Nordic Eye Colour and Disagreeableness By Brian Simpson


The discussion relates to this interesting paper, on a topic I did not expect to see: E. Gardiner & C. J. Jackson, “Eye Color Predicts Disagreeableness in North Europeans: Support in Favor of Frost (2006),” Current Psychology, vol. 29, 2010.


“The current study investigates whether eye color provides a marker of Agreeableness in North Europeans. Extrapolating from Frost’s (2006) research uncovering an unusually diverse range of hair and eye color in northern Europe, we tested the hypothesis that light eyed individuals of North European descent would be less agreeable (a personality marker for competitiveness) when compared to their dark eyed counterparts, whereas there would be no such effect for people of European descent in general. The hypothesis was tested in Australia to provide consistent environmental conditions for both groups of people. Results support the hypothesis. Implications and conclusions are discussed.”


The hypothesis connecting Nordic eye colour and the psychological characteristic of disagreeableness, relates to the evolutionary past, where sexual selection favoured colour traits, in the harsh northern climates where there was a shortage of males, due to injuries, dying younger, so that women competed for males leading to eye colouring increasing in diversification, and the rarer light  colours may have had a selective advantage. Plausibly enough, the harsh northern environment resulted in increased competitiveness of males, and thus less agreeableness. Thus, it is hypothesised that light-eyed people would be more competitive than dark eyed people.


This hypothesis was based on a sample of 336 university students, testing Northern European’s of UK origin,  against non-UK White Europeans. A number of personality questionnaires, and Inventories were undertaken. The result was that Northern European eye colour was statistically significantly correlated with the measures of Agreeableness, with light-eyed Europeans, being less agreeable than dark-eyed Europeans.


Now this is my own interpretation, of this material, only. If this is true, it does offer some hope that there could be revolt by the Nordics against the tyranny which we now face, especially the agenda, I believe, to wipe them of the face of the Earth by passive genocide, something I will address in an another paper. Again, note the disclaimer, that  is my view, not that of the psychologists, who discuss other implications, mainly to do with future research, but genuine scientific work is out there in the public domain, for anyone to discuss.


And, while on the subject of colour, men and women seem to perceive certain colours differently:


“Previous research has shown that women have a larger color vocabulary – think periwinkle, azure, and other color names that are unlikely to be used by men in general conversation. But is this lack of color names the main reason for why men and women “see” color differently?

Israel Abramov, a behavioral neuroscientist at CUNY’s Brooklyn College, doesn’t think so. He’s curious about how wiring in the brain influences our perception of color. Do variations in neural connections explain perceptual differences between men and women?

Three dimensions affect how we visualize color: hue, saturation, and brightness. Hue is the actual color – red, yellow, green, or blue. Saturation is the deepness of the color: emerald green is more saturated than pastel green. Brightness describes the way a color radiates or reflects light.

Abramov asked men and women to break down the hue of a color and to assign a percentage to the categories red, yellow, green, and blue. The results showed that women were more adept at distinguishing between subtle gradations than were men. This sensitivity was most evident in the middle of the color spectrum. With hues that were mainly yellow or green, women were able to distinguish tiny differences between colors that looked identical to men. In fact, Abramov found that slightly longer wavelengths of light were required for men to see the same hues as women – hues identified as orange by women were seen as more yellow by men.

However, when shown light and dark bars flickering on a screen, men were better than women at seeing the bars. Men were better able to perceive changes in brightness across space, a skill useful for reading a letter on an eye chart or recognizing a face. This effect was increased as the bars narrowed, suggesting that men are more sensitive to fine details and rapid movement than women.


If you’ve ever been frustrated when choosing a paint color, you’re not alone. This task is more difficult for men, who find it harder to distinguish between slight color differences.

These results suggest that the wiring differences in visual areas of the brain contribute to how men and women see differently, regardless of whether a person has an extensive vocabulary of color names. Sensory differences between sexes have been well studied. In the realms of hearingsmell, and taste, women perform better than men at distinguishing between slight differences. Hormone levels may be the basis for these sex differences.

Abramov believes that testosterone expression early in development plays a major role. Differences in testosterone levels promote drastically different organization of the neurons in the visual cortex in men and women. There are more receptors for testosterone in the cerebral cortex (the part of the brain that processes information from the senses) than there are in regions of the brain associated with reproduction.

Men have more testosterone receptors than women, especially in the visual region of the cerebral cortex. The elements of vision that were measured in this study are determined by inputs from these specific sets of neurons in the primary visual cortex, so it makes sense that different numbers of receptors would result in differences in visual perception.

But why do men and women perceive color differently? One potential explanation goes all the way back to the hunter-gatherer responsibilities of early nomadic tribes. As hunters, men needed to be able to distinguish between predators and prey from afar. On the other hand, women might have developed better close range vision from the act of foraging and gathering.”


I would agree with the foraging hypothesis, since it would be a selective advantage to be able to differentiate between different plants, those that would kill you and those tasty to eat. But, today, it means that there will always be endless arguments at the paint store about the exact shade of paint to paint the bathroom.



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Saturday, 27 November 2021
If you'd like to register, please fill in the username, password and name fields.

By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to