Are Gen Zs Really “Less Smart”?

Reading Time: 5 minutes

In recent weeks, a debate has circulated in articles and on social networks about whether Generation Z would be the first in more than a century to have worse cognitive outcomes than its predecessor. The claim comes from neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath, who noted that young people born between 1997 and 2010 show declines in attention, memory, literacy, arithmetic, executive functioning, and even general IQ compared to previous generations.

This claim is striking, but also problematic. Before accepting the fact of a “less intelligent” generation, it is worth reviewing what is being measured, how it is measured, and what we know historically about the evolution of intelligence.

The debate came after a hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, where Horvath argued that, for the first time in more than a century, scores on standardized tests of cognitive abilities appear to have decreased rather than increased. Although the complete data have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, the central argument is clear: we would be facing a break in the historical trend.

This contrasts with the pattern observed during much of the twentieth century, when intelligence and academic achievement scales showed sustained increases generation after generation, a phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect. But what exactly is this data measuring?

The findings derive from academic and cognitive test scores that assess skills such as sustained attention, working memory, reading comprehension, logical reasoning, numeracy skills, and basic executive functions. These skills are fundamental, correlating with school success and particular work performances. However, they do not capture the entirety of human abilities.

Intelligence is a multifaceted construct that includes creativity, contextual adaptation, social skills, capacity for innovation, and real problem-solving, dimensions that are not always directly measured in these tests.

One proposed explanation points to the widespread use of digital technology. According to this hypothesis, Gen Z has spent more time in front of screens than any previous generation, both in educational and recreational contexts, which would have transformed the way they process information.

Digital devices often replace long books with fragmented, short-form content. Social media and short videos offer immediate rewards that compete with the rewards of cognitively demanding tasks. In addition, technology-mediated education has modified traditional learning dynamics.

Colloquially, some call brain rot the feeling that constant exposure to digital stimuli fragments attention and reduces processing depth. However, correlation does not imply causation. The relationship between screen and cognition is complex and multifactorial. Digitalization is just one piece of a broader context that includes social, economic, pedagogical, and cultural transformations.

The effects of the pandemic, prolonged remote schooling, educational inequalities, and changes in assessment methodologies also play a role. Focusing the entire debate on technology simplifies a structural phenomenon.

Labeling an entire generation as “less intelligent” without scientific contextualization fuels stigmas and polarizes dialogue. Beyond the headline, the discussion has focused on urgent issues: the relationship between technology and mind, the quality of learning, and how we measure human development.

At stake is not whether this generation is “less intelligent,” but our ability to adapt to a radically new information environment without losing sight of the essentials of education: depth, curiosity, and critical thinking.

The Flynn Effect

For much of the 20th century, a startling phenomenon occurred: average IQ test scores rose steadily from generation to generation. This phenomenon was documented by New Zealand researcher James R. Flynn and has since become known as the Flynn Effect.

Between 1930 and the late 1970s, scores grew by about three points per decade in several industrialized countries. This required restandardizing the tests periodically to return the average to 100. In other words, an average person in 1980 would have scored significantly higher on a test designed in 1930.

This increase was not due to accelerated genetic evolution, but to environmental factors: better child nutrition and health, increased schooling, more complex urban environments, and more exposure to abstract reasoning. The increases were more noticeable in tests of fluid intelligence, such as abstract reasoning, than in tests of crystallized intelligence, which is linked to acquired knowledge.

The Flynn Effect demonstrated that IQ scores are sensitive to the cultural and educational environment. Measured intelligence is not fixed or immutable, but interacts with context. Here, the current debate becomes relevant.

In several developed countries, such as Norway, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, research has documented that the sustained increase in IQ seems to have stagnated or even reversed in recent decades. This phenomenon, known as the “reverse Flynn effect,” does not imply a dramatic drop in human potential but rather a shift in the historical trend.

If, for decades, each generation outperformed the previous one on standardized tests, today that curve seems to have stabilized or even declined slightly in specific contexts. Among the possible explanations are transformations in educational systems, changes in reading habits, and modifications in the predominant cognitive styles.

The claim that Gen Z has lower scores is then inserted into a larger discussion: Are we seeing the end of the environmental drive that fueled the Flynn Effect?

Screens and attention: the cognitive friction hypothesis

Horvath and other researchers point to constant screen exposure as a deciding factor for lower cognitive scores. Gen Z is the first to grow up with mobile internet, social media, and algorithms designed to maximize attention. In many cases, a significant portion of waking time is spent on digital devices.

From this perspective, deep learning requires cognitive friction: dealing with long texts, holding attention on complex tasks, and tolerating initial confusion before understanding. When the environment privileges speed and immediacy, the brain adapts to that dynamic. The issue is not that young people are incapable of thinking deeply, but that the digital ecosystem may be reinforcing other skills: rapid scanning, multitasking, and immediate response.

Here, the Flynn Effect offers a key lesson. If, for decades, the increase in IQ was linked to cultural and educational changes, it is also plausible that digital transformations are intensifying the types of skills developed.

Standardized tests assess working memory, sustained attention, sequential reasoning, and deep reading comprehension. The digital environment, on the other hand, encourages navigation across multiple sources, rapid pattern recognition, and adaptability to information. The central question is not whether the new generations are “dumber,” but whether we are evaluating them properly with instruments designed for a pre-hyperconnected world.

Each generation has been criticized by the previous one. Television, video games, and the internet were accused of ruining young people’s minds. The difference today lies in the scale and technological sophistication: algorithms optimize attention retention and compete directly with deep reading. However, labeling a generation as “less intelligent” oversimplifies a complex phenomenon. Cognitive abilities do not depend solely on the year of birth.

Rather than a definitive decline, we could be facing a transition. The challenge for education is not to nostalgically return to the analogue past, but to find a balance between technology and depth, speed and reflection, connectivity, and concentration.

If this discussion reveals anything, it is not that a generation is lost, but that intelligence depends on the ecosystem in which it is cultivated: When the environment changes dramatically, so should the metrics.

If we observe stagnation or declines in certain indicators, the answer should not be alarmism, but critical analysis: What skills do we want to foster?  What kind of attention are we cultivating?  Are we designing education systems that balance the digital with deep learning?

Human intelligence does not evaporate from one generation to the next; it adapts.

Translation by Daniel Wetta

This article from Observatory of the Institute for the Future of Education may be shared under the terms of the license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0