Cecil has written about this, way back in 1992.
Who said you might? If your answer is Kerry’s joke, you’ve misinterpreted it.
Right away, I think that study is flawed. If a monkey’s eyes are sutured partially shut, I am guessing that that could affect the shape of the eyeball as much as the purported strain of seeing through the resulting slit. That one doesn’t convince me, anyway. But at this point, it seems that no one is able to create a compelling argument for causation in any direction (aside from the interesting supposition of evolutionary adaptation). Of course, I am partial to that one, being myopic and wearing glasses for it for the last 54 years.
They did a study at the Air Force Academy a few years ago, that found an increase in near sightedness in cadets during their time there. Partial cite. This seems to indicate that high IQ leads to myopia, and not the other way around.
I didn’t read it that way. Your cite took me to a meta-analysis of research done since 1812. Two points from their summary:
-
From 1812 to the present, myopia is much more prevalent among college students and young adult males who enter military officer training;
-
The prevalence of myopia has been correlated with level of family income, level of education of parents, reading ability, scholastic success, and intelligence.
We are still left with the question of causation. These studies only report on correlations. There are other points in their summary about the onset and development of myopia, but they do not appear to relate to this question. I see nothing that supports the case for causation in any direction.
I agree with WhyNot…I think it’s reading and other kinds of close work (such as needlework) that leads to nearsightedness. If you think about it, humans were not necessarily designed to do so much close-up seeing as we do in modern life. And it could very well be that high IQ is correlated with reading, which is why it may be correlated with nearsightedness, if you can assume that smarter people read more.
Anecdotal evidence from my family…the women (mom, sis, and I), are all BIG readers, and all nearsighted. the men (dad & 2 brothers) are not really readers, and they all have perfect eyesight. The funny thing about it is that I and one of my brothers are adopted (and not blood related to each other), so genetics doesn’t seem to be clearly a factor. Also, we all have very similar IQs, so that doesn’t seem to be clearly a factor, either. The one thing the nearsighted people in my family seem to have in common that the others don’t is an hour or two of reading every day.
I’ve seen this assertion in several posts now. Nearsighted people read more. Since we have been using spectacles - 150 years or so - people have been able to correct the imperfections in their vision. Consequently, near and far-sighted people have had the capacity to see both near and far whenever they need to. And both near and far-sighted people read, either with corrective lenses or without. I believe this is a faulty piece of logic in this question of causation. I don’t even know if anyone has any credible evidence that near-sighted people read more than far-sighted people. By that reasoning, would you say that far-sighted people gaze into the distance more than near-sighted people? I don’t think so. I still think this one’s up for grabs until someone comes up with a plausible causative agent in one direction or the other. I’m starting to think more and more that both characteristics, higher intelligence and myopia, may be caused by another agent.
I’m nearsighted in one eye and farsighted in the other. Dumb on one side and smart on the other? I always knew I was half-assed, but, now this?
Oh yeah? Well I’m way myopicker than you.
I have early onset cataracts - one has been replaced with an artificial lense, the other is clouding over. I’m now far sighted in one eye - does this mean my IQ will drop??
And all this talk about IQ, what about EQ - argueably as important as IQ in today’s world. What about a correlation between eyesight and EQ?
Sorry to read about your cataracts.
But as a complete hijack… is your replacement lens transparent to ultraviolet light? I have read a site that claims that the human retina is sensitive to UV light, but that the normal human lens blocks it.
Have you seen any new colours lately?
Like lots of other things, eyesight quality seems to be a combination of environment and genetics. I’m not sure I buy any solid correlation between eyesight and IQ. The whole IQ thing is problematic to begin with anyway, and I’m not sure how many kids who are underprivileged but smart either receive IQ tests or glasses. If you’re only pulling from middle class or higher populations, you’d probably get skewed figures.
Not many of the smart kids in my classes when I was a kid needed glasses (average of about 3-4 in a class of 25 if my memory can be trusted). The same was true of my AP classes in high school. I can’t remember many of the smart people around me needing glasses at all. Of course, I don’t have old yearbooks around to jog my memory either, so my memory could be at fault too.
On one side of my family there’s a history of farsightedness and colorblindness, none of them are particularly smart. The other side has at least 3 family members with serious astigmatism. One of my relatives on that side with the worst sight unquestionably has the lowest intelligence. On the other hand, my grandmother, who was practically blind without glasses even when she was a kid, was probably one of the smartest people I’ve met. Mixed results there.
My two sisters and I have perfect vision. I test out at about 3 SD from the average on IQ tests. My sisters didn’t stand out enough to need tests, but are at least average to perhaps above average, judging from their grades in school.
I think that there’s probably no real correlation between eyesight and IQ. I’d look pretty hard at the methodology and the strength of the correlation in studies that assert one. I’m willing to bet that any correlation they find will be tenuous but hyped to make it look better than it is. There are probably a multitude of other things that have stronger correlations to intelligence than eyesight.
Another WAG to toss in there. As a child I couldn’t quite see everything on the board at school. My teachers tended to say what they were writing up as it was put there. Consequently I became very good at memorising large chunks of information in case I was called on to answer a question or read what was written. Perhaps it was my adaptation to short-sightedness which resulted in my higher IQ.
No - my lens is standard issue - one size, one colour fits all. The artificial lens is more light sensitive and doesn’t ‘bend’ like a natural one, so takes time for me to focus if a quick change of light - shopping malls are a pain because of this, but you get used to it. There is a much more expensive lens newly on the market which is more like a bifocal - mine was done on national health and the new lens is only available to those who pay privately. I haven’t met anyone with it, so don’t know how much better it is than mine. I hate not being able to see up close, but then those who wear glasses have absolutely no sympathy for me!
Oh, forgot to add that because of the artificial lens being more light sensitive, I need to wear sunglasses outside, but then in NZ, we need to do this anyway due to lack of ozone and bright sunshine much of the year.
Mine is as well but my eye-sight is normal. I don’t think anecdotes are going to be very helpful unless we’d like to conduct a scientific experiment. The Dope would be the place to gather subjects, though.
While not exactly what I read once long ago, this proposition suggests the nearsighted comes first, not as a result of higher IQ.
The idea I remember hearing about is that in childhood, before a child is diagnosed as have poor eyesight, nearsighted children tend to turn to more close-up and inward pursuits, such as reading or drawing, because it falls more easily into their field of vision. They shy away from activities, such as outdoor games, because the world is more blurry far away.
Always made sense to me.
there was an interesting article in discover mag. years ago. myopia is at higher levels now than in the past.
they did a study in alaska, because they were seeing an increase of myopia amoung the kids. the town was small enough and remote enough that it did not have electricity until somewhat recently. they found that children born after electric lights had myopia when relatives who were born before did not.
the constant light even at a low level (night lights) was thought to be a factor.
purely anecdotal but my parents and their siblings and spouses were not myopic. my dad and one uncle were farsighted. all ended up with presbyopia. they all grew up in non-electrified houses.
the kids they had, born pre baby boom (ie went through ww2 as young kids with black outs), only need reading glasses as they age.
the late boomers (1959 and later)who had well lit houses with night lights; only 3 out 15 of are not myopic.
light must have some sort of factor.
Update: The latest issue of Mankind Quarterly presents evidence for a gene that causes both myopia and increased intelligence:
http://www.mankindquarterly.org/spring_summer2009_karlsson.html
The premise, of course, assumes you buy into “IQ.”
All I know is I’m very nearsighted, and I’m so smart that my brain hurts.