For the period of about a century, average IQ scores in wealthy nations kept rising by about three points a decade. This “Flynn effect” is thought to be the result of improvements in social conditions like public health, nutrition and education, and has been seen in many countries, from the Netherlands to Japan.
But by 2004, researchers had begun to notice what seems to be a reversal of this trend, with average IQ scores going into decline. “The drop is around 7 to 10 IQ points per century,” according to Michael Woodley of the Free University of Brussels (VUB) in Belgium. Some researchers believe this can be explained by the controversial fertility hypothesis: that the most educated women in Western countries have been having fewer children than the rest of the population, and this is lowering IQs.
But it’s difficult to investigate hypotheses like this. Part of the problem is that IQ tests have changed over time. Now Robin Morris of King’s College London and his colleagues have found a way to get around this. They have broken down old IQ tests into different categories that are easier to compare. Morris’s team looked through more than 1750 different types of IQ test from 1972 onwards for two sub-groups of tests: those that measure short-term memory, and those that assess working memory – the ability to hold in your head information for processing, reasoning and decision-making.
When they looked at how people performed on these kinds of tests throughout time, the team saw a clear pattern. While short-term memory scores have risen in line with the Flynn effect, working memory ability appears to have declined. Then researchers spotted something no one had noticed before – an increase in the proportion of people sitting tests who were aged 60 or older. Working memory is known to decline with age, while short-term memory is usually preserved. In their study, Morris’s team write that the over-60s may be partly responsible for the decline in working memory scores in more developed nations. Researchers agree that stronger and more specific tests of this idea, looking at elements of intelligence whose decline with age are well established, such as processing time and reaction speed. Until then though we are warned that the whole concept of reversing IQs should be treated with scepticism. (Sally Adee, New Scientist, Sept 16, 2017)
So apparently the answer is that maybe we are not, after all seeing a decline in IQ. Or, at least, we shouldn’t jump to conclusions. As a non-scientist I suspect that if you are only looking at the results of intelligence tests you are probably skewing the data, because these tests are predominantly taken by young people to find out what their aptitudes are, for career purposes – and very useful too. But now lifetime employment is disappearing, older people are trying to find out what their aptitudes are in turn, in which direction they should go in middle age. Another point: people are generally living longer anyway, and this must be having an overall effect. Moral: before you waste a lot of time on expensive studies, just use old guys with Arts degrees to employ some common sense.
I certainly agree with your last sentence- I will be one of those before too long!
As someone who doesn’t believe that IQ is an accurate or meaningful measure of intelligence, I wouldn’t take too much from this study. What I would be worried about is not a decline in intelligence but a decline in moral standards and common decency. Take for instance, the state of the Republican Party in the United States. In the 1980 Republican Primary, the debates between Ronald Reagan and George Bush were civil, with each candidate presenting their views maturely, without resorting to bellicose rhetoric, crude insults or outright lies. Which is largely why when Reagan won the nomination, he made Bush his running mate.
The contrast with the 2016 primary couldn’t be greater. The gentlemanly charm of the 1980s was nowhere to be found. Instead, Trump won the nomination by demonising his opponents, lying and fear-mongering. He presented his opponents as evil men to be defeated, not partners to work with. The other candidates were little better, often resorting to petty jabs at each other to emerge as the anti-Trump candidate. Reconciliation and compromise were completely absent. It’s no surprise Trump chose little-known Mike Pence as his running mate, not any of the better-qualified and more charismatic people that comprised his primary opponents.
It’s not just politics, it is life generally. Gone are the old rules of chivalry and compassion. Instead, we live in a hyper-competitive society where everyone looks out for themselves and their own kind. Having said that, none of this is an inevitable part of modern life. Outside the English speaking world, old-fashioned standards remain very much in vogue. Witness the nature of German society, with its emphasis on co-operation, compromise and respect for people’s differences. I wish that could be emulated in America, but sadly that doesn’t seem likely to happen anytime soon.