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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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).

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

Is it possible to split this analysis by race in the US? It would be fascinating to see the implications for the future.

Expand full comment


Expand full comment

Based upon personal observation, I don't agree. The average IQ in America is about 80.


Expand full comment

> 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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Depends on what caused the IQ spike, almost always it's a net negative.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment
Feb 4·edited Feb 4

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Hopefully, Nick Land and the doomers are wrong and we can stay alive for longer.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Could you also factor in immigration in this analysis. To estimate the true decline in IQ

Expand full comment

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."

Expand full comment

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..

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

So much Words wasted to promote Eugenics instead of figuring Ways to find better Ways to teach Children.

Eugenics is the „Machbarkeitstraum der Herrenreiter’ and it will drive many to Attila‘s Castle.

Expand full comment
Jan 30Liked by Sebastian Jensen

People have been trying and failing to find better ways of teaching children for decades.

Expand full comment

Lame Answer!

Whereever more Money is given to Schools the better Results.

It is obvious.

But rich paleskinned Ariens want to see the Money for their Children.

So the Money for good Schools flows only in Districts with wealthy Parents. In the USA that means into Districts with mainly Anglo-Arian Parents.

Right Wingers who obey their German-American Leader will deny this.

But since the Majority of Republican Voters and Party Members have turned into the AmNazi Party since the Election of Barak Obama nobody can expect anything good from US American Right Wingers.

Since the Basic knowledge of US American Schoolboys and Schoolgirls is pretty low:

Ehud Barak was not Muslim but a jewish Prime Minister of Israel.

And Barak Obama is neither Muslim nor Arab.

Condemning the 44th President of the USA for his Name has the Smell of Antisemitism.

With a little better Schooling this would be well known.

Expand full comment

No, and actually I am not a Marxist.

Best Results in the Pisa Studies that measures Skills of School Children regularly proof that Countries that invest in their Schools and are ready to apply knowledge gained about the Way Children learn the best Way usually outperform Systems frozen in Conventionality. More Conservative Systems can compete when Teachers are well paid and are respected in the Society. A better System helps, but bad Teachers can ruin everything.

I do not have the Time right now to check out the Salaries vor Teachers in Europe, but the Data can be found.

I only can say, that in Switzerland Private Schools are rare and Swiss Children are only sent there if they have Problems to keep up in the Public School System.

The Payment for Teachers is higher then for Teachers in the Public School System of the USA.

The best Students in the USA sure can compete with the best Students in Europe, but the average School Children outperform average School Children in the USA.

Compared to Finland the Swiss School System falls back.

They have the better System and good and respected Teachers.

Marx was strong in the Analyses of the Problems for Capitalist to keep up profitability, but his Belief in the Progressive Potential of the Proletariat was an Idealistic Error.

So eventhough I respect Marx I am not a Marxist.

I do not belive in the Proletariat.

I am for good Working Conditions and good Salaries for everyone, for a functioning Health System and a Schoolsystem that provides every Child with good Teachings and Selection after the most Turbulent Times of Puberty.

The Fact that Children enter Puberty not all in the same School Years is one of the Mayor Reasons for the Failure of Children who enter Puberty early.

When they have finished Puberty and can invest again in growing Knowledge they are very often left behind, whereas the late Bloomers will be carried to the Hunt whilst they suffer Puberty. The early Bloomers do not get that care eventhough that they Perform better in their late Teenage Years. But then most of them are already downselected.

To see this you do not need to be a „Communist“ but a Person who thinks that no Child should be left behind.

Expand full comment

The concept of "educating the child" is an illusion that is designed and propagated so that teachers can wear a nice clothes and have a job. This is especially true if one were to theorize that schools can with any substantiality "educate the child". The simple truth is that smart kids don't need teachers (i.e., who often are less intelligent than the bright "student") -- and, teachers can do little for the children who are not intelligent.

Expand full comment

The mantra of "investing in schools" is a deception manufactured by the teacher's unions and their political sycophants for rather obvious self-serving reasons. Parochial schools spend a tiny fraction of the per pupil expenditure in the public system -- but, substantially outperform the public schools in results.

Expand full comment

They might do so in Anglo-Saxon Countries but not in a lot of European Schools.

Going to a Private School is for Snowflakes. Something rich Parents pay for when their Kids are Underachievers.

Expand full comment

Marx' cynical "proletariat" theme was an obvious con-job designed to curry favor with those who were not in charge -- and, hence, was discontinued (i.e., as being no longer useful) when the "proletariat" took over.

Expand full comment

When did the Proletariat ever take over?

Expand full comment

I write this on an old Cellphones and a German Correcting Program and could not edit this Post.

English is not my Mothertongue and I do not really need it in my everyday Life, so it is also quite Idiosyncratic.

Expand full comment

Have you ever heard of the Marxist writer Freddie De Boer?


Expand full comment

Kurze Buchstaben auf Nomen im Englischen Bitte

Expand full comment