I have no idea if this study has any weight at all but I do know that I have a high degree of focus. When I was a kid I would focus so deeply sometimes my dad had to physically shake me to get my attention.

Never had my IQ tested though so no idea if I exhibit the correlation or not.

Bad news: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgiom2tGby1qfw6wlo1_500.gi...

This link includes the video that was used on the participants. You can see and check your own IQ.

http://www.businessinsider.com/iq-video-test-university-of-r...

I don't understand how they justify the leap from visual size to "background information."

If you really want to understand the study, you'll want to go to the unfiltered source, which is here: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/pii/S0960982213...

Of course, it costs $31.50 to access it.

Or you can google a bit more and get a copy off the PI's research group's website.

http://www.bcs.rochester.edu/people/Duje/papers/13_Melnick_I...

Ah, thanks. Those paywalls are sometimes nothing more than traps for the unwary.

I can't focus. Must be retarded.

how many times does it have to be repeated? correlation doesn't imply causation!

How is your statement relevant to either the article or the article headline? The news is just that there's a correlation between A and B, which suggests that either A causes B, B causes A, or A and B both relate to some third factor C. Where did you see an unjustified claim of causation?

Sounds like a nice candidate for a web app, should they release how exactly it's done.