OT: So are you blue eyed?

Interesting article

"Why blue-eyed boys (and girls) are so brilliant"

So - junk science or not?

Cheers

PeteS

It's because they're more spirit polarized:

Cheers! Rich

Probably - both of my brothers and my sister have blue eyes, and two out of three of them are total losers. [Of course, Rich, they're related to YOU! ]

I have hazel eyes, so I'm an outlier. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

They say that your eyes are a window into your soul, so hazel eyes means that you are only half full of brown stuff.

When you get full, your eyes will be brown.

-Chuck (Do I really need to put a smiley face on that?)

Sounds like BS to me. Worse, it sounds like racism; if not intentional then as a consequence of not correcting for social or economic factors

-- a strong factor for measuring as "smart" on rich folk's measuring sticks is to be a member of the rich folks club oneself, even if one is as dumb as a post (or Paris Hilton).

If you do a search on attention-deficit disorder (AKA ADD or ADHD) you'll find that there's a strong correlation with blond hair and blue eyes there, too. By that measure anyone with blue eyes is an unfocused, ditsy fool who can't stay on task.

There may be one specific trait of successful people that's correlated, but there are so many different variations in genetics and upbringing that it would be unwise to make sweeping conclusions.

Which? The article or the, so called, 'science'?

Unless you have some sort of misplaced 'religious faith' in the author, or publication, then the article is essentially useless from a scientific standpoint because it provides virtually nothing of the supposed 'science' (you see any *data* in there?) but, rather, their 'interpretation' of whatever the heck was actually said or done.

That makes it difficult to categorize the, so called, 'science' (since it isn't there) but if we're to go by the article's characterization then it's junk science because, even if we assume the 'data' was gathered properly and is valid in some way (a *hell* of an assumption), it appears to be based on the patently false premise that a statistical correlation indicates cause and effect. It doesn't and can't, despite the incredibly rampant improper use of it for that fallacious purpose.

Hell, even the title is nonsense. It claims to answer "Why blue-eyed boys (and girls) are so brilliant" when there's no such explanation, or theory, presented. As the quote from Joanna Rowe specifically says "It is just observed, rather than explained."

One is, then, simply left to wonder about the technique, parameters, data, and everything else, of the supposed 'observation'. And, btw, proposing there's a flaw in one or the other is just as valid as any other 'interpretation', especially since there's not even a proposed 'guess' at cause and effect to predispose one to accept it (which would also be a fallacy with the currently most popular exploiter of it being "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change').

The article is, however, typical of what all too often passes for 'science news'. I.E.useless junk and nonsensical 'conclusions'.

Oh, I knew some liberal would play the "race" card! After all, one main argument against the theory that races are actually different is that one might as well be bigoted about eye color. The assumption being that there are no general characteristics associated with eye color. And now this new 'science" blows that all out of the water! People may suddenly start to think that just maybe the races are different???

But the biggest kick in the butt is that my eyes aren't blue...and that could likely mean that all those things people have been saying about my intelligence level on Usenet just MIGHT be true!!!!!!