There’s a lot of stupid research around (and I use the word “stupid” advisedly). There’s so much of it, that I think to the “tech boom” and the “housing boom” we could add the “academic study boom”. And like the other two it appears to be the result of too much money chasing too few goods.
The stupidest I’ve seen for some time is this one which claims to show that more intelligent people drink more alcohol than less intelligent people. They claim to control for social class and income amongst other things and advance the thesis that:
Drinking alcohol is evolutionarily novel, so the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent people drink more alcohol than less intelligent people.
So people who do things that our ancestors more than 10,000 years ago (the time horizon they use as the benchmark for what is “evolutionarily novel”) didn’t do are more intelligent than the rest of us? Putting aside the issue that the evidence for use of psychotropic drugs goes back beyond that time horizon, does that mean that smokers are more intelligent than the rest, or people who drive cars and fly in aeroplanes?
You can have a bit of fun putting stupid research results together. For example there have been other research projects recently claiming that higher IQ individuals are more likely to vote left-wing than the average, or that “climate change denial” is a mental disorder.
All of which seems to suggest, controlling for social class and income, that heavier drinkers are more likely to vote Labor and believe in climate change. Which is just as likely to be true as the studies, but not likely to be true at all.