Home / Chroniques / Declining global IQ: reality or moral panic?
Crowd of students walking through a college campus on a sunny day, motion blur
π Society π Health and biotech π Neuroscience

Declining global IQ : reality or moral panic ?

Frank Ramus
Franck Ramus
Director of research at CNRS and head of the "Cognitive Development and Pathology" team at Cognitive Sciences and Psycholinguistics Laboratory at Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris
Key takeaways
  • IQ is a measure of an individual’s general intelligence within the population.
  • It is a controversial measure, suspected of being used as a basis for discrimination in some countries, for example through selective migration or forced sterilisation.
  • Since the middle of the 20th century, IQ has been rising worldwide, mainly in the BRIC countries.
  • Since the 1990s, IQ has been rising more slowly, perhaps reaching a plateau due to the limits of the human brain.
  • Studies warning of a decline in global IQ are being debated in the scientific community as being biased.

The first metric of intel­li­gence came from the Binet-Simon test1 (named after a French psy­cho­lo­gist and psy­chia­trist), used spe­ci­fi­cal­ly to iden­ti­fy cog­ni­tive delay in chil­dren. A few years later, William Stern coi­ned the term “intel­li­gence quo­tient”: the index consists of divi­ding the “men­tal” age obtai­ned by the child in the test by his or her phy­si­cal age, then mul­ti­plying the ratio by 100. A 10-year-old child obtai­ning results equi­va­lent to those of a 12-year-old would thus have an IQ of (12/10) x 100, or 120 points.

The IQ, now mea­su­red in both tee­na­gers and adults, situates an individual’s gene­ral intel­li­gence within his or her popu­la­tion (accor­ding to age, natio­na­li­ty, etc.), with all the values fol­lo­wing a Gaus­sian curve. The so-cal­led “stan­dard” IQ (reca­li­bra­ted approxi­ma­te­ly eve­ry decade) sets the mean value at 100 points and the stan­dard devia­tion at 15. In today’s bench­mark Wechs­ler tests2, 95% of the popu­la­tion has an IQ bet­ween two stan­dard devia­tions, i.e. bet­ween 70 and 130 points.

The first half of the 20th cen­tu­ry was mar­ked by the contro­ver­sial use of this index as a means of dis­cri­mi­na­tion. Euge­ni­cist theo­ries, epi­to­mi­sed in par­ti­cu­lar by the nascent sta­tis­tics of Fran­cis Gal­ton3, aimed to prove scien­ti­fi­cal­ly that the level of intel­li­gence was inna­te­ly lower in people of a cer­tain cha­rac­te­ris­tic (alco­ho­lism, men­tal ill­ness, etc.) or eth­ni­ci­ty. This fra­me­work of thought has promp­ted coun­tries such as the Uni­ted States to use IQ as the main cri­te­rion for selec­ting immi­grants4, and even for for­ced ste­ri­li­sa­tion5.

But des­pite the varie­ty of uses and models for IQ, recent meta-ana­lyses6 make it pos­sible to trace its evo­lu­tion over the decades.

We are more intelligent than we used to be

The IQ scores of 300,000 people in 72 coun­tries bet­ween 1948 and 2020 were com­pi­led in the 2023 meta-ana­ly­sis by Won­gup­pa­raj et al7. In the space of a cen­tu­ry, they increa­sed by around 30 points, or twice the stan­dard devia­tion of the dis­tri­bu­tion of scores. But how can these values be com­pa­red when the index is reca­li­bra­ted eve­ry ten years or so ?

“It is the raw scores of the tests, before cali­bra­tion, that are com­pa­red from one per­iod to the next”, explains Franck Ramus. And not just any test, since the meta-ana­ly­sis only consi­ders the Raven Matrices to reas­sess IQ. This geo­me­tric test, which has remai­ned unchan­ged since its crea­tion in 1936, mea­sures so-cal­led “fluid” intel­li­gence, enabling pro­blem sol­ving without the need for prior know­ledge. It is the­re­fore not sub­ject to cultu­ral obso­les­cence, as ver­bal tests typi­cal­ly are.

The Flynn effect is flattening out, but is not going away

The Flynn effect8 des­cribes the gra­dual rise in the level of intel­li­gence obser­ved throu­ghout the 20th cen­tu­ry : impro­ved nutri­tion9, access to or qua­li­ty of medi­cal care10 and tech­no­lo­gy11 are all favou­rable socio-eco­no­mic condi­tions for the deve­lop­ment of edu­ca­tion and intel­li­gence. Accor­ding to the meta-ana­ly­sis, it is in the BRICs (Bra­zil, Rus­sia, India and Chi­na) that we are cur­rent­ly seeing the grea­test increases (2.9 points per decade on ave­rage) com­pa­red with the richest and poo­rest coun­tries (2 and 0.4 points respectively).

In short, IQ is rising and conti­nuing to rise, but less mar­ked­ly now : 2.4 points per decade bet­ween 1948 and 1985, com­pa­red with 1.8 bet­ween 1986 and 2020. “But trees can’t reach the sky, there are inevi­ta­bly limits to what the human brain can do,” says Ramus. This stag­na­tion, or reduc­tion in the Flynn effect, can the­re­fore be inter­pre­ted as an inevi­table pla­teau in cere­bral and cog­ni­tive deve­lop­ment : just as an athlete’s per­for­mance is limi­ted by the power of their muscles, so too is that of the brain (which is not a muscle!) from both a phy­sio­lo­gi­cal and socio-eco­no­mic point of view.

IQ decline : a moral panic

Edward Dut­ton and Richard Lynn (Bri­tish anthro­po­lo­gist and psy­cho­lo­gist) have put for­ward a theo­ry in the media sug­ges­ting a recent decline in intel­li­gence in seve­ral coun­tries.  Howe­ver, the articles that sup­port this hypo­the­sis are ridd­led with metho­do­lo­gi­cal biases and dubious extra­po­la­tions. Whe­ther because of the limi­ted sample size (79 people) in Dut­ton and Lynn’s stu­dy of France12, or the fact that only cer­tain types of test (nume­ri­cal or ver­bal) were consi­de­red to be decli­ning, des­pite an increase in others (abs­tract rea­so­ning) in Nor­way13, such results remain on the fringes and do not meet with consen­sus in the scien­ti­fic community.

“Wha­te­ver beliefs people may have about what’s going wrong, or what’s worse than before, the argu­ment that IQ is fal­ling seems to confirm them. So it’s unders­tan­dable that it would be popu­lar,” explains Ramus. The moral panic sur­roun­ding the decline in intel­li­gence is not new : nume­rous envi­ron­men­tal fac­tors such as expo­sure to screens, endo­crine dis­rup­tors or the dete­rio­ra­tion of edu­ca­tion are regu­lar­ly sin­gled out as poten­tial culprits. Although these fac­tors can have a nega­tive impact on some people, both chil­dren and adults, none of them seems to cause a decline in IQ on a more glo­bal scale. 

Lancelot du Lag
1Binet A., Simon T. (1905) “Méthodes nou­velles pour le diag­nos­tic du niveau intel­lec­tuel des anor­maux”, L’Année psy­cho­lo­gique, 11, p. 191–244.
2« Each test bat­te­ry is adap­ted to a spe­ci­fic age group : the WPPSI-IV test for chil­dren before pri­ma­ry schools, the WISC‑V for chil­dren and ado­les­cents, and WAIS-IV for adults. »
3Jay Gould, S. (1997). La Mal-Mesure de l’homme.
4Ohayon, A. (2012). La que­relle du QI aux États-Unis. Dans : Jean-Fran­çois Mar­mion éd., His­toire de la psy­cho­lo­gie (pp. 78–80). Auxerre : Édi­tions Sciences Humaines. https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​3​9​1​7​/​s​h​.​m​a​r​m​i​.​2​0​1​2​.​0​1​.0078
5https://​the​con​ver​sa​tion​.com/​f​o​r​c​e​d​-​s​t​e​r​i​l​i​z​a​t​i​o​n​-​p​o​l​i​c​i​e​s​-​i​n​-​t​h​e​-​u​s​-​t​a​r​g​e​t​e​d​-​m​i​n​o​r​i​t​i​e​s​-​a​n​d​-​t​h​o​s​e​-​w​i​t​h​-​d​i​s​a​b​i​l​i​t​i​e​s​-​a​n​d​-​l​a​s​t​e​d​-​i​n​t​o​-​t​h​e​-​2​1​s​t​-​c​e​n​t​u​r​y​-​1​43144
6Piet­sch­nig, J., & Vora­cek, M. (2015). One Cen­tu­ry of Glo­bal IQ Gains : A For­mal Meta-Ana­ly­sis of the Flynn Effect (1909–2013). Pers­pec­tives on Psy­cho­lo­gi­cal Science, 10(3), 282‑306. https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​1​1​7​7​/​1​7​4​5​6​9​1​6​1​5​5​77701
7Won­gup­pa­raj, P., Won­gup­pa­raj, R., Mor­ris, R. G., & Kuma­ri, V. (2023). Seven­ty years, 1000 samples, and 300,000 SPM scores : A new meta-ana­ly­sis of Flynn effect pat­terns. Intel­li­gence, 98, 101750. https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​1​0​1​6​/​j​.​i​n​t​e​l​l​.​2​0​2​3​.​1​01750
8Flynn J.R. (1984) “The mean IQ of Ame­ri­cans : Mas­sive gains 1932 to 1978”, Psy­cho­lo­gi­cal Bul­le­tin, 95‎, p. 29–51.
9Lynn (2009). What has cau­sed the Flynn effect ? Secu­lar increases in the Deve­lop­ment Quo­tients of infants. Intel­li­gence, 35(1), p. 16–24. https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​1​0​1​6​/​j​.​i​n​t​e​l​l​.​2​0​0​8​.​0​7.008
10Piet­sch­nig J. (2016). The Flynn Effect : Tech­no­lo­gy May Be Part of It, But Is Most Cer­tain­ly Not All of It. Mea­su­re­ment : Inter­dis­ci­pli­na­ry Research and Pers­pec­tives, 14(2), p.70–73. https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​1​0​8​0​/​1​5​3​6​6​3​6​7​.​2​0​1​6​.​1​1​71612
11Brats­berg B. & Roge­berg O. (2018). Flynn effect and its rever­sal are both envi­ron­men­tal­ly cau­sed. Psy­cho­lo­gi­cal and cog­ni­tive sciences, 115(26), p. 6674–6678.
12L. G. Weiss et al., Flaws in Flynn Effect Research With the Wechs­ler Scales, J. Psy­choe­duc. Assess. vol. 34, pp. 411–420, 2016.
13E. Dut­ton et R. Lynn, A nega­tive Flynn effect in France, 1999 to 2008–9, Intel­li­gence, vol. 51, pp. 67–70, 2015.

Support accurate information rooted in the scientific method.

Donate