Much attention has been devoted lately to news reports regarding a lady by the name of Stormy Daniels. A popular television newsmagazine recently highlighted this individual, and her appearance on the show resulted in considerable scrutiny.
In the blogosphere, there has been a great deal of discussion regarding an unusually generously proportioned feature of Ms. Daniels’ anatomy.
Is the marked size difference a result of natural variation or due to artificial influences? What accounts for the dramatic difference in appearance between this person and the other persons who were interviewed in this same program? What, in short, accounts for the remarkable size of those...pupils?
A curious matter of size
Because I don’t watch enough television, I did not see this episode or observe this discrepancy. But the internet is full of screenshots showing the eyes of Ms. Daniels, the interlocutor, and her attorney. And these images undeniably show a striking variation in pupil diameter, with the two latter individuals having smallish 3-mm diameter or so pupils compared with 8- to 9-mm diameters for Ms. Daniels.1
Reading the commentary about this difference is interesting. Most comments note the bright lights that are typically part of filming for television and that this bright illumination should have caused pupillary constriction.
The idea that the discrepancy has a pharmacologic basis was repeatedly offered. Other suggestions offered to explain the difference included differing levels of arousal: perhaps this individual was more excited or became more emotional during the televised interview experience than were the other participants.