If you wear glasses I’ve got some good news: you may well be smarter than the average person. A new study published in the journal Nature Communications has found that needing to wear glasses is associated with higher levels of intelligence. But you probably knew that already.
In the study, the largest of its kind ever conducted, researchers from the University of Edinburgh analyzed cognitive and genetic data from over 300,000 people aged between 16 and 102 that had been gathered by the UK Biobank and the Charge and Cogent consortia. Their analysis found “significant genetic overlap between general cognitive function, reaction time, and many health variables including eyesight, hypertension, and longevity”. Specifically, people who were more intelligent were almost 30% more likely to have genes which might indicate they’d need to wear glasses.
While being more intelligent may be linked to poor eyesight, it’s also connected with a lot of positive health benefits. Researchers found negative correlations between cognitive function and a number of health problems, including angina, lung cancer and depression.
Of course, it’s important to remember that these are all simply correlations not conclusive links. And it’s worth noting that what constitutes intelligence is subjective and can be difficult, if not impossible, to measure. Further, linking intelligence to DNA can quickly lead into bogus “race science”.
Forget genetics though – there’s plenty of empirical evidence that wearing glasses, whether you need them or not, makes people think you are more intelligent. A number of studies have found people who wear glasses are perceived as smarter, more dependable, industrious and honest. Which is why a lot of defense lawyers get their clients to wear glasses at trial. As lawyer Harvey Slovis explained to New York magazine: “Glasses soften their appearance so that they don’t look capable of committing a crime. I’ve tried cases where there’s been a tremendous amount of evidence, but my client wore glasses and got acquitted. The glasses create a kind of unspoken nerd defense.”
It’s not just defense lawyers who use glasses as a stage prop. Glasses are regularly used as shorthand in pop culture to connote that their wearer is intelligent. In the case of women, there’s also a well-worn “ugly girl who removes her glasses and is revealed to be beautiful” trope. Isaac Asimov has a wonderful critique of this in his essay The Cult of Ignorance. In the essay, which went viral when it was tweeted by an appreciative reader last year, Asimov writes: “The glasses are not literally glasses. They are merely a symbol, a symbol of intelligence. The audience is taught two things; (a) Evidence of extensive intelligence is a social hindrance and causes unhappiness; (b) Formal education is unnecessary, can be minimised at will and the resulting limited intellectual development leads to happiness.”
While America hasn’t changed much when it comes to its suspicion of intellectuals, the symbolism of glasses has begun to shift. Prescription-less glasses have become something of a fashion accessory, worn by people who want to look sophisticated or cool. Not everyone is impressed though – GQ called wearing fake glasses “bottom-of-the-barrel hipster behavior”. However, that hasn’t stopped a lot of celebs from enthusiastically scraping the bottom of that barrel. Justin Bieber is just one high-profile fan of fashion glasses. I’m quite the belieber in his sophisticated-glasses look, even if some may say he’s making a spectacle of himself.
Since you’re here …
… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.
I appreciate there not being a paywall: it is more democratic for the media to be available for all and not a commodity to be purchased by a few. I’m happy to make a contribution so others with less means still have access to information. Thomasine, Sweden
Thank you to the many people who have already supported us financially – your contribution is what makes stories like you’ve just read possible. We increasingly need our readers to fund our work so that we can continue holding power to account and producing fearless journalism.
For as little as £1, you can support the Guardian – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.
View all comments >
comments (486)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.
I can prove the truthfulness of this article. I have been wearing glasses since I was 4 (72 years ago) and have told my wife many times how smart I am. She (who is 70 has been wearing glasses for only about 6 years) doesn't believe me!
Why all the American spellings in this article? See: “defense,” “analyzed,” etc. The Grauniad has a maddening lack of consistent application when it comes to its own style guide. One article you read is in British English, the next is in American English, then the next one is in Australian English...
Analyse v Analyze is an Oxford vs Cambridge difference, not English vs American.
My eyes have seen the glory.......reading the G without glasses.
Wearing glasses may really mean you're smarter, major study finds...
I have to wear two pairs, not at the same time mind... I work two jobs to pay me debts, life is tough being a Rocket-Scientist and a Brain-Surgeon.
I wear glasses, but if I'm so smart how come I ain't rich?
short-sighted investments are a bitch.
You are not rich because you are not dishonest, that's why.
To be rich you a) need to inherit wealth or b) only a few chosen ones invent something revolutionary and thus make obscene amounts of money: Bill Gates, Jobs, Bezos, the IKEA, ZARA guys etc.
If you lack a) and b), you need to be a crook... because hard work and luck will just get you a more or less comfortable middle class life.
Please stop talking BS.
Mao's rural Red Guard were suspicious of bougeois spectacle wearing intelligentsia, as it indicated they might actual be able to read. A dangerous ability in the Cultural Revolution.
So, if you didn't need glasses until you were middle-aged, did you suddenly get clever at 45? Discuss.
They meant for wearing glasses for myopia. Myopia doesn't commonly present itself at 45.
"If you wear glasses I’ve got some good news: you may well be smarter than the average person."
I do, and I am (repeatedly officially tested and everything!).
But correlation is not causation.
That's one of the first things they teach us in Smart-People Class.
Logically the next step would be to test whether monocle-wearers fall somewhere in the middle. A large enough sample size might be hard to assemble however.
Or If you're clever enough to know when you need glasses you know better than the ignorant who can't afford them.
i must need glasses because i cant find any mention of the Belgian islamist killing an extra person with an hammer.... surely a reknown outlet like the grad would not ignore such a development ..
Follow Twitter. Many Belgians and European tweets are saying that he is a white Belgian and there's no evidence (yet) that he was Muslim... other than the usual tabloid slurs.
Oh, FYI: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/30/belgian-gunman-killed-person-a-day-before-deadly-liege-attack
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/29/belgium-gunman-kills-two-police-officers-and-passerby-liege
You don't need glasses. You need to utilise the SEARCH function above.
Sign in or create your Guardian account to recommend a comment