Anecdote: Some years ago I had a job that involved, for a period of about three months, an awful lot of reading. A coworker and I went off to various locations and spent the whole day reading contracts, most typically in a none-too-well lit conference room.
Then we went back to our office and tried to catch up on work that had accumulated in our inbaskets while we were out.
After a couple of weeks of this we both needed new glasses. She had glasses she only wore to drive; after this stint she needed them for everything. I’ve always been myopic, and I just needed things a bit sharper.
Not really. It simply requires you to accept that people get significantly consistent results on IQ tests. Which they do. Even if your score on IQ tests correlates to absolutely nothing at all other than what score you might expect to get on another IQ test, then it’s a consistent measure of your ability to score high on an IQ test. And if that ability correlates to myopia then the premise is valid.
You don’t have to buy into IQ as an indicator of anything wider for the premise to be valid.
I did a short research paper on eyesight a year back. From what I found, there is a recognized connection between an increase in activities that require close focusing and an increase in reported cases of myopia. The trait is primarily genetically predisposed, but using your eyes to focus on far away things more often can help offset it through physical conditioning of the lens structures in the eye. By spending most of your time staring at computer screens, cell phones, and books, you exacerbate any existing myopic condition. Marginal cases that didn’t previously require correction now do.
There are other contributing factors which have nothing to do with a direct connection as well. It may be connected to the fact that many people who lived with minor blurriness find it unacceptable when having to make out the fine detail of text associated with academic activities. An increase in education also correllates to an increase in the standard of living, which probably means more access to optomitrists, and more money available for exams and eyeglasses.
All my sources were based upon studies using statistics, and we all know about statistics. None of them had any basis in actual anatomical studies of the subjects, and myopia is an antomical abnormality.
I have to agree with what I think is your sentiment. If you pretend that you don’t see all of the self-serving anecdotes about high IQ, what you are left with is a lot of dribble not far removed from the level of argument you might see in favour of ‘intelligent design’, or whatever they are calling creationism nowadays.
Obviously, there is a strong genetic component to myopia. Equally obviously, there is also a strong environmental component. I saw reference to one study (no cite, unfortunately) that claimed that 70% of Indians living in Singapore were myopic, but only 10% of Indians in India suffer that condition.
But as myopia is basically caused by ‘long eyeballs’, this seems to be saying that close work (such as reading) while the eye is developing can affect its final shape. It’s hard to see exactly how that would occur, but the simple fact is that this appears to be the case.
It also seems a logical argument that, if you can’t see well at long distances and so don’t enjoy outdoor games so much, you might find indoor activities more pleasant, and if that leads to mental stimulation and higher IQ test scores, nobody could pretend much surprise.
If both myopia and high IQ have genetic components, and both are also ‘caused’ by reading a lot, then it is not a surprise to find that they are associated. It seems a big leap to then say that one ‘causes’ the other, in either direction. I don’t believe it.
That’s not necessarily true. The biggest rationale I’ve heard opponents of IQ tests use is that the tests assume certain cultural norms that may not be true of all test takers—usually I hear it stated that the tests are written from a white/middle class perspective and are not accurate particularly among lower socioeconomic class minorities, especially those for whom English is not their first language.
If that is the case, the fact that the test is consistant for any single test taker still does not allow you to generalize. At that point you’d have to ask if the taker was getting a lower score because that’s what their IQ actually was, or if it’s because they were misunderstanding the cultural cues inherent in the test itself. Myopia, I would be willing to bet, doesn’t care what your SEC or native language is.
For my part, I’ve only taken an IQ test once, but I noted a few culturally biased questions. The one that sticks out the most was a “what’s missing” picture—as I remember it, it was a picture of a house in winter, missing its chimney. I don’t know that someone who’d grown up in and around apartments all their life would even think to answer that.
Many in this thread have suggested that it may be related to activities that are culturally correlated.
Sorry, but without a cite I don’t believe you. That is not culturally biased: it’s totally irrational. Many modern houses even in cold climates don’t have chimneys.
You’re missing the point. You claimed that as long as the test was internally consistant for any given taker it can be generalized. My point is that opponents of the test claim that the difficulty is not for any single test-taker, but between groups of test-takers, limiting the ability to generalize.
In other words, the point is not “the test is culturally biased,” but “is it possible that internally consistant scores doesn’t mean validity/generalizability.”
No you. I didn’t say that. I don’t think you understand my point at all. No matter how pointless IQ testing is, no matter how culturally biased it is - and I’m not denying either of those things - if it measures something, anything at all (even if all it’s measuring is how middle class you are, or whether you have singularly stereotypical ideas about how houses are heated or what-the-hell ever) then if it consistently measures that, and it correlates to myopia, then it does and the OP is valid. Possibly pointless, useless and irrelevant. But valid.
Myopia: glasses in 2nd grade, coke bottles by fifth grade, no further deterioration after high school.
IQ: high (informal tests have indicated 140)
Hygiene: Fine now, but it was a long learning curve
Social skills: Mostly very good
I know a lot of myopic people who read tons, “discuss topics” (instead of talk about things), and float their pinkie above the rim of their glass when swigging their Genuine Spring Water. The bulk of them are idiots who cower behind futile, multi-syllabic discourses and iron clad academic references when their blow-harditude is challenged. Common sense tends to (figuratively) cleave whatever delusions this group clings to into a thick paste that pools at their feet.
I don’t have a cite for it–barring my accumulated life experience–but if I had to weigh two whole dollars against it, I’d say the greatest contributing and correlating factor in determining and evaluating individual intelligence is parental (or mentor) involvement at all stages of formal education, along with plenty of informal educational involvement besides. Mama didn’t raise no fool, as they say.
Of course, there’s exceptions to this. Parental/mentor absence (or spite) in the face of intellectual and educational development can actually be a motivating factor for an individual to promote and improve their levels of committment to, and involvement in, intellectually stimulating events and circumstances. And this one I do have a cite for; it’s called the After School Special.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that point. It’s in the school age development psychology text books and is a fact in my opinion. Unfortunately, the point is irrelavent to the question being discussed. From many statistical studies, there is a distinct connection between myopia, and IQ test scores or education. People here are simply brainstorming as to what that connection, or connections, might be. It doesn’t mean that being near sighted makes you more intelligent, or that being more intelligent makes you near sighted. It only suggests a statistical connection between the two. IMHO, that connection is probaly multi faceted. Each smaller contributing factor is probably tenuous in itself, but adds up.
This is probably one of the largest contributing factors. People tend to gravitate towards their strong talents. Bad eyes are a significant detriment to playing sports successfully. Anyone who thinks corective lenses make it all better has probably never tried to play while wearing them. Contact lenses are a bit better, but still have a tendancy to fold or move around under rapid eye movements and stinging sweat.
