Table of Contents Show
Scientists are trying to explain why the average IQ has declined in the recent past
The question asked by the authors of the film “Don’t Look Up” had already been posed by scientists. Let’s begin with some factual information: Humanity had been getting smarter across the world at a rate of 0.3 IQ points per year until 1978, which is known as the Flynn effect in honor of the New Zealand psychologist who first observed this trend. However, by 2004, growth had halted, and the average IQ had dropped at a rate so steep that we could potentially lose 10 out of the 13.8 points gained since 1932, according to intelligence researcher Michael Woodley. While experts agree that a “reverse Flynn effect” exists, the causes of this phenomenon are still subject to debate. The following are some of the most popular theories.
Gene pool degradation
The degradation of the gene pool is a complex issue that arises from several factors. One of the most significant factors is the declining number of children born to high-IQ women, who are increasingly opting out of motherhood. This phenomenon has been attributed to the “Intelligence Paradox,” where the desire for motherhood decreases by 25% with a 15-point increase in IQ, according to evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa. Another factor is that men with low IQs are more likely to engage in extramarital affairs, leading to the spread of their genes. Additionally, the average age of fatherhood and motherhood is rising in developed countries, posing a higher risk of genetic disorders and lower intelligence in offspring.
In addition to statistical evidence, research on neurophysiology has also been conducted, revealing a correlation between intelligence and the speed of brain response. The faster an individual reacts to a stimulus, the more effectively they can process information. Anthropologist Francis Galton’s study in 1880 measured the reaction time of several hundred Londoners from various backgrounds, which averaged 185 milliseconds. In contrast, the same test conducted now has shown that reaction time has increased by 1.5 times. This decline in reaction time is viewed by Michael Woodley as clear evidence of a weakening “genetic potential,” although other experts are skeptical of such a bold conclusion based on a single, uncontrolled study from the Victorian era.
Aging
Scientists have compared two facts related to demographic aging. Firstly, there has been a rise in the number of individuals over 60 years of age who are taking IQ tests. Secondly, performance decline is most noticeable in tasks that demand working memory, which further deteriorates with age. Hence, the possibility exists that it is not a question of stupidity but rather a consequence of living longer and being unable to retain significant amounts of information due to age-related changes.
Reduction in brain volume
The brain volume has decreased by approximately 15% compared to the Ice Age, despite only 14 thousand years having passed since then. However, this trend of reduced skulls and brains began much earlier. Anthropologist John Hawkes suggests that having an oversized brain expends too much energy from the body, which has led evolution to take the path of miniaturization, similar to the electronics industry. The reduction in brain size is believed to be a consequence of our ability to divide labor and work in teams, which is one of our most important evolutionary accomplishments. By redistributing intellectual tasks amongst ourselves, we have been able to reduce the energy consumption of the brain and increase its overall efficiency. This has made each individual slightly “sillier,” but as a whole, we have become much smarter. Recently, we have taken a further step in this direction by creating the Internet, which has become a global super-brain.
Influence of IT
The impact of information technology is the most rational rationale. The Internet has eradicated the necessity for us to commit to memory and recollect vast quantities of information. Does this imply that we are less intelligent? Not necessarily. While we may experience difficulties with assignments that were important in the past, we can easily compete with previous generations when it comes to working with digital data. Additionally, the ability to promptly search for required information is also indicative of intelligence.
What does an IQ test measure?
Our media has instilled in us the notion that intelligence and talent are synonymous with IQ. However, geniuses such as Michelangelo, Newton, Beethoven, and Darwin, who are widely regarded as exceptional, have never undergone IQ testing. This methodology was formulated solely at the start of the 20th century to assess the intellectual growth of children. During the 1930s, it was adapted to evaluate candidates for the military and police forces (scientists obtain data for comparison from current military and police archives). The test then found its way into the human resource departments of corporations and university admissions committees.
Despite its title, the “general intelligence” test measures only a few competencies, such as verbal comprehension, spatial reasoning, learning aptitude, and working memory. Richard Nisbet summed it up nicely: “If you have an IQ of 120, you can quickly complete the calculations. When it’s 100, it’s more difficult, but it doesn’t imply you can’t do better; you’ll simply have to put in more effort.” Furthermore, having a high IQ does not provide immunity to irrationality and foolishness in other aspects of life. How is this possible?
A renowned cognitive scientist, Daniel Kahneman, provides a plausible explanation: the distinction between intelligent and unintelligent people is not only based on their ability to think logically, but also on their ability to recognize cognitive errors, overcome stereotypes, and differentiate assumptions from facts. Canadian psychologist Keith Stanovich has devised an alternative intelligence assessment called the rationality quotient to assess this ability. Perhaps these assessments capture the essence of the human mind more effectively than computational abilities that are increasingly delegated to machines.
Responses