comment: >
  
  God just spent more creation points on my brain rather then my eyes
context: This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
  Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
  (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
  Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >
  
  Probably have it’s origin in the olden days when glasses were mostly used for reading and reading was mostly done by the educated and education wasn’t for everyone.
  During the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia in the 70s they executed people with glasses as they were suspected intellectuals. >
  
  Ole’ Pol Pot, completed fucked a country, killed millions and got away with it. >
  
  Isn’t there a comedian who asks in one of his standups “why didn’t they simply take the glasses off when he was coming”? >
  
  The obvious punchline: They wouldn't have seen them coming. >
  
  Hey dude, if I have to live with glasses my whole life can I at least look smart for it >
  
  Yeah, thanks OP now I get to feel defective and dumb for the rest of the day. >
  
  A defect one is motivated to transcend in order to read and learn more. >
  
  Disagree >
  
  Good talk. Got a lot out of your comment. >
  
  Agree >
  
  My man is verbally upvoting >
  
  Neither agree nor disagree >
  
  Reading is actually a causative factor in humans needing glasses. Not the only one, but a big external one. The strain over time of making your eyes focus on small writing or print eventually causes short-sightedness as your eyes attempt to adapt to this weird thing you are doing. Evolution didn’t give us eyes designed for reading. 
  Therefore, once glasses were invented to correct this, if you needed them, it was likely that you read a lot. If you read a lot, you were probably smart and didn’t need to spend all day in the fields, obviously. So wearing glasses became associated with intelligence and elevated social standing. 
  While less true today, the association remains. >
  
  I wonder how this holds today with increased dependence on screen time for both work and play. >
  
  I think I recall that spending more time focusing close distances can make your eyesight worse at seeing far away. Don't quote me on this -- I'm going to be lazy and not look it up right now. Anyhow, if this is true, reading and using computers might impact people's eyesight. Nowadays, though, what people closely focus on the most is their phone, which might not have the most intelligent stuff on the screen most of the time. >
  
  There's some stuff out there that hints to it, but some places say there's no correlation nowadays? It's not a clear conclusion, but it's definitely not KNOWN to not be correlated either.
  My optometrist tends to tell me to avoid computers and reading (and I do notice that my eyesight gets temporarily worse than my normal after a long reading session). But the thing is, in the last 4 years since my previous prescription I got a new one that is close enough that I was recommended to keep my glasses. Had to switch them anyway like a month later because the glasses frame broke (moved the lenses to another frame) >
  
  In my case, my eyesight started going bad when I was young (maybe around 9?) and quickly got worse until I was maybe in my late teens or early 20s then it leveled off. My eyesight hasn't changed much in the last 15 years. >
  
  Mine would change rapidly year to year since I was a kid. Between 18 and 19 mine went up like 2 whole points in each eye. Getting those new glasses was awful to get used to. But now I'm 24 and I just got new glasses after 3 years and both eyes barely went up 2 clicks each. My doctor said I should level off within the next year or so >
  
  From back in the day, glasses also where relatively expensive. The poors who didn't need to read, just got along with less than perfect eye-sight just fine. Also, spending long hours reading was symbolized with loosing eyesight early. If you have something like 25/20 or 30/20, or even 40/20 vision, you can be a farmer or laborer just fine without glasses
  So, nearsighted glasses where more of a symbol for someone who spends a large portion of their day reading and writing fine text on paper, where that was not something most people would do, at all. So glasses would be symbolic of that trade. >
  
  That's because higher intelligence is highly correlated with needing corrective lenses in fact, not just by public perception. >
  
  … or overcome a disability in order to read. Name another corrective device that can be associated with one’s desire to overcome a disability in order to pursue knowledge. >
  
  Hearing aids, e.g. to listen to an educator. >
  
  After I got my first pair of glasses there was this kid in my class who said "you can do all the work, you have glasses so you look smart" 
  I had a D at the time, passed the class with a C. I was not a smart kid in the class. >
  
  Philosoraptor - If my eyesight is bad and I get glasses to correct them to 20/20, then is my eyesight superior to the average non-spectacled person? >
  
  you can get myopia from reading and doing close-up activities a lot so it kinda used to make sense >
  
  It’s even weirder that some people(I) find glasses attractive, even though they’re technically an evolutionary red-flag… >
  
  It's because thry make the face appear more symmetric and our brains are horny for symmetric faces >
  
  Yeah, broadcasting your body has a defect,  but that you've compensated by acquiring information to guarantee your survival among stronger, faster kin.  
  The pen is mightier than the sword. >
  
  My eyes got worst during Uni so I mean there must be some truth to it 🤷‍♀️ >
  
  Or it's a coincidence, or something else contributed more to your vision. >
  
  Dunno, I'll try to look up studies on it tmr. If I find something interesting I'll report back. >
  
  How do you think most people got glasses? By reading. that's what culture gave me, glasses. >
  
  Spelling error a defect not an, also I believe the reason it’s seen as “being smart” is because when glades first came out only rich people could afford them and back then only rich people could afford an education. >
  
  Spelling error glasses not glades. >
  
  Many of us have prematurely worn our eyes out due to academic pursuit. Not necessarily a defect as you state, as our bodies start to degrade soon after adolescence. >
  
  I guess in the past "smart" equated to "holds the ability to read above vanity". >
  
  Jokes on you, I'm almost 40. Just got glasses for the first time and am now starting University with my new super powers. >
  
  I think it's the impression that glasses wearers must read a lot and not play sports because how would they see the ball. But while we're talking about it, people that need glasses in movies are never portrayed right. Before lasik I couldn't see the creases in my palm at arms length but I still no trouble finding the strike zone from the pitchers mound or judging depth of objects flying around. But I guess someone figuring out how to road signs before you're right next to it doesn't make an interesting character arc >
  
  Having glasses actually makes you focus on the information directly in front. Because your eye can’t determine what information is outside it allows a hyper focus causation on items such as reading. >
  
  With the grammatical mistake in the title, I’m guessing you don’t wear glasses /s >
  
  When you’re really smart everything you need to see is arms lengths away anyway. Computer, boobies, pizza, toilet paper…what else is there to see? >
  
  People that NEED to read didn’t realize their stigmatism until they did it a lot. Reading wasn’t accessible to everyone until relatively recently in human history >
  
  Sometimes it's adaptation, looking at short distances for most of the time should change something. >
  
  Not really. It suggests that the person cares about seeing well (even if they have a defect), and it says something about their job and/or hobbies.