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).
article said:Cleverest women are the heaviest drinkers
Those with degrees
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.
Statistics prove it.
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.
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.
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.
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.