Doesn't appear to have held up to replication. [1]<p>>However, unlike Tsukuhara et al., we could establish only small to nonexistent associations between cognitive ability and pupil size (r’s -.01 to .06, r with g specifically = .05)<p>In fact, a quick scan down the Scholar results shows other replications have found the opposite effect [2]<p>>The results found that high-Gf adolescents showed smaller tonic pupil size in both tasks<p>[1] <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emil-O-W-Kirkegaard/publication/341609641_Pupil_Size_and_Intelligence_A_Large-Scale_Replication_Study/links/5eca9375a6fdcc90d696db32/Pupil-Size-and-Intelligence-A-Large-Scale-Replication-Study.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emil-O-W-Kirkegaard/pub...</a>
[2] <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pchj.397" rel="nofollow">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pchj.397</a>
If this was a programming/deep-learning thread, we'd all feel like we'd better shut up if we didn't have anything actually insightful/knowledgeable to say.<p>But when it comes to neuroscience and psychology threads, everyone here thinks they know a lot and wants to comment. But if there is one thing that the majority of HN know next to nothing about its neuroscience and psychology, but boy do they have opinions. Its like a bloody kegger.
Don’t small pupils correlate with stress? If a participant did an iq test and was smart they might be more relaxed than a participant who knew they would do badly.
"The diameter of the pupil in normal conditions varies within the limits of 2.7-4.8 mm in the dark (22.5-40% of iris diameter), an average of 3.5 mm (approximately 29% of iris diameter). In newborns, pupils are physiologically narrowed (2.32±0.05 mm, that is 19-20% of iris diameter). From the second month, the pupils increase in size gradually an average of 64% up to the sixth month, and more by 8.6 % to the first year of age. This process takes place within the tenth to the eleventh years for a child. Between 10 to 14 years of age, the opposite dynamics are observed, which can be subdivided into three periods. During the first period (15 to 24 years), pupil dimensions are decreased considerably by 17-19%. In the course of the second period (25 to 50 years), narrowing is going less intensively (on average by 6-9% every five years). During the third period (50 to 80 years), the pupils are relatively narrow (2.63±0.06 mm – approximately 22 % of iris diameter) undergoing a smaller decrease in diameter, which is 3-4% every ten years.":<p>Source: <a href="https://pupilanalysis.com/pupillary-dimensions/" rel="nofollow">https://pupilanalysis.com/pupillary-dimensions/</a>
If this turns out to have merit,
I can imagine all sorts of shady uses for this information. Our faces and biometric info are already out there, and this doesn’t take a fancy ML algorithm to use. However, the other comments seem to indicate it’s bunk, but an idea that’s wrong can still have purchase.
Maybe they are not really testing the IQ, but instead they are just testing peripheral vision.<p>IQ is a dubious concept anyway. The definition is as unclear as the definition of physical fitness.
Intelligence is a precisely defined and precisely measurable notion, so of course we can precisely correlate it with physical measurements [/sarcasm]