The recent Daily Mail article highlights alarming testimony from neuroscientist Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath before a US Senate committee. He claims Gen Z (born roughly 1997–early 2010s) is the first generation in over a century to score lower than their parents (Millennials) on key cognitive measures: attention span, memory, reading comprehension, math skills, problem-solving, and overall IQ. This marks a reversal of the Flynn effect — the long-documented rise in average IQ scores (about 3 points per decade) throughout the 20th century, driven by better nutrition, education, and environmental factors.
Horvath points to data from 80+ countries showing cognitive performance plateauing or declining around 2010, coinciding with widespread adoption of digital tech in schools (EdTech like tablets, laptops, and short-form content). He argues the human brain evolved for deep, face-to-face learning with teachers and peers, not skimming bullet points or endless scrolling. Over half of teens' waking hours are screen-based, rewiring habits toward superficial processing that harms retention and focus. US NAEP scores reportedly dropped in high-device states, and heavy school computer use (5+ hours/day) correlates with worse outcomes.
This isn't isolated sensationalism; broader research supports elements of a reverse Flynn effect. Studies in Norway, Denmark, the UK, France, and US samples (e.g., from 2006–2018) show IQ declines of 2–4 points per generation in some populations, especially among younger adults (18–22) and lower-education groups. Fluid reasoning (novel problem-solving) often shows the steepest drops, while some domains like spatial rotation hold steady or improve slightly. The effect appears environmental, not genetic — siblings show similar patterns, ruling out dysgenic fertility theories.
If this trend persists unchecked, we're staring at a slippery slope toward genuine devolution. Not overnight ape-level regression, but incremental erosion: each cohort slightly less capable at abstract thinking, sustained attention, and independent reasoning than the last. Future generations could become noticeably less intelligent than today's baseline — perhaps rivalling or falling below levels we associate with primates in raw fluid intelligence metrics, or at least mirroring the caricature of ideologically rigid, low-information processing often mocked in certain political circles (e.g., today's more dogmatic liberals who prioritise echo-chamber narratives over evidence-based scrutiny). Welcome to Planet of the Apes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Apes_(1968_film)
Conservatives and iconoclasts have long warned about this: technology as a crutch, education systems surrendering to gadgets instead of biology, and a culture glorifying instant gratification over discipline. The culprit isn't Gen Z — they're victims of systemic choices. It's the unchecked march of screens, social media dopamine loops, and schools that redefined learning to fit tools rather than brains (Horvath calls it "surrender"). Add AI outsourcing thinking, and the risk compounds: why wrestle with complex ideas when a prompt delivers the answer?
The fix demands radical pushback:
Ban or severely limit EdTech in early education (Scandinavian models show promise).
Delay smartphones until high school (or revert to flip phones).
Prioritise deep reading, real-world problem-solving, and human interaction over digital shortcuts.
Culturally shame "brain rot" habits — doomscrolling, TikTok philosophy, endless notifications.
Without intervention, we risk a future where humanity doesn't evolve upward but devolves into shallower, more compliant minds—less capable of innovation, resilience, or challenging power structures. That's not progress; it's regression dressed in silicon. The data is flashing red: ignore it, and our descendants may look back at us as the last generation that could still truly think. If they can do even that.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-15520263/Gen-Z-intelligent-neuroscientist.html