Orlando? Dumbies all up in that joint

Most idiotic criteria ever....

all per person: ... most libraries.... ... most schools.... ... most museums .... ... most media (includes tv aka reality junk....)....

Close to the stupidest shit I've ever read.

Shittsburgh? link is blocked at work but i'm surprised ithaca isn't #1

idrankmalk:

Shittsburgh? link is blocked at work but i'm surprised ithaca isn't #1

Agreed with people above, completely idiotic criteria.

The fact that Cambridge MA isn't on this list shows how much of a joke this study is.

You need to be at least somewhat smart yourself to cast any remotely valid judgment on the intelligence of others.

<span class=keyword_link><a href=/resources/skills/finance/going-concern>Going Concern</a></span>:

You need to be at least somewhat smart yourself to cast any remotely valid judgment on the intelligence of others.

I hereby judge Movoto... STUPID

I couldn't make a worst list ranking anything if I tried

Atlanta #4...I can't believe I wasted my time clicking that link

Breaking News!

Author learns about linear regression. Downloads Stata. Writes article.

LOL at museums. They do understand that Washington, D.C. residents and natives (like me) are the least likely to go to a museum, right? A guy from Topeka, KS is far more likely to visit the Smithsonian museums than a guy living in Clarendon. Also, ever been to a public library? It's great for little kids and people without computers and for persons who don't like to pay for magazines. Nobody is going to a local public library to research quantum mechanics.

NYC probably has an awful lot of stupid people though

I don't see anyone offering any better metrics. I think the criteria are good, if a bit imprecise (i.e. quality of universities, not just number of universities,should be considered). This is a blog people, not a peer-reviewed journal. I posted this because I thought people on WSO would have a more intelligent way of looking at this than the authors. Am I wrong?

808:

I don't see anyone offering any better metrics. I think the criteria are good, if a bit imprecise (i.e. quality of universities, not just number of universities,should be considered). This is a blog people, not a peer-reviewed journal. I posted this because I thought people on WSO would have a more intelligent way of looking at this than the authors. Am I wrong?

There may not be any better metric, but that doesn't mean we should give this any weight. It's kind of a stupid thing to rate anyways, does it really matter what city is the smartest?

DCDepository:

Also, ever been to a public library? It's great for little kids and people without computers and for persons who don't like to pay for magazines. Nobody is going to a local public library to research quantum mechanics.

Perhaps the study would have been more legit if it had looked at the borrowing habits of the residents, and weighted intelligence depending on whether people were reading Rousseau/quantum mechanics or biographies of justin beiber

c88Clausewitz:

DCDepository:

Also, ever been to a public library? It's great for little kids and people without computers and for persons who don't like to pay for magazines. Nobody is going to a local public library to research quantum mechanics.

Perhaps the study would have been more legit if it had looked at the borrowing habits of the residents, and weighted intelligence depending on whether people were reading Rousseau/quantum mechanics or biographies of justin beiber

Boom. Props to the chimp for the smartest comment so far.

808:

I don't see anyone offering any better metrics. I think the criteria are good, if a bit imprecise (i.e. quality of universities, not just number of universities,should be considered). This is a blog people, not a peer-reviewed journal. I posted this because I thought people on WSO would have a more intelligent way of looking at this than the authors. Am I wrong?

Are you fucking kidding me? There have been many studies done previously. All of those are certainly at the very least on par with this crappy link.

of museums? Is this not self-explanatory?

of libraries? This is 2013.

of universities? Yea, DeVry is totally legit, filled with intellectual geniuses.

idrankmalk:

Shittsburgh? link is blocked at work but i'm surprised ithaca isn't #1

Ithaca? Really? You consider Ithaca a city?? You're comparing an area with almost 2 million people to a little shitty college area with only about 100k. Ridiculous.

peinvestor2012:

808:

I don't see anyone offering any better metrics. I think the criteria are good, if a bit imprecise (i.e. quality of universities, not just number of universities,should be considered). This is a blog people, not a peer-reviewed journal. I posted this because I thought people on WSO would have a more intelligent way of looking at this than the authors. Am I wrong?

Are you fucking kidding me? There have been many studies done previously. All of those are certainly at the very least on par with this crappy link.

# of museums? Is this not self-explanatory?

# of libraries? This is 2013.

# of universities? Yea, DeVry is totally legit, filled with intellectual geniuses.

The existence of museums indicates an interest in history, other cultures, the physical sciences, etc. I personally wouldn't rate this as the most significant input in my model, but it's a perfectly valid input. Libraries are awesome - all the best books for free. The amount of reading people do is a very good indicator of how intelligent they are. Universities are also an excellent indicator, though as I already mentioned I personally would weight them by quality, not just by quantity.

What factors do you want? Raves, Pinterest signups, and 7-11s? If we can't offer valid critiques to this crappy link, how would we have done with one to the studies you mention? (or do we need to go to a library for that)

HOW HAVE YOU PEOPLE NOT MENTIONED BOSTON

Agree with Mitt. Boston would have to take the cake IMO.

And OP, all of these inputs do not actually look at who uses them. Libraries; great, but how many people are actually members/read the books in it? Museums; also great, but who goes to the museums? And the quality of them is not indicative as to the intelligence of the population, nor is the quantity or even their existence... period.

Honestly, just an overall terrible study by all means. If I ran the initial study and saw those results, I'd say "Fuck, I definitely need to change some of the inputs/ determinant variables." Journalism at its worst, because some of the idiots that don't have a critical thought in their body will take this as valid scientific evidence.

OP, not trashing your post or the discussion. Great to have a critical analysis of these types of studies.

Regards

idrankmalk:

Shittsburgh? link is blocked at work but i'm surprised ithaca isn't #1

It is in this study: http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/25/smartest-cities-in-america/

And by the way, Forbes recently ranked Pittsburgh as America's best city to live in. It also boasts the second-best view in the nation after the Grand Canyon according to USA weekend (though I'm not sure how it beat out Niagara Falls), is one of the top for venture capital according to the NVCA (shout out to CRE), and has one of the largest and fastest growing financial services centers (came out a month or so ago, but can't find the link - sorry).

These random unscientific rankings by untrained writers may not mean a whole lot, but at least those people are looking at the world around them, asking questions, and challenging assumptions.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/29/cities-livable-pittsburgh-lifestyle-re… http://www.usaweekend.com/article/99999999/LIVING01/91015001/The-10-Mos… //www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/top-15-cities-for-venture-capital

808:

Because civic leaders, philanthropists, and social scientists need the concept of benchmarking, too. What gets measured gets improved, and the first step in measurement is settling on your unit of measure.

Sure, but you need to go more detailed. The overall city doesn't mean anything. If they were comparing NY libraries to SC libraries, that would be useful.

This might sound bad, but I would guess America's smartest cities could be reasonably ranked by cost of living adjusted income (median, mean, quartiles, whatever series of representative stats you want).

808:

The existence of museums indicates an interest in history, other cultures, the physical sciences, etc. I personally wouldn't rate this as the most significant input in my model, but it's a perfectly valid input. Libraries are awesome - all the best books for free. The amount of reading people do is a very good indicator of how intelligent they are. Universities are also an excellent indicator, though as I already mentioned I personally would weight them by quality, not just by quantity.

What factors do you want? Raves, Pinterest signups, and 7-11s? If we can't offer valid critiques to this crappy link, how would we have done with one to the studies you mention? (or do we need to go to a library for that)

You have a serious handicap.

The existence of museums? The majority of users are tourists. Have you ever been to D.C.? I mean, jesus.

So the number of libraries carries more weight than the quality or size of the libraries and their offerings? Again, reckless disregard for common sense on your part.

Universities are not an excellent indicator unless you weight them by quality. Same as any of these other things. You really think the Museum of Cockfighting contributes positively to a metro area?

I expected Boston to be the bulk of the conversation before coming in here.

Boston?

SureThing:

I expected Boston to be the bulk of the conversation before coming in here.

Southie?