While the mean intelligence is possibly getting lower, the variance is probably getting higher.
Humans tend to breed within their class, and class tends to be set by success (intelligence) now.
Charles Murray in his book "Coming Apart" lays out the evidence. Dating Apps have data that make that trend even more obvious. Women seek successful men as partners, and intelligence is highly inheritable.
And one minor gripe, if this goes to publication, is the use of IQ everywhere. IQ gets normalized (in the mean and variance) so it is useless as a metric over time. I know you say things like "equivalent IQ", but basing everything around a variable metric is poor science and makes this article tricky to read for anybody who knows that the mean IQ is always 100, forever, no matter how stupid people get.
May be true. I remember reading a paper that suggested that IQ scores are getting more variable within the United States, but I cannot find the source unfortunately.
IQ scores are a useless metric and can not show increased variance (not "more variable") because, by definition, the mean and variance are always renormalized (taken out). IQ is just a comparison with your peers the year you take it. Not a comparison over time. IQ data is post processed to REMOVE the mean and variance information from it. So is the SAT. Use military test scores or something like that.
The data is where I said it was. Coming apart and many articles on dating apps.
Given that education nowadays seems to be far more about indoctrination than genuine learning, that examination standards are being relentlessly scaled down in the glorious cause of inclusion, and that diversity and equity supposedly trumps meritocracy and ability, then the question asked in the headline can only become self-fulfilling and the inevitable outcome of such hare brained concepts
I think the assumption that intelligence enhancement will be limited to embryo selection is extremely pessimistic on your part. Even if you don't expect the singularity, there are a lot of paths to increasing IQ.
That's the default "tech bro" opinion on the whole "muh dysgenics!!!" kvetching from the right -- no one expects fertility patterns to actually matter given the technological advances that are coming down the pipeline.
I couldn't agree more. I've written about how and why eugenics should be implemented. I also argue that reproduction licenses are necessary to enforce in order to prevent overpopulation and fulfill societal obligations. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/eugenics
You didn't say anything about immigration. Millions of Central Americans and Africans are coming across the US Mexico border. And millions of Africans and Middle Easterners and pouring into Europe. They are lowering the average IQ of the host countries much faster.
> If at some point even 20% of the population uses embryo selection, it would be more than enough to reverse the current trends that we are seeing.
Using sperm and/or egg donation, from intelligent people, would have a bigger effect than embryo selection (and in the case of sperm donation also has the advantage that it doesn't require any special technology). Some people wouldn't go for this, because they want their kids to be genetically theirs, but on the other hand donating gametes from people with the traits you want is the most effective way of getting those traits into your kids, and I have never in my life heard a parent brag about how stupid or ugly their kids are.
There is no need for embryo selection or other intervention. "Regression towards the mean" solves the purported problem of breeding by lower IQ persons -- genetically and automatically. For example, in our immediate family 3 out of the 4 siblings have IQ's of 135+, which is substantially superior to either of our parents.
Statistically, most intelligent people *and* most unintelligent people are both born to or likely to have parents of average intelligence. That's because there's so many more average IQ people than there are low or high IQ people. That is a better explanation for why the family that you speak of purportedly has high IQ offspring born to average-to-high IQ parents. If 3 out of 4 of the offspring have higher IQ than the average IQ of the parents, then the parents simply got lucky, assuming that they wanted to have intelligent offspring.
Fair argument, but then you hasten to the non-human end point. Particularly due to the fact that most people will view this as a non-survival event. But completely aside from that argument it will be a non-survival state due to the selection bias for psychopathy. even if we don't destroy ourselves, we destroy ourselves genetically. It is a game ender. and even IF humanity makes it past this stage, it's still an eventual, as well as hastened end point of non-human transformation to cyborg, then completely AI.
To be honest i've no idea how your comment follows from mine. i was talking about sperm/egg donation and you're talking about cyborgs and AI -- something totally different and which absolutely doesn't follow.
Nor do I get your point about selecting for psychopathy.
Mibad, I probably should have addressed Sebastian Jensen's argument and not yours. I addressed you in haste.
That being said much the same argument would apply.
When discussing 'intelligence' per say most people are speaking conceptually about a relative amount of response, memory etc. to testing. This however doesn't preclude why intelligence is functionally intelligent.
Intelligence testing seems to primarily select for one thing, career success/survivability, not 'simply being a good test taker.'
It's not the same thing as say, mentally stable, flourishing, kindness etc. it's simply testing ability to navigate through environment.
Likewise, a much higher than normal proportion, potentially and probably all of highly intelligent people make a tradeoff for this 'ability to navigate', which we often note carries a propensity toward either mental illness, adhd, autism, schizophrenia, and various personality disorders, like psychopathy.
Intelligence, however, is simply a description of what observable biology is doing. And primarily this means your overall health, but most importantly your neurological system. The association has a lot of back-and-forth interplay, but mostly you're simply looking at the performance of the 'brain bud' in your skull.
When you do this, you can make very simple observations, the brain is hyper complex, meaning you can't simply pull one section out like say your cerebellum to make a change. To illustrate this as best I can without writing a library of books, your cortical performs some of the more ancient brain functions. So even if you remove your primary cerebellum for instance you can still breathe, move around, and really almost live a full life but with a great many medical issues.
Point being, that when you select for intelligence, say in a lab for instance, you're not just selecting for most human flourishing and happiness. You're inherently selecting for dysfunction also. When you skew toward intelligence, you're also skewing toward disability as well as loss of self-preservation (psychopathy).
If you again say select out for the weaker versions of highly intelligent people, you're heavily skewing in favor of people with an increasingly lower sense of self-preservation, by eliminating those with autism, adhd, etc.
It's the trade off.
Similarly, you're going to be immersing in an unknown factor. Primarily, will the balance of biological traits we currently have , even more specifically the difference in male to female brains, create non-functional at population scale catastrophe.
which again, it almost certainly will, because you are heavily skewing toward psychopathy.
> Some commentators like Anatoly Karlin argue that concerns about national IQ will not be as relevant once strong artificial intelligence has been developed, as lots of white collar work will then be automatable.
It's a cute idea that "strong AI" (which I take you mean AGI here) will need humans around for long, but no, AGI soon leads to ASI, and the end of human history by definition.
The idea that AI advances to the cusp of the above and then just stays there for the decades described here is amusing, but improbable.
Personally, my p(doom) in the short term (2000-2200) is 0.05, as there is no evidence that AGI is on the horizon, but in the long term (2000-100000) p(doom) is close to 1, as it is the most plausible cause of human extinction.
and as a National Merit Scholar; practicing chemical engineer; editor-in-chief of Law Review; patent, trademark and copyright lawyer; student of perhaps 500 different technologies, in biology, chemistry, electronics, business methods, economics systems, etc.; intellectual property litigation lawyer (for 52+ years, and am today filing a brief in federal court regarding the opposing parties' patent-invalidating "prior public use" and/or "on-sale", under 35 USC Section 102); memorizer of the Gospel of John (at age 13); actor; student of music theory; symphonic aficionado (since age 13); sonnet poet; wrestler; defensive street fighter (as may be necessary or beneficial); lover of many women (definitely beneficial -- to them); feminist; marathoner; barefoot runner; 350+ bench presser (OK-- it was 40 years ago); construction laborer; steel mill worker; agricultural worker (e.g., bailing hay by hand); life guard; .400 hitter in baseball; present-day "old guy gym rat"; vocal soloist (still); medaled piano player (e..g., Liszt etudes, Rachmaninoff preludes, Bach inventions, etc.); band member (bassist, guitar and Double Bass), orchestra member (trumpeter, flugelhorn, baritone and Sousaphone), anti-tobacco; teetotaler; political theorist (anti-Marxist, libertarian/traditionalist) --
my IQ of 150 modestly speaks for itself, but it is hoped not very loud.
The children, who are adults, are scientists, lawyers, and business owners. Their respective IQs would be estimated at 135+ -- and with a somewhat higher g-factor. So, perhaps there has been some measure of "regression toward the mean" -- but not much.
The only rational conclusion is that intellectual ability is, in material part, inherited -- yes. But, the degree thereof is somewhat random -- and, may be either up or down.
We can't ask Marx, Lenin and/or Stalin about their advocacy in behalf of "the Proletariat" -- i.e., themselves and their friends -- because they are no longer around. But, we can read the propagandistic writings attributed to them -- that they probably had ghost-written. But, perhaps the most salient point is that those who are in power are the entities that mandate the definition of the term "Proletariat". It is bit like what Himmler used to say:" Zee Law ist vat ve zay it ist."
Europe? You mean the place from which our ancestors sweated blood in order to escape? The place where the privileged remained -- and, from which the dispossessed and the penniless emigrated -- to America to create an entirely new kind of country? In America, one function of the parochial schools is to provide a religious education for children of working families. Unlike the costly Leftist public schools -- that are dominated by feel-good-ism, transsexualism, sexual perversion, woke-ism, subjective pronoun-ism, racial obsession, anti-Semitism, anti-Constitutionalism, statism and government domination, and other collectivist mal-theories -- misconduct in parochial schools is not permitted, and accordingly a stable environment where student can learn something is provided. Oppositely from the European system that is posited, supra, if students in the American parochial system misbehave chronically, they will be banished to the public system -- which is obliged via the "political correctness" of the lowest common denominator to accept them..
I disagree with the part on mutational load, the Flynn effect, the increase in IQ that we've observed, is equally damning for selection pressures and mutational pressure. it would be nice if we had a good explanation for the flan effect and it's inappropriate to say it's only a problem for the mutational low theory.
The literature on paternal age and IQ is not really confusing. The correlation is about 0.09 earlier studies did not control for father's IQ, but it turns out that father's IQ does correlate with paternal age and so therefore father's IQ must be controlled for , the most recent study controlled for this, and indeed found the correlation between paternal age and IQ of 0.09 which is very close to the 0.11 correlation between paternal age and leftism. it is inaccurate to say that birth order nuked this correlation, rather that study did not have the power to control for birth order, and the standard errors got too large, and the point estimate became worthless. However, that study did show that maternal age did not have any non-mutational low effect (there is a small mutational load effect about a quarter of the size of the one with paternal age when it comes to maternal age and a trait). I have shown that the association between birth order, and the paternal age effect in leftism is zero meaning birth order has no effect on the paternal age effect, and leftism, and something similar has been shown for mental illnesses like ADHD and schizophrenia, which also have paternal age effects so therefore, I doubt that birth order actually matters for IQ and it's paternal age effect, in general birth order is a nothing burger when it comes to paternal age effect so I think that you were statement about the birth order not being controlled for is not accurate it does not matter much when it comes to estimating the mutational pressure for IQ. I think that the estimate that we have is pretty good.
hopefully embryo selection will correct the mutational load and the gene flow and the selection pressure which all seem to be negative and the evolutionary pressure is the sum of these so these things are not mutually exclusive theories but rather they complement each other the evolutionary pressure on IQ is a sum of gene flow selection pressure, mutational pressure, indicating that the overall evolutionary trend is almost certainly more negative than just the election pressure alone given that all the components are negative.
however, I also want to point out that it's kind of a cope to hope that a technology that still does not exist will save us. We have been ravaged by this Genix for 200 years for at least 100 years if not more, we have had the knowledge needed to increase the selection pressures to be significantly eugenic. It is a fact that by now we could have a mean IQ of over 145 on today's scale if eugenics had been started when they could've been. There is really no excuse for not doing this.
I think you're going to find that IQ decline will likely be worse than this prediction due to increased reliance on technology. A drop of .35 is likely a woeful underestimate of decline. Particularly for post millennium births who have never seen much beyond a city street or manicured lawn.
Part of my reasoning is also the simple lack of exercise which is required for a healthy mind. Similarly, as one other poster notes, the stratification will widen. Since increased awareness of self destruction doesn't seem to motivate humanity enough to stop their decline, this is much less likely to be a rebound issue, but a continual addiction spiral.
The counter tech revolution still being some decades away, unfortunately. Expect increased unhappiness and human immiseration, even past the point of slamming on the technological brakes.
While the mean intelligence is possibly getting lower, the variance is probably getting higher.
Humans tend to breed within their class, and class tends to be set by success (intelligence) now.
Charles Murray in his book "Coming Apart" lays out the evidence. Dating Apps have data that make that trend even more obvious. Women seek successful men as partners, and intelligence is highly inheritable.
And one minor gripe, if this goes to publication, is the use of IQ everywhere. IQ gets normalized (in the mean and variance) so it is useless as a metric over time. I know you say things like "equivalent IQ", but basing everything around a variable metric is poor science and makes this article tricky to read for anybody who knows that the mean IQ is always 100, forever, no matter how stupid people get.
May be true. I remember reading a paper that suggested that IQ scores are getting more variable within the United States, but I cannot find the source unfortunately.
IQ scores are a useless metric and can not show increased variance (not "more variable") because, by definition, the mean and variance are always renormalized (taken out). IQ is just a comparison with your peers the year you take it. Not a comparison over time. IQ data is post processed to REMOVE the mean and variance information from it. So is the SAT. Use military test scores or something like that.
The data is where I said it was. Coming apart and many articles on dating apps.
That's incorrect. Score variance can be compared across time if the same test is used (which they did, I think it was the PPVT).
Jesus. Only if they have the raw scores. Which are NOT called IQ scores.
One last time - IQ is POST_PROCESSED data with the mean and variance removed (and therefore NOT available) - by definition of IQ.
Given that education nowadays seems to be far more about indoctrination than genuine learning, that examination standards are being relentlessly scaled down in the glorious cause of inclusion, and that diversity and equity supposedly trumps meritocracy and ability, then the question asked in the headline can only become self-fulfilling and the inevitable outcome of such hare brained concepts
Is it possible to split this analysis by race in the US? It would be fascinating to see the implications for the future.
Effect is larger within Black/Hispanic people - see 'A META-ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENERAL COGNITIVE ABILITY AND FERTILITY'
Do you know what happened to George Francis, by chance? This webpage has a link to his Twitter profile, which doesn't exist anymore.
I think the assumption that intelligence enhancement will be limited to embryo selection is extremely pessimistic on your part. Even if you don't expect the singularity, there are a lot of paths to increasing IQ.
That's the default "tech bro" opinion on the whole "muh dysgenics!!!" kvetching from the right -- no one expects fertility patterns to actually matter given the technological advances that are coming down the pipeline.
I couldn't agree more. I've written about how and why eugenics should be implemented. I also argue that reproduction licenses are necessary to enforce in order to prevent overpopulation and fulfill societal obligations. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/eugenics
You didn't say anything about immigration. Millions of Central Americans and Africans are coming across the US Mexico border. And millions of Africans and Middle Easterners and pouring into Europe. They are lowering the average IQ of the host countries much faster.
Could you also factor in immigration in this analysis. To estimate the true decline in IQ
Based upon personal observation, I don't agree. The average IQ in America is about 80.
BMWLAW
> If at some point even 20% of the population uses embryo selection, it would be more than enough to reverse the current trends that we are seeing.
Using sperm and/or egg donation, from intelligent people, would have a bigger effect than embryo selection (and in the case of sperm donation also has the advantage that it doesn't require any special technology). Some people wouldn't go for this, because they want their kids to be genetically theirs, but on the other hand donating gametes from people with the traits you want is the most effective way of getting those traits into your kids, and I have never in my life heard a parent brag about how stupid or ugly their kids are.
There is no need for embryo selection or other intervention. "Regression towards the mean" solves the purported problem of breeding by lower IQ persons -- genetically and automatically. For example, in our immediate family 3 out of the 4 siblings have IQ's of 135+, which is substantially superior to either of our parents.
"Regression to the mean" has two potential meanings, and it's not clear which one you're talking about. Regardless, your claims are incorrect because that's not how Regression to the mean works. https://zerocontradictions.net/epistemology/reasoning-skills#regression-to-mean
Statistically, most intelligent people *and* most unintelligent people are both born to or likely to have parents of average intelligence. That's because there's so many more average IQ people than there are low or high IQ people. That is a better explanation for why the family that you speak of purportedly has high IQ offspring born to average-to-high IQ parents. If 3 out of 4 of the offspring have higher IQ than the average IQ of the parents, then the parents simply got lucky, assuming that they wanted to have intelligent offspring.
Depends on what caused the IQ spike, almost always it's a net negative.
If you have regression towards the mean, then you'd be having kids with IQs around 100 -- not 135+. So I don't understand tour point.
Fair argument, but then you hasten to the non-human end point. Particularly due to the fact that most people will view this as a non-survival event. But completely aside from that argument it will be a non-survival state due to the selection bias for psychopathy. even if we don't destroy ourselves, we destroy ourselves genetically. It is a game ender. and even IF humanity makes it past this stage, it's still an eventual, as well as hastened end point of non-human transformation to cyborg, then completely AI.
To be honest i've no idea how your comment follows from mine. i was talking about sperm/egg donation and you're talking about cyborgs and AI -- something totally different and which absolutely doesn't follow.
Nor do I get your point about selecting for psychopathy.
Mibad, I probably should have addressed Sebastian Jensen's argument and not yours. I addressed you in haste.
That being said much the same argument would apply.
When discussing 'intelligence' per say most people are speaking conceptually about a relative amount of response, memory etc. to testing. This however doesn't preclude why intelligence is functionally intelligent.
Intelligence testing seems to primarily select for one thing, career success/survivability, not 'simply being a good test taker.'
It's not the same thing as say, mentally stable, flourishing, kindness etc. it's simply testing ability to navigate through environment.
Likewise, a much higher than normal proportion, potentially and probably all of highly intelligent people make a tradeoff for this 'ability to navigate', which we often note carries a propensity toward either mental illness, adhd, autism, schizophrenia, and various personality disorders, like psychopathy.
Intelligence, however, is simply a description of what observable biology is doing. And primarily this means your overall health, but most importantly your neurological system. The association has a lot of back-and-forth interplay, but mostly you're simply looking at the performance of the 'brain bud' in your skull.
When you do this, you can make very simple observations, the brain is hyper complex, meaning you can't simply pull one section out like say your cerebellum to make a change. To illustrate this as best I can without writing a library of books, your cortical performs some of the more ancient brain functions. So even if you remove your primary cerebellum for instance you can still breathe, move around, and really almost live a full life but with a great many medical issues.
Point being, that when you select for intelligence, say in a lab for instance, you're not just selecting for most human flourishing and happiness. You're inherently selecting for dysfunction also. When you skew toward intelligence, you're also skewing toward disability as well as loss of self-preservation (psychopathy).
If you again say select out for the weaker versions of highly intelligent people, you're heavily skewing in favor of people with an increasingly lower sense of self-preservation, by eliminating those with autism, adhd, etc.
It's the trade off.
Similarly, you're going to be immersing in an unknown factor. Primarily, will the balance of biological traits we currently have , even more specifically the difference in male to female brains, create non-functional at population scale catastrophe.
which again, it almost certainly will, because you are heavily skewing toward psychopathy.
I hope I was clearer this time.
or were just never smart?
Great article. Only point:
> Some commentators like Anatoly Karlin argue that concerns about national IQ will not be as relevant once strong artificial intelligence has been developed, as lots of white collar work will then be automatable.
It's a cute idea that "strong AI" (which I take you mean AGI here) will need humans around for long, but no, AGI soon leads to ASI, and the end of human history by definition.
The idea that AI advances to the cusp of the above and then just stays there for the decades described here is amusing, but improbable.
Hopefully, Nick Land and the doomers are wrong and we can stay alive for longer.
Personally, my p(doom) in the short term (2000-2200) is 0.05, as there is no evidence that AGI is on the horizon, but in the long term (2000-100000) p(doom) is close to 1, as it is the most plausible cause of human extinction.
I'm not convinced. https://zerocontradictions.net/civilization/technology#AI-safety
FYI... At age 80+ --
and as a National Merit Scholar; practicing chemical engineer; editor-in-chief of Law Review; patent, trademark and copyright lawyer; student of perhaps 500 different technologies, in biology, chemistry, electronics, business methods, economics systems, etc.; intellectual property litigation lawyer (for 52+ years, and am today filing a brief in federal court regarding the opposing parties' patent-invalidating "prior public use" and/or "on-sale", under 35 USC Section 102); memorizer of the Gospel of John (at age 13); actor; student of music theory; symphonic aficionado (since age 13); sonnet poet; wrestler; defensive street fighter (as may be necessary or beneficial); lover of many women (definitely beneficial -- to them); feminist; marathoner; barefoot runner; 350+ bench presser (OK-- it was 40 years ago); construction laborer; steel mill worker; agricultural worker (e.g., bailing hay by hand); life guard; .400 hitter in baseball; present-day "old guy gym rat"; vocal soloist (still); medaled piano player (e..g., Liszt etudes, Rachmaninoff preludes, Bach inventions, etc.); band member (bassist, guitar and Double Bass), orchestra member (trumpeter, flugelhorn, baritone and Sousaphone), anti-tobacco; teetotaler; political theorist (anti-Marxist, libertarian/traditionalist) --
my IQ of 150 modestly speaks for itself, but it is hoped not very loud.
The children, who are adults, are scientists, lawyers, and business owners. Their respective IQs would be estimated at 135+ -- and with a somewhat higher g-factor. So, perhaps there has been some measure of "regression toward the mean" -- but not much.
The only rational conclusion is that intellectual ability is, in material part, inherited -- yes. But, the degree thereof is somewhat random -- and, may be either up or down.
Sorry, but no one cares to read you gloating about your life accomplishments in the comments section. It's also dubious that your IQ is close to 150 when you don't even understand how regression to the mean works. https://zerocontradictions.net/epistemology/reasoning-skills#regression-to-mean
We can't ask Marx, Lenin and/or Stalin about their advocacy in behalf of "the Proletariat" -- i.e., themselves and their friends -- because they are no longer around. But, we can read the propagandistic writings attributed to them -- that they probably had ghost-written. But, perhaps the most salient point is that those who are in power are the entities that mandate the definition of the term "Proletariat". It is bit like what Himmler used to say:" Zee Law ist vat ve zay it ist."
Europe? You mean the place from which our ancestors sweated blood in order to escape? The place where the privileged remained -- and, from which the dispossessed and the penniless emigrated -- to America to create an entirely new kind of country? In America, one function of the parochial schools is to provide a religious education for children of working families. Unlike the costly Leftist public schools -- that are dominated by feel-good-ism, transsexualism, sexual perversion, woke-ism, subjective pronoun-ism, racial obsession, anti-Semitism, anti-Constitutionalism, statism and government domination, and other collectivist mal-theories -- misconduct in parochial schools is not permitted, and accordingly a stable environment where student can learn something is provided. Oppositely from the European system that is posited, supra, if students in the American parochial system misbehave chronically, they will be banished to the public system -- which is obliged via the "political correctness" of the lowest common denominator to accept them..
I disagree with the part on mutational load, the Flynn effect, the increase in IQ that we've observed, is equally damning for selection pressures and mutational pressure. it would be nice if we had a good explanation for the flan effect and it's inappropriate to say it's only a problem for the mutational low theory.
The literature on paternal age and IQ is not really confusing. The correlation is about 0.09 earlier studies did not control for father's IQ, but it turns out that father's IQ does correlate with paternal age and so therefore father's IQ must be controlled for , the most recent study controlled for this, and indeed found the correlation between paternal age and IQ of 0.09 which is very close to the 0.11 correlation between paternal age and leftism. it is inaccurate to say that birth order nuked this correlation, rather that study did not have the power to control for birth order, and the standard errors got too large, and the point estimate became worthless. However, that study did show that maternal age did not have any non-mutational low effect (there is a small mutational load effect about a quarter of the size of the one with paternal age when it comes to maternal age and a trait). I have shown that the association between birth order, and the paternal age effect in leftism is zero meaning birth order has no effect on the paternal age effect, and leftism, and something similar has been shown for mental illnesses like ADHD and schizophrenia, which also have paternal age effects so therefore, I doubt that birth order actually matters for IQ and it's paternal age effect, in general birth order is a nothing burger when it comes to paternal age effect so I think that you were statement about the birth order not being controlled for is not accurate it does not matter much when it comes to estimating the mutational pressure for IQ. I think that the estimate that we have is pretty good.
hopefully embryo selection will correct the mutational load and the gene flow and the selection pressure which all seem to be negative and the evolutionary pressure is the sum of these so these things are not mutually exclusive theories but rather they complement each other the evolutionary pressure on IQ is a sum of gene flow selection pressure, mutational pressure, indicating that the overall evolutionary trend is almost certainly more negative than just the election pressure alone given that all the components are negative.
however, I also want to point out that it's kind of a cope to hope that a technology that still does not exist will save us. We have been ravaged by this Genix for 200 years for at least 100 years if not more, we have had the knowledge needed to increase the selection pressures to be significantly eugenic. It is a fact that by now we could have a mean IQ of over 145 on today's scale if eugenics had been started when they could've been. There is really no excuse for not doing this.
I think you're going to find that IQ decline will likely be worse than this prediction due to increased reliance on technology. A drop of .35 is likely a woeful underestimate of decline. Particularly for post millennium births who have never seen much beyond a city street or manicured lawn.
Part of my reasoning is also the simple lack of exercise which is required for a healthy mind. Similarly, as one other poster notes, the stratification will widen. Since increased awareness of self destruction doesn't seem to motivate humanity enough to stop their decline, this is much less likely to be a rebound issue, but a continual addiction spiral.
The counter tech revolution still being some decades away, unfortunately. Expect increased unhappiness and human immiseration, even past the point of slamming on the technological brakes.