligent women more likely to be depressed?
 

SilkRoad

Lay the coin on my tongue
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
3,932
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
This article is from UK-based research, which I think is an important point. I live in the UK. Britain is a society with a huge drinking problem and while there is a strong perception that it’s mostly working-class louts and sluts going on binges on the weekend (and every weeknight, in some cases), apparently the research reveals that the middle class on average consumes even more because they put away a bottle of wine per person each weeknight and often have at least a bit of a binge on the weekends too.

I haven’t got a clue what drinking patterns are like in the US these days – I know most of you are American. I’m actually Canadian and I haven’t much of a clue about drinking patterns in Canada either as I have lived abroad for many years now.

It is worth noting, however, that although the English do have a big drinking problem (so do the Irish, though not necessarily more so than the English, contrary to popular perception – I also lived in Ireland for a few years), the biggest offenders that I’ve met here by far have been Aussies, Kiwis, and Scandinavians, who seem to believe that a social life is absolutely worthless if it doesn’t involve getting completely and totally hammered.

Where I grew up on the west coast of Canada, it was much more of a coffee culture. People went to cafes much more than to pubs. Over here, people of various nationalities often think you’re odd if you don’t want to drink, or only want one or two, in a night of socializing. But I have a sneaking suspicion that people all over the western world are drinking more than they used to – even those who are pretty moderate drinkers. I think it’s a (rather unhealthy) way of coping with stress.
 

AphroditeGoneAwry

failure to thrive
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
5,585
MBTI Type
INfj
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
^Good post. Thanks for that perspective.

I think locale is a huge factor. I have degrees and my husband has a degree, and we will occasionally enjoy a drink or two on a week night, and will imbibe quite a bit more if we hang out with friends, which tends to occur about once per month. But here in western Montana, it's also a bit more of a health-conscious coffee/tea culture. In my area, most singles work all week and don't tend to go out (i.e. drink much) until the weekends, and married couples tend to be pretty sober for the most part, especially those with kids.
 

MonkeyGrass

New member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
877
MBTI Type
infj
Enneagram
7
Eh, I think really smart/educated/ambitious women end up dealing with more social stress and difficulty fitting in within more conservative circles. It makes a lot of sense to me that they would (need to) drink more.
 

Unique

New member
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
1,702
Educational Attainment != Intelligence

More like financial opportunity.

Therefore, there is no correlation between intelligence and drinking (which I do not partake in and is perhaps why I felt compelled to chime in).

This 100%, all that needs to be said
 

CzeCze

RETIRED
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
8,975
MBTI Type
GONE
Isn't that just related to stress? With similar reasons to why women smoke or have higher rates of heart disease now?

The study tests not just on intelligence but degree attainment which to me indicates more your ambitiousness rather than intelligence.

Ambitious people work hard to attain, they get stressed, they drink, smoke, or do other substances. Particularly if they network informally through bars and parties where drinking is common.

I wouldn't be surprised though if these women also did yoga or ran a lot - which are 'healthy' ways to off gas stress.
 

niffer

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,217
MBTI Type
ENfP
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well I suppose more intelligent women would tend to have well-paying jobs, and stock up with nice wines.

What's ironic is that alcohol consumption makes you act like more of an idiot than usual.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Do drinking women smart more?

Do smarting women fart more?

Someone should assess the average IQ of Irish and German women. We should also conduct the studies wearing beer goggles, because of potential flying debris. But then we might skew the studies because pregnant women don't usually drink.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Where I grew up on the west coast of Canada, it was much more of a coffee culture. People went to cafes much more than to pubs. Over here, people of various nationalities often think you’re odd if you don’t want to drink, or only want one or two, in a night of socializing. But I have a sneaking suspicion that people all over the western world are drinking more than they used to – even those who are pretty moderate drinkers. I think it’s a (rather unhealthy) way of coping with stress.

I think its more of a social lubricant or disinhibitor for a hell of a lot of people too, I was going to say about a time I had a friend visit from abroad who found the relatively early closing time week nights of cafes and coffee houses surprising but coffee wouldnt meet the need of most of the people who need a few drinks to give them confidence to start conversations.
 

Provoker

Permabanned
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
252
MBTI Type
INTJ
Statistics prove it.

Wrong. This is logically and methodologically untenable. Still, perhaps it explains the recurring pattern (in your anthropology arguments, for instance) whereby you consistently reason inductively, from singular events to general statements, while maintaining that the former is proof of the latter. For such a line of reasoning would be correct if statistics were grounds for proof, but since this is not the case you are methodologically incorrect. Statistics can lend evidence to thinking X or Y but evidence is not proof; therefore, nothing is ever proven by statistics. Indeed, no matter how numerous the recorded occurances of any phenonenon whatever are, a conclusion drawn in this way may always turn out to be false. As Karl Popper has aptly noted, no matter how many white swans we observe, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white. The following are arguments that are not provable by the inductive approach taken:

(1) The stock market has closed up for four days in a row; therefore, it will close up on the fifth day.

(2) It has rained for two weeks straight; therefore, it will rain tomorrow.

(3) The sun has risen for X days; therefore, it will rise tomorrow.

(4) War has occured for three thousand years; therefore, it will occur for the next three centuries.

(5) People who earn a higher income are happier.

(6) People who go to university are smarter than people who go to college.

(7) People who drink more are smarter.

(8) People who drink wine are healthier.

In each case, nothing is "proven" by the statistic, only evidence is given drawing our attention to a correlation. In regards 5-8, one can at best say that these are averages based on a limited sample size and there are countless other factors that unsophisticated stastical models do not take into account that can taint the results. Actually, it turns out that marketers love statistics because it is very easy to design surveys in a way to get a desired result, which can then "intellectually legitimize" the product/service being sold/offered. It therefore takes people like myself and others to point out that this method is not bulletproof, contrary to what you and others feel.
 

JustHer

Pumpernickel
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
1,954
MBTI Type
ENTJ
This explains everything. I will no longer hide my drinking problem :D
 

SilkRoad

Lay the coin on my tongue
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
3,932
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think its more of a social lubricant or disinhibitor for a hell of a lot of people too [...] coffee wouldnt meet the need of most of the people who need a few drinks to give them confidence to start conversations.

Good point, I guess. Isn't that a bit sad, though? Yes, there are times when a couple of drinks make me feel more cheerful and witty and outgoing and silly but I am certainly capable of socializing without, and many/most of my best social times have been without alcohol. And I'm definitely an introvert!! (though I get told that for an introvert, I make a good extrovert...I think circumstances have forced me to develop that side of my personality, both for better and for worse)

Is it just that we have been conditioned to feel that we can't socialize adequately without alcohol? The weird thing is, the people I've known who drink a lot/excessively (sometimes to the point where many would consider them social alcoholics) are people who I would view as natural extroverts. You wouldn't think they'd need the help. But then, maybe I just don't know them that well, maybe they do lack social confidence without alcohol. Or maybe it is so uncommon for them to socialize without alcohol that they don't even know themselves what they are like, and what they are like socially, without it...
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
Only problem is, no smart man wants a smart woman :)
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
Wrong. This is logically and methodologically untenable. Still, perhaps it explains the recurring pattern (in your anthropology arguments, for instance) whereby you consistently reason inductively, from singular events to general statements, while maintaining that the former is proof of the latter. For such a line of reasoning would be correct if statistics were grounds for proof, but since this is not the case you are methodologically incorrect. Statistics can lend evidence to thinking X or Y but evidence is not proof; therefore, nothing is ever proven by statistics. Indeed, no matter how numerous the recorded occurances of any phenonenon whatever are, a conclusion drawn in this way may always turn out to be false. As Karl Popper has aptly noted, no matter how many white swans we observe, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white. The following are arguments that are not provable by the inductive approach taken:

(1) The stock market has closed up for four days in a row; therefore, it will close up on the fifth day.

(2) It has rained for two weeks straight; therefore, it will rain tomorrow.

(3) The sun has risen for X days; therefore, it will rise tomorrow.

(4) War has occured for three thousand years; therefore, it will occur for the next three centuries.

(5) People who earn a higher income are happier.

(6) People who go to university are smarter than people who go to college.

(7) People who drink more are smarter.

(8) People who drink wine are healthier.

In each case, nothing is "proven" by the statistic, only evidence is given drawing our attention to a correlation. In regards 5-7, one can at best say that these are averages based on a limited sample size and there are countless other factors that unsophisticated stastical models do not take into account that can taint the results. Actually, it turns out that marketers love statistics because it is very easy to design surveys in a way to get a desired result, which can then "intellectually legitimize" the product/service being sold/offered. It therefore takes people like myself and others to point out that this method is not bulletproof, contrary to what you and others feel.

c'mon now, everybody knows that using statistics for inference is technically a logical mistake. Being long-winded about it serves zero purpose.
 

Provoker

Permabanned
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
252
MBTI Type
INTJ
c'mon now, everybody knows that using statistics for inference is technically a logical mistake. Being long-winded about it serves zero purpose.

Aha! You do not know what everyone knows; for if you did that would require that you have epistemically accessed the minds of the nearly 7 billion people (and growing) and established an accounting of what they know and do not know. Such a task is practically impossible in a finite lifetime where population continues to expand geometrically. It follows, therefore, that you necessarily do not know what everyone knows even though you claim to know it. Furthermore, you have committed the fallacy of composition, by assuming that what is true for some is true for all. And we know it is not true for all by the simple application of modus tollens--i.e. if everyone knew that statistics were not grounds for proof, then no one would ever say something is "statistically proven"; ThatGirl called this statistically proven and therefore not everyone knows that statistics are not grounds for proof.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Aha! You do not know what everyone knows; for if you did that would require that you have epistemically accessed the minds of the nearly 7 billion people (and growing) and established an accounting of what they know and do not know. Such a task is practically impossible in a finite lifetime where population continues to expand geometrically. It follows, therefore, that you necessarily do not know what everyone knows even though you claim to know it. Furthermore, you have committed the fallacy of composition, by assuming that what is true for some is true for all. And we know it is not true for all by the simple application of modus tollens--i.e. if everyone knew that statistics were not grounds for proof, then no one would ever say something is "statistically proven"; ThatGirl called this statistically proven and therefore not everyone knows that statistics are not grounds for proof.

Why so serious? :)

*waits for long winded response*
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
Aha! You do not know what everyone knows; for if you did that would require that you have epistemically accessed the minds of the nearly 7 billion people (and growing) and established an accounting of what they know and do not know. Such a task is practically impossible in a finite lifetime where population continues to expand geometrically. It follows, therefore, that you necessarily do not know what everyone knows even though you claim to know it. Furthermore, you have committed the fallacy of composition, by assuming that what is true for some is true for all. And we know it is not true for all by the simple application of modus tollens--i.e. if everyone knew that statistics were not grounds for proof, then no one would ever say something is "statistically proven"; ThatGirl called this statistically proven and therefore not everyone knows that statistics are not grounds for proof.

that wasn't meant to be taken literally, of course. :hi:
 

MacGuffin

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
10,710
MBTI Type
xkcd
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I need a drink.

Or seven.
 

spin-1/2-nuclei

New member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
381
MBTI Type
INTJ
I think what they probably should have said is women that obtained a degree from university are more likely to drink heavily. Correlating that to their intelligence is where the logic begins to break down in my opinion. There is a very obvious association between alcohol usage, partying, and attending an undergraduate institution. Some of the best minds of our time have been alcoholics (that can be proven) but many of them were not. I think the only thing studies like this actually prove is simply the fact that susceptibility to common human weaknesses cannot be definitively related to intelligence, age, sex, race or class.
 
Top