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://​thecon​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