Never mind eyesight, it’s all about the index finger:ring finger length ratio.
Wikipedia can now “hear about” something?
That’s it then. The machine has become sentient.
Define “buy into”. Personally, I think IQ tests are grossly overrated, way too computation-centric and for some bizarre reason seen as some sort of success-o-meter when they are clearly not, but that doesn’t have to invalidate the premise. At the very least, they do give a solid comparison of people’s computational skills so there’s still a fascinating correlation with myopia there, no?
IQ is overrated but it does correlate with job performance, salary (to a certain extent), and it negatively correlates with juvenile delinquency. (That is, having a high IQ means one is less likely to end up in juvenile hall or a similar institution.)
The Wikipedia article can be used to track down cites for all I said above.
Right! It’ll have to come out, then!
Are you the brain doctor?
Here’s a study from Australia that finds a link between nearsightedness and time spent outdoors. The less time a child spends outside, in daylight, the more likely they will have vision problems. It makes a certain amount of sense, our bodies are designed to be outside all the time. With the advent of electric light we spend a lot more time inside, at much lower light levels, and our eyes attempt to compensate, becoming misshapen.
As with so many of those studies, the causation could just as easily go the other direction.
I didn’t like going outside much when I was a kid. Glasses weren’t allowed at the local pool, and I couldn’t see shit without them. I nearly broke a pair once playing soccer, not to mention that it hurt like hell to have the impact of the ball against my frames and face. One of my my lenses once popped out when I got hit playing basketball. Etc. etc. etc.
That journal looks kind of weird to me. Many of the articles seem slightly crackpotish, and are written in a style that’s inappropriate for an academic article. The journal is published by the Council for Social and Economic Studies, which appears to have no website of its own, and submission to the journal is via an AOL address.
Wait a minute, wouldn’t even slight myopia more naturally lead to preference for reading than other activities, rather than reading leading to myopia? 
If your eyes get tired from trying to focus at things, wouldn’t you naturally gravitate towards activities that involved near focusing?
Myopic here. IQ: 141. FWIW.
If I posted that I read that there’s a correlation between IQ and a lack of hygiene and social skills, I wonder if the thread would be filled with as many “anecdotes”?
A valid point… in fact, I think we just may find such a correlation if we get into it. Personally, I have a solid -8.5 eyesight, smell like hair and body fat and am generally thought of as an infinite source of prickishness and knowitallism.
FWIW, I played sports as a child. I surfed a lot (practically lived at the beach), played basketball and football when younger. I also added paddling, wrestling and bowling throughout various high school years as well. As a result, I caught the bus a lot going back and forth to practice and while I was a reader before, I really got into it in high shcool while waiting for my bus. I’ve never had a problem with motion sickness and read often on the bus as well. I got to the point where I was averaging 1 to 2 books a week. I’ve also had glasses since the 6th grade and my IQ tests in the 140s.
Sorry, and by needing glasses I meant near sighted.
Near-sighted people are, on average, smarter than the cohort which is not near-sighted. Since intelligence potential is largely inherited, the obvious conclusion is that the cohort of near-sighted people have a higher prevalence of the gene(s) coding for higher intelligence.
It is correct that a higher IQ is not a guarantee of success. But, on average, the smarter do better than the less smart, and on average, wealth and success correlate positively with IQ of individuals and populations (Paris Hilton notwithstanding).
I suspect myopia is more likely to be genetic than acquired; if so then the genes coding for it tend to migrate with the ones yielding a high IQ potential, or they are part of the same gene group.
Let me get my glasses and I’ll look into it. Sounds like bullshit.
My ears still work just fine.
I am sooo near-sighted, but I think I might be an out-lier.
I’ve detailed it elsewhere on the Board, but as an undergraduate I did part-time work for the campus office of the Texas Commission for the Blind. One client I helped was a lady working on her PhD in Psychology. This lady was no dummy. Blind from birth, she already had a doctorate in English and had been a fully tenured professor at a small Kansas school when she decided to give it up and go into Psychology. Her research had to do with IQ tests. My job was to help her score them after they had been administered. She warned me at the time that by working with these tests, I could not legitimately take an IQ test myself for x number of years – I think it was 5 years – and be able to consider the results valid, which was okay by me, as I’ve never had any interest in taking an IQ test.
Especially not after having worked with her. Her research caused her to believe firmly that IQ scores were bogus. I regret that I cannot remember any further specifics about her research – this was many decades ago – but she turned me into a non-believer, I’ll tell ya.
I am horribly myopic, and an evil genius.
YMMV.
IQ 141, myopic, clean but untidy, and socially awkward. 