Glasses = superior nonverbal intelligence

[Anonymous No.4098807]

>dat feel when myopia
>but then:

After controlling for age, gender, school, parental myopia, father’s education, and books read per week, myopia (spherical equivalent [SE]) of at least −0.5 D was associated with high nonverbal IQ (highest quartile) versus low IQ (lowest quartile) (odds ratio = 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.7–3.4). Controlling for the same factors, children with higher nonverbal IQ scores had significantly more myopic refractions (−1.86 D for children with nonverbal IQ in the highest quartile compared with −1.24 D for children with nonverbal IQ in the lowest quartile; P = 0.002) and longer axial lengths (24.06 mm versus 23.80 mm; P = 0.022). Nonverbal IQ accounted for a greater proportion of the variance in refraction compared with books read per week.

http://www.iovs.org/content/45/9/2943.full

>feels good man

[Anonymous No.4098810]

It's because you ruin your eyes by staring at books all days.

[Anonymous No.4098816]

>perfect vision
>exceptional intelligence
welp

[Anonymous No.4098817]

>>4098810
Correlation does not imply causation. It could be that people with higher IQs tend to read more books (and myopia could be a factor in higher IQ).

Also,

>Nonverbal IQ accounted for a greater proportion of the variance in refraction compared with books read per week.

The point you made was discussed at length in the paper linked in the OP.

[Anonymous No.4098825]

>>4098817
>Correlation does not imply causation.

Except when it makes sense. Let's see

My hypothesis: your eyes are bad because you work them too hard.
Your hypothesis: I'm smart because I have bad eyesight.

Yeah...

[Anonymous No.4098838]

>>4098825
Your hypothesis: your eyes are bad because you work them too hard.

My hypothesis: Myopia is a causative factor for high IQ. High IQ people tend to do things like study or read books, creating an illusion of causation from "reading too much." This is supported by the study posted above.

[Anonymous No.4098844]

>>4098838
>Myopia is a causative factor for high IQ

That is to say

>I'm smart because I have bad eyesight

which makes no sense.

While, on the other hand, eye exertion has been proven times and times again to have a negative effect on eyesight.

[Anonymous No.4098847]

>>4098825
I should also add that myopia is highly heritable.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u5h6512012708574/

[Anonymous No.4098854]

>>4098844
>I'm smart because I have bad eyesight

No, what I am saying is that bad eyesight (genetic myopia) is part of why some person is smart.

If the myopia is acquired, then I am ignoring it for these purposes, looking only at inherited/genetic cases of myopia.

[Anonymous No.4098887]

bump for my superiority over you plebs

[Anonymous No.4098905]

>>4098807

Whether you're born with or acquire bad eyesight, facial asymmetry, tendency for overweight etc., those aren't the direct causes for higher intelligence - they usually reduce the likelihood of that person to be socially accepted and likeable, which means he will be less popular, have less friends and enjoy less outdoor activities; so he is more likely to resort to reading, watching informative shows and generally acquiring knowledge in order to achieve a feeling of superiority to compensate for low self-esteem. Which is also why women are less likely to be intelligent and/or hold personal opinions - they are much more likely to be kept in the female hierarchy even when socially abused (and less likely to leave on their own since to them the necessary tools to survive and prosper social acceptance, emotional manipulation and good looks).

This is why most intelligent men I've met were unpopular and solitary as children, and why all intelligent women I've met either are, or were hideously ugly.

[Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB No.4098912]

http://www.khanacademy.org/video/correlation-and-causality?playlist=Statistics

[Anonymous No.4098929]

>>4098905
No, this study debunks that idea. Correlation != causation. The paper suggests in the Discussion section that since myopia is genetic, there may be some pleiotropic (one gene affecting many different traits) interactions--i.e., the myopia gene also has effects on the brain. Nonverbal IQ can explain more of myopia variation than can reading frquency. Read, the results speak for themselves:

>In this study, a model with known predictive factors of myopia, including books read per week and nonverbal IQ, only describes 11.6% of the variance in refractive error. The known “conventional” risk factors may have a minimal role in explaining who becomes myopic and the degree of refractive error. For example, the role of reading may not be large, and the strength of associations from prior studies in the United States and in the SCORM study are not particularly strong.

(1/2) second post coming

[Anonymous No.4098933]

>>4098929
>Nonverbal IQ is associated with both myopia (SE at least −0.5 D) and higher myopia (SE at least −3.0 D). The findings of a prior report revealed that higher myopia (SE at least −3.0 D) was associated with books read per week, after controlling for other factors except IQ. Our study shows that higher myopia (SE at least −3.0 D), but not myopia (SE at least −0.5 D) remains significantly associated with books read per week, after controlling for all other factors, including IQ.11 Nonverbal IQ contributed to a greater variance in refraction compared with books read per week. This suggests that nonverbal IQ may contribute more to the risk of myopia and the association between books read per week and higher myopia may be partially explained by nonverbal IQ. In other words, books read per week may be a surrogate for nonverbal IQ.

Let's repeat one part for emphasis:
>Nonverbal IQ contributed to a greater variance in refraction compared with books read per week.
>Nonverbal IQ contributed to a greater variance in refraction compared with books read per week.
>Nonverbal IQ contributed to a greater variance in refraction compared with books read per week.
>Nonverbal IQ contributed to a greater variance in refraction compared with books read per week.
>Nonverbal IQ contributed to a greater variance in refraction compared with books read per week.
>Nonverbal IQ contributed to a greater variance in refraction compared with books read per week.
>Nonverbal IQ contributed to a greater variance in refraction compared with books read per week.
>Nonverbal IQ contributed to a greater variance in refraction compared with books read per week.
>Nonverbal IQ contributed to a greater variance in refraction compared with books read per week.
>Nonverbal IQ contributed to a greater variance in refraction compared with books read per week.

[Anonymous No.4098940]

>>4098929
I just want you to know that Of Matters Great and Small is my favorite book ever. I went into it expecting some cool robot stuff, then it made me appreciate science as a whole.

[Anonymous No.4098941]

>>4098912
Fucking tripcunt, at least read the OP. This study seeks out the TRUE CAUSATION, looking beyond the PSEUDO CORRELATION to which most people IRL and even ITT subscribe.

MYOPIA GENE --> HIGHER IQ --> HIGHER LIKELIHOOD TO READ

Not:
reading a lot --> myopia --> "hurr durr ur smart just cos u reeded"

[Anonymous No.4098946]

>>4098912
Biologists just love the term 'psedoreplication' even though they have not a clue what it means. Anytime they can't grasp a subject or dislike it, it is deemed psuedoreplication.

[Anonymous No.4098956]

>Glasses = superior nonverbal intelligence

It's pretty easy to figure out why that is so, OP. People's lives revolve around how they look. They are generally stereotyped by how they look aswell. There is plenty of evidence for this. A tall nautrally slender woman who is attractive will be more than likely drawn to modelling because of her stereotype. A person who is naturally muscular may be drawn to bodybuilding or power lifting because of their stereotype. An ugly person may and generally is introverted because of their appearance which will allow them or may allow them to concentrate on working harder at school because it's all they have going for them, they won't be a model or a bodybuilder. Don't get mad at this because it's true, how many scientists do you know who are ugly? A lot. The stereotype of being ugly is similar to that of needing glasses. Most people think or learn at a young age that people who wear glasses are nerds from the media, now this person may or may not be effected by this. If they are affected then they could end up like an ugly person who puts more emphasis on their education. Since society is pretty moronic it is safe to assume that a lot of people with glasses where teased as children and this probably made them introverted, which lead to their academic success. Their academic success lead to them doing better on IQ tests.

[Anonymous No.4098964]

You haven't copy-pasted enough, here let me help:

>Nonverbal IQ contributed to a greater variance in refraction compared with books read per week

Like in all social studies you (and they) assume that you can reduce all human interaction to a single variable - in this case BOOK.

> mfw we don't live in the 15th century
> mfw books aren't the only source of information in the world and that by controlling this variable you haven't eliminated or minimized the effects of all others
> mfw I haven't read many books but watched the history channel, national geographic, the science channel, discovery channel, documentaries and old recorded historical documentaries, had discussions with my parents and older family members, joined clubs, went on holiday trips to various locations and heard lectures by an instructor, read offline and online magazines (when internet connection became available), and mostly had time to myself to put things together.
> mfw you will still claim the controlled interfering variables in this study correctly represent the only "meaningful" influences on a growing child and that the rest are negligible, and that linear regression can eliminate such effects.
> mfw I'm an assistant in a psychological study as a mandatory step in my degree and I learn and witness first-hand how this is all done and how the researcher brutally rapes the data until it gives up and fits nicely into the paradigm.
> mfw I can also greentext

[Anonymous No.4098967]

>>4098964

> oh, and this is mfw

[Anonymous No.4098976]

>>4098956
its true i think. i was a nerd in school not only because i was smart but because i started puberty later than my peers due to being the youngest in my class
i bet everyone who had a nerdy solitary childhood here can relate to that in some way

[Anonymous No.4098995]

>>4098956
>>4098964
How are people this dumb?

What is this? Has postmodernism, relativism, or whatever completely ruined people's minds past the point of reading research and forming a hypothesis without bullshitting around Occam's razor?

Just take a look at the study. I'll sort this out into fact vs. speculation:

FACT:
1. Myopia is highly heritable and genetic. Environmental effects are minimal.
2. Individuals with myopia have higher average nonverbal IQ scores.
3. Nonverbal IQ, more so than number of books read, can predict myopia.
Read the study for more.

SPECULATION:
1. The gene(s) for myopia interact with the brain to increase nonverbal intelligence.

That's it. Myopia doesn't come from "straining your eyes by reading books," for the most part, because it is highly heritable.

As for the higher nonverbal IQ, people have suggested that this merely comes from alienation or being stereotyped for having glasses. This may be true, but there is no actual evidence for it. Moreover, this requires a lot of assumptions. It omits to establish that "being stereotyped" or "being alienated" can INCREASE nonverbal intelligence in any statistically significant way.

The genetic hypothesis has a lot more support here.

[Anonymous No.4098996]

\sqrt{what}

[Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB No.4099003]

>>4098946
What the hell are you talking about? I posted a link to a Khan Academy lecture discussing the differences between correlation and causation. The video does not address the topic of replication (pseudo or otherwise) in any way. In fact, this study seems to do a decent job generating true replicates for analysis.

[Anonymous No.4099005]

>>4099003
Khan Academy is soft. Never link to it again on /sci/ please. Link to something more rigorous in the future.

[Anonymous No.4099007]

>>4099005
You don't need rigor for anything khan academy teaches really

[Anonymous No.4099016]

Asian = Glasses = Mr. Smarts?

[Anonymous No.4099042]

>>4098995

You call critics of this study 'dumb', yet you seem to agree that correlation between both variables equals causation, and although the study has no genetic evidence you still jump to the conclusion that there must be one.
Here, let me lay this down for you:

1. correlation found between variable A (which is hereditary) and variable B (which is the product of interactions of countless genes, and no single gene has ever been found to directly control or adjust it). [so far so good]

2. The ability of variable B to predict variable A means they are directly causally connected. [you're an idiot:]
- false assumptions:
1. Correlation = Causation
2. All interfering variables have been neutralized
3. Linear regressive models for human behavior represent actual phenomena in the world
- If you believe any of the above please avoid higher education.

3. Due to the heredity of variable A (see 1), and its direct connection with variable B (see 2), we can assume the two are controlled by the same genetic mechanism.
- This is AT LEAST an argument from analogy and generally bad science, and unless you have good evidence to back this up (and I mean, showing that the same gene that controls myopia also bring a sharp increase in IQ regardless of ALL other variables in the subject's life), you are not allowed to have any such leaps in logic.

And you have yet to address my point here,
>>4098964
that the "controlled" interfering variable of "Books" is meaningless in modern society, and therefore cannot account for self-education - for instance, due to social alienation caused by stigmatized look (wearing glasses).

[Anonymous No.4099107]

>>4099042
>1. correlation found between variable A (which is hereditary) and variable B (which is the product of interactions of countless genes, and no single gene has ever been found to directly control or adjust it). [so far so good]
>which is the product of interactions of countless genes, and no single gene has ever been found to directly control or adjust it
Yes, intelligence is polygenic. Nowhere did I deny that.
>2. The ability of variable B to predict variable A means they are directly causally connected. [you're an idiot:]
hurr durr ad hominem
>- false assumptions:
>2. All interfering variables have been neutralized
Not "all" of the possible interfering variables. It did control for book reading, gender, age, gender, school, and father’s education. I don't see any other confounding variables beyond these that would possibly INCREASE nonverbal intelligence. Seriously, alienation and other such possible (speculated) outcomes of myopia have not been proven to increase intelligence.
>3. Linear regressive models for human behavior represent actual phenomena in the world
Whoa, that is very broad. And it's not even fucking relevant. The study didn't map behavior; the study focused on quantitative IQ scores. Nonverbal IQ scores are not behavior. They are biological traits. If you didn't already know, for adults, one gets very close to or same score on an IQ test even if they take it again a decade later (with an r=0.87). That's not behavior. Since IQ is so reliable, we can very comfortably say that their statistical patterns reflect real world phenomena.
>- If you believe any of the above please avoid higher education.
No true Scotsman. How very educated of you.

[Anonymous No.4099108]

>>4099107

>3. Due to the heredity of variable A (see 1), and its direct connection with variable B (see 2), we can assume the two are controlled by the same genetic mechanism.
That is an insult if you believe that I thought intelligence was entirely dependent on the different versions of the myopia gene. There are tons of genes that can influence intelligence. MYOPIA IS JUST ONE OF THEM. Being one of many variables, myopia can increase nonverbal IQ by a certain amount (around 5 points). In a study of Israeli soldiers, the prevalence of myopia for those with IQs of 80 or below was only 8%. For those with IQs over 128, the prevalence was 27.8%. This is a positive linear relationship. This, as I have established earlier, is a clear indication of the association.

Myopia is a genetic condition (as is IQ for the most part). Since we are examining two genetic traits, we can apply Occam's razor and to arrive at the likely genetic hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.4099112]

>- This is AT LEAST an argument from analogy and generally bad science, and unless you have good evidence to back this up (and I mean, showing that the same gene that controls myopia also bring a sharp increase in IQ regardless of ALL other variables in the subject's life), you are not allowed to have any such leaps in logic.

It's not a leap in logic for the reasons exhaustively stated.

As for "showing that the same gene that controls myopia also bring a sharp increase in IQ regardless of ALL other variables in the subject's life": This sounds an awful lot like "find all transitional fossils before we can believe you!" Fun fact: We don't know any of the major genes for human height. But does this lead us to diminish the heritability of human height--or its pleiotropic relationship to foot size?

>And you have yet to address my point here, that the "controlled" interfering variable of "Books" is meaningless in modern society, and therefore cannot account for self-education - for instance, due to social alienation caused by stigmatized look (wearing glasses).

Where is the evidence that "social alienation" can increase nonverbal intelligence? Your post was also loaded with anecdotal and folksy reasoning that doesn't really hold weight.

Ah, you hold up the IQ-myopia connection to strict standards and chastise me for bad science, yet make broad and unfalsifable assumptions. Classy.

[Anonymous No.4099772]

bump

[Anonymous No.4099814]

Bump for science

[Anonymous No.4101102]

y u no liek my thrad

[Anonymous No.4102763]

GET IN MY THREAD YOU FAGETS