Low I.Q. Predicts Heart Disease

Low intelligence appears to be a powerful risk factor for heart problems, British researchers report, eclipsing factors like obesity and high blood pressure. Full Story »

Posted by Michael Sanchez
Tags Help
Subjects: Media, Health
Topics: Bad Journalism
Stats Help
# Diggs: 1 (as of 2010-02-10)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Michael Sanchez - Feb 10, 2010 - 5:00 PM PST
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Dwight Rousu - Feb 10, 2010 - 5:33 PM PST

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
James Igoe
2.0
by James Igoe - Feb. 11, 2010

No. The article is that it did not tease apart issues, nor did it delve deeply into other correlations, and will become fodder for right-wing racists to deny care to minorities.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Dwight Rousu
2.4
by Dwight Rousu - Feb. 10, 2010

The article perpetrates bad logic. Correlation does not necessarily mean causality. The story fails to address interrelated factors and any multivariate analysis, and a plausible causation mechanism.

Oh for a world where all the children are smarter than average. They would also be rich and have the healthiest food, the cleanest air and water, and the best health care.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Michael Sanchez
3.8
by Michael Sanchez - Feb. 10, 2010

The article describes how low I.Q. has a strong correlation with heart disease. Behind smoking, low I.Q. is the strongest predictor to heart disease according to researchers. The article stereotypes against low I.Q. people because according to researchers they have higher chance of heart disease, lower economic status, and lower neurological reaction time. Overall, the article is rather interesting to read but unfortunately I feel as if the researchers are insulting low I.Q. people. It makes it seem as if low I.Q. people are lesser beings which is completely incorrect.

See Full Review » (18 answers)

Comments on this story (1)Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

2.3

Poor
from 4 reviews (37% confidence)
Quality
2.2
Facts
4.0
Fairness
4.0
Information
2.2
Insight
2.2
Style
3.0
Accuracy
3.0
Balance
3.0
Context
2.5
Depth
3.0
Enterprise
3.0
Expertise
2.8
Originality
2.2
Relevance
2.0
Transparency
3.0
Responsibility
1.8
Popularity
2.5
Recommendation
1.8
Credibility
3.8
# Reviews
2.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!