Well, I feel kind of like a douche for saying it, but a quick Google search does appear to show that blue eyes and intelligence are correlated to some extent, both in terms of IQ and empirically. (Nikola Tesla, Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates, (not sure) Da Vinci, Marie Curie, now Jacob Barnett).
This is kind of a random fact, but it goes along with genes: everyone with blue eyes is related (they have a common ancestor) because they arose from a genetic mutation. So it would be interesting if those with the mutation showed differences in intelligence compared to those with other eye colors.
Also, I googled it and couldn't find any scientific data. Do you have any links? All I found was
this article, but it's not exactly empirical (this is emphasized at the end of the article). I say this because it's a topic that hasn't had much research, so its conclusions really won't mean much until other studies find the same conclusions. (I'm not even sure if this was an actual study though - the only semi-relevant study I found was
this one from 1994 - and the article mentions being based on "observation only," so what does that even mean? Correlational research generally doesn't involve "observation only." I'd read the article but my college doesn't have access to that journal.)
The study also doesn't seem to outright mention intelligence, but rather it mentions people with lighter eyes (so would this apply to those with green and grey eye colors too, I wonder?) appearing to be better strategic thinkers. I came across threads on multiple forums about the topic and it really just sounds like people without backgrounds in scientific research have taken the few studies done on this topic (though that's the only one I could find ) and committed the correlation/causation fallacy (by not being able to accurately interpret the conclusions of research - by being fooled by the media, basically - and by not considering other important factors, some of which are mentioned
here). (
This may be another interesting read for you. I didn't get to read it all, but it seemed interesting.) Part of this seems to be attributed to news headlines being false (or committing the fallacy) too - such as the article I found bringing up intelligence, which the study doesn't seem to have even examined. The same (or a similar) conclusion could likely be found in other eye colors as well, especially if people find a handful of brilliant people with the eye color, so I personally don't think any type of correlation has been proven yet. (That's not to say that it won't be proven in the future though - especially because of the genetic factors I mentioned earlier.)
And Jacob Barnett is autistic (Bill Gates is thought to be too, as are many scientists) so it would be interesting to see how some of the neurobiological differences those of us with autism have impact intelligence.
Uhh...
Correlation does not imply causation. On that note, I do happen to have large blue eyes.
You're using that phrase incorrectly. A lot of people do this. But unless I missed something (and please tell me if I did, because I only skimmed the posts), the OP didn't try to infer the cause of this proposed "correlation," which is what the phrase actually refers to (of course it only refers to actual proven correlations though). It doesn't mean that someone can't try to find a correlation between two (or more) things. It seemed more like the OP made an observation - based off a limited number of individuals, of course - and simply wanted to see if it applied more broadly (so they wanted to know if a correlation even exists or whether it was coincidence).
So for example, (going off the premise of the post I quoted above this) people could likely commit this fallacy if they read a study or article that found that those with blue eyes were more intelligent (in this example, it would mean scoring higher on IQ tests and achievement/aptitude tests) than those with other eye colors. The fallacy comes into play if someone were to infer from this correlation that the correlation exists for a reason; for example, if someone were to say it exists because people with blue eyes are biologically more intelligent than those with other eye colors.
Here's an interesting link if you'd like to read more about it.
Aside from that, how can you exclude huge chunks of the population just because they don't fit your hypothesis? That makes no sense to me. You can't just pick and choose who gets included. That's not objective - nor is it fair. Anyone who is an INTJ needs to be included and, therefore, your hypothesis doesn't work. And why would it? Eye colour has nothing to do with cognition.
Though I agree with what you're saying, a hypothesis that excludes certain populations is technically fair (and it can also be objective). If the hypothesis is that an INTJ personality type is more common among those in the "western world" (in a real hypothesis, this would need to be more specific though - so for example, it could be North America) who have blue eyes (and are of Caucasian descent), it's fair (in a sense) to exclude those who are unlikely to have this eye color simply because of the rareness (of having the eye color alone, of having it and being a different ethnicity, and then you would also have to figure in the rareness of the INTJ personality type). And if the hypothesis were found to be true, then those with blue eyes from ethnicities that generally don't have them could be included so that the new proposed hypothesis would be that "People with blue eyes are more likely to be INTJs." The first point is to prove that a correlation exists at all. After that is done, then the full extent of the correlation could be attempted to be proven (meaning proving the correlation with all ethnicities). I'm not saying that that's what the OP was doing, but if an actual researcher wanted to study this topic, I suppose that's one way to go about it. I would assume it would be very difficult to find a large enough number of people (for a study) who aren't of Caucasian descent (and live in a specific part of the world or a specific country) but have blue eyes though.
It's also fair to exclude other cultures, for example, because it's quite possible that the personality theories we've proposed wouldn't apply to other cultures. (This has been a huge thing in psychology for years - that's why some theorists have tried to propose theories that would apply to all cultures.) And it's fair to exclude other countries in certain situations too - for example, in this case, if/when certain eye colors appear more often in a specific area. (And I'm not saying they do, because I've never researched this topic - but this is an example of another objective and fair reason for a hypothesis to exclude people.) I don't believe the OP's "hypothesis" anymore than you do, but I hope I cleared up this for you! (Since you said it made no sense to you.)
And for the record, I have (big) dark brown eyes.