LimaBravo said:
a) Daily Mail.
b) Daily Mail (I mention this twice because its such a large issue).
c) Retarded rational in scientific experiment.
d) Genius isn't related to academic success (Quite the opposite).
e) Intelligence has many forms.
f) 'Dr Tony Fallone (Woman), senior psychology (Psychology) lecturer at the University of Bedfordshire (Bedfordshire), who has also studied eye colour (Pyschologist who studies eye colour) , believes it should be taken more seriously as an indicator of personality and ability' (Serious scientist that analyses PERSONALITY in all its deep complexity & decides it can be reduced to the genetic probability of some colouration.) I lay 10 to 1 odds she beleives in star signs.
g) Are we done yet ?
Not quite.
h) They didn't link to the actual "scientific" study, we cannot check their sample size, means of sampling, where it was studied.
i) Popular media has an extreme tendency to misrepresent real scientific studies
j) They use Stephen Fry as an example of somebody who studied hard in school? He has bipolar disorder and nearly got kicked out of one of his schools because he couldn't focus on studying at the time. (Not that he isn't still brilliant) Stephen Fry largely attributes his success to his manic periods.
k) It may actually be a disguised racial thing, since non-Europeans tend to not have blue eyes. And there is such thing as stereotype priming.
In one study, Asian women performed 3 math tests. The first they just took normally. Others took another test after being exposed to stereotypes about Asians. The last group was shown stereotypes about women. Guess who performed the best, and the worst? Racial groups are often inherently stereotyped, and it can have a visible impact on their performance.
l) Well, now we should be done. There are far too many factors associated with intelligence and academic performance for any retarded weak correlation between eye-color to hold any significant merit. Coincidental correlation at best, sample bias at worst.