I’ve often heard scientists rather glibly point to nearsighted people as an example of human degradation. Now that we no longer have to hunt for our food, the thinking goes, natural selection is letting all kinds of defective examples of humanity survive and reproduce. Myopics are always singled out first.
I ‘m biased, since I can’t see the big E on the eye chart, but I can’t help wondering if there’s more to the story. One interesting thing about nearsightedness is that most of us aren’t born that way. I saw quite well before I learned to read, but it was all downhill after that.
Today a kind reader sent me a discussion he was having with some science-oriented, nearsighted friends about a possible connection between myopia and high IQ. A paper written by a Polish team found such a correlation. I had never heard of this before, but it seems plausible that reading hundreds of books could have a positive effect on IQ and a deleterious effect on vision. Apparently, however, the authors of this paper tried to correct for number of books read. Here’s what they found:
Are children with myopia more intelligent? A literature review.
Czepita D, Lodygowska E, Czepita M.
Source
Katedra i Klinika Okulistyki Pomorskiej Akademii Medycznej w Szczecinie al. Powstańców Wlkp. 72, 70-111 Szczecin.
Abstract
PURPOSE:
Refractive errors are a serious worldwide problem. So far a few papers have described the relationship between refractive errors and intelligence. However, based on the growing interest into the relationship between refractive errors and intelligence quotient (IQ) we decided to present and discuss the latest results of the clinical studies on that subject.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
A review of the literature concerning the relationship between refractive errors and IQ was done.
RESULTS:
In 1958 Nadell and Hirsch found that children in America with myopia have a higher IQ. A similar relationship has been described by other researchers from the USA, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Israel, New Zealand, and Singapore. In other related studies, it was reported that myopic children regardless of their IQ gain better school achievements--table 1. It was also observed that schoolchildren with hyperopia have a lower IQ and gain worse school achievements--table 2. Several hypotheses explaining the relationship between refractive errors and intelligence have been published. Recently, Saw et al. concluded that higher IQ may be associated with myopia, independent of books read per week, in schoolchildren. According to them "the association between genetically driven IQ and myopia of hereditary predisposition could be forged because of a pleiotropic relationship between IQ and myopia in which the same causal factor is reflected in both genetic traits. There may be similar genes affecting eye size or growth (associated with myopia) and neocortical size (possibly associated with IQ)".
CONCLUSIONS:
The conducted clinical observations suggest that children with myopia may have a higher IQ. This relationship is most probably determined by genetic and environmental factors.
This will make a great topic to research for a column. The discussion among my readers also delved into the problems extremely myopic people often have with sports that involve a ball flying through the air, and the tendency to classify cross country running as a nerd sport. Apparently there’s some data showing that among high school athletes, cross country runners have the highest GPAs.
I also wonder whether we know being nearsighted was so deadly for hunter-gatherers, since it’s not clear everyone in a tribe had to hunt or gather. Anthropologists say our species was wearing clothes or ornamentation for tens of thousands of years, and in Europe, people needed good clothes for survival. And humans have been dividing labor as long as we’ve been human. So even back in the hunter/gatherer days, someone who was good at sewing clothes might have been saved from having to hunt or gather. Without my glasses or contacts I can thread the tiniest needle in seconds. It would be interesting to know if there are nearsighted hunter-gatherers today, and if so, do they work as artists, perhaps, or clothing-makers.
As a nearsighted individual, I will weigh in on the fact that when I first began to wear eyeglasses (age eight), my mother was told it was because I apparently sat too close to the television set (a distinct possibility). As I entered school, I quickly became accustomed to the "nerd" jokes, and whether it was coincidence or not, I did enter an accelerated program, called "Opportunity School" at age nine. Talk about ridicule; we were known as "hopper-stoppers" (!) That, I could tolerate, but please don't make me recall the dreaded Dodge Ball/Basketball games. I swear, I was like some sort of magnet for that "fun" spherical projectile. Countless pairs of glasses were crushed, and any "smarts" I may have had at the beginning of the games were surely knocked out of me by the end. As I age, though, I almost find it a boon for tasks close at hand - yes, I do my embroidery, read, and de-tangle jewelry, all without the aid of my specs. While my fellow "boomers" are putting glasses on for the tiny tasks, I am taking them off! Even with bifocals, it's easier without. So I guess, back in the day, my "infirmity" may have indeed saved me - safely sewing skins in my little hut, instead of not being some big beasts dinner!— fineprintJK1- Sorry, a typo there in the last sentence - see I should have taken my glasses off to type!— fineprintJK1
- I wore glasses from 4th grade, but I think my bookishness predated the need for corrective lenses. At 60, I had cataracts removed, making me 20/20 with artificial implants, but I haven't become a troglodyte--I'm still a reflective guy. My question is, does Lasik dumb one down?— jxxphilly
- For what it's worth, I wore no glasses until I was 16, when i realized I was myopic. Since then it's been all downhill. But were I to have been a member of an early hunter-gatherer troop, I might well have already sired a couple of kids by the time I turned 16, True I might have been less able to defend my clan, but once the kids reached their mid teens evolutionary pressure would have declined sharply. And, of course, myopia—or cataracts, with which i'm coping now—at my current age, 73, would exert no evolutionary pressure and be wholly irrelevant to it.— Keanus
In pursuit of her stories, writer Faye Flam has weathered storms in Greenland, gotten frost nip at the South Pole, and floated weightless aboard NASA’s zero-g plane. She has a degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology and started her writing career with the Economist. She later took on the particle physics and cosmology beat at Science Magazine before coming to the Inquirer in 1995. Her previous science column, “Carnal Knowledge,” ran from 2005 to 2008. Her new column and blog, Planet of the Apes, explores the topic of evolution and runs here and in the Inquirer’s health section each Monday. Email Faye at fflam@phillynews.com.Tony Auth, illustrator
Tony Auth graduated from UCLA with a degree in biological illustration. He was chief medical illustrator at a large teaching hospital in southern California before joining the Inquirer as staff editorial cartoonist in 1971. Like all practicing political cartoonists, he’s gotten more than his share of both awards and hate mail. Over the years Tony has written and/or illustrated eleven children’s books.
- John Hawks' weblog
- Pharyngula
- The Primate Diaries in Exile
- Evolution for Everyone David Sloan Wilson
- Why Evolution is True
- Abstract | Philly
- Not Exactly Rocket Science Discover Magazine
- Bad Astronomy Discover Magazine
- Academy of Natural Sciences
- National Center for Science Education
- Understanding Evolution University of California Berkeley
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
