{"id":161409,"date":"2026-08-28T22:48:16","date_gmt":"2026-08-29T05:48:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/?p=161409"},"modified":"2026-09-08T22:51:42","modified_gmt":"2026-09-09T05:51:42","slug":"no-screens-are-not-making-gen-z-dumber-than-their-parents","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/?p=161409","title":{"rendered":"No. Screens are not making Gen Z \u201cdumber than their parents\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

Mike Males, Principal Investigator, YouthFacts.org| August 2026<\/strong><\/p>\n

Not ANOTHER media- and politician-pandering \u201cexpert\u201d wildly distorting data to berate teenagers and screens\u2026 and, of course, winning uncritical accolades.<\/h6>\n

\u201cA leading neuroscientist explains why Generation Z is the first generation to be less intelligent than their parents,\u201d the\u00a0MSN headline<\/a>\u00a0(one among dozens over days and days) blares of the\u00a0testimony of Harvard University\u2019s Jared Cooney Horvath<\/a>\u00a0to a U.S. Senate committee.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey\u2019re the first generation in modern history to score lower on standardized academic tests than the one before it,\u201d\u00a0Horvath declared<\/a>. \u201cAnd to make matters worse, most of these young people are overconfident about how smart they are. The smarter people think they are, the dumber they actually are.\u201d<\/p>\n

Horvath channels\u00a0Socrates<\/a>, who 2,400 years ago accused books, writing, and art of creating shallow young people sporting a \u201cspurious appearance of intelligence\u201d because they could lazily read and view information instead of memorizing it. \u201cThey will seem to be men of wide knowledge, when they will usually be ignorant.\u201d<\/p>\n

Now, Horvath recites the same criticism of Gen Z: \u201c\u2018Most of them have too much confidence in their own intelligence\u2019 because they have constant access to facts online. This creates an illusion of knowledge where people think they are smart because they can find information quickly.\u201d<\/p>\n

Horvath favors cliches, and (no surprise) just released an\u00a0alarmist book<\/a>\u00a0needing market hype. His book summary: \u201cSchools, once alive with deep learning born of human connection, are now dominated by screens.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yesterday\u2019s schools were \u201calive,\u201d \u201cdeep,\u201d \u201cborn of human connection\u201d? Did he go to Summerhill? Entire libraries could be filled with books and studies detailing how stifling schools of the past were, with titles like\u00a0Death at an Early Age, A Nation at Risk, Growing Up Absurd, The Vanishing Adolescent, The Closing of the American Mind<\/em>, on and on.<\/p>\n

Gen Z is not less intelligent than their parents<\/strong><\/p>\n

Cursory examination shows Horvath\u2019s testimony presented to senators is junk, even after he selectively cherry-picks and omits data to show only what he wants. Detailed analysis respectful of Horvath\u2019s credentials as a \u201cleading\u201d Ivy League expert suggests something worse.<\/p>\n

If one is going to compare generations over time periods, it\u2019s crucial to pick\u00a0criterion-referenced tests<\/em>\u00a0(those that subject all generations to scoring by the same standards over time) rather than\u00a0norm-referenced tests<\/em>\u00a0(those that change over time and are scored by comparing each generation to itself).<\/p>\n

Nearly all\u00a0major tests of intelligence and student knowledge<\/a>\u00a0such as\u00a0IQ, Stanford-Binet, Wechsler<\/a>,\u00a0SAT, ACT<\/a>, etc., are norm-referenced, change radically from generation to generation, lag behind modern\u00a0multiple<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0adaptive intelligence<\/a>\u00a0concepts, and thus are worse than useless for generational comparisons.<\/p>\n

Even AI like Chatbot can summarize the overwhelming research consensus on the \u201cstandardized tests\u201d Horvath relies on: \u201cIQ tests are not ideal for directly comparing intelligence across time because they are influenced by cultural, educational, and technological changes, as well as shifts in how intelligence is defined.\u201d Likewise, standardized tests like the SAT \u201care not a reliable or direct measure for comparing intelligence across time due to changes in test content, scoring, and the influence of preparation and background factors.\u201d<\/p>\n

Does Horvath not know this, or is he deliberately misleading?<\/strong><\/p>\n

My analysis focuses on the two best of the few criterion-referenced tests that are consistent over time: the\u00a0National Assessment of Educational Performance<\/a>\u00a0(NAEP), and the\u00a0Programme for International Student Assessment<\/a>\u00a0(PISA). Horvath barely mentions the former (wonder why?) and grossly distorts the latter with the ideologue\u2019s usual truncated graphs and omissions.<\/p>\n

PISA\u2019s 2024 report<\/a>\u00a0summarizes the latest international student test scores. Horvath mashes together the wildly divergent test-scores of 80-plus nations, many supplying just one year of data, and then blames negatives on social media and school tech.<\/p>\n

Examination of the report reveals that national scores go in all different directions. They plummeted in Slovakia, Iceland, and France; rose in Columbia, Macao, Qatar, and the United States; stayed flat in Mexico, Ireland, United Kingdom, and Japan; and went up-down in Germany, Latvia, Montenegro, Panama, and Portugal; etc. Did Gen Z get dumber in some places and smarter in others?<\/p>\n

Since student social media use advanced rapidly in all countries during the 2000s, how can screens be causing radically divergent student test-score trends?<\/p>\n

American Gen Z students of all races perform better than their parents<\/strong><\/p>\n

Horvath is cajoling U.S. legislators and educators to implement drastic curbs on teenagers\u2019 use of laptops, smartphones, and social media. Yet, Horvath\u2019s testimony cites NO data from the U.S. other than a few trivial effect sizes for educational interventions that range from nothing to small.<\/p>\n

His testimony fails to evaluate the biggest potential influences on U.S. student test scores \u2013 changing\u00a0student demographics<\/a>, controversial\u00a0Common Core curriculum standards<\/a>, the eruption of\u00a0parent-age drug\/alcohol abuse<\/a>, and\u00a0COVID-19\u2019s severe disruptions<\/a>, to cite just four.<\/p>\n

Figures 1 to 5 will suggest why ideologues never cite comprehensive facts. The figures below present all the data for all years criterion-referenced tests show. Like Horvath, I truncate the y-axis, but only because using a full scale would obliterate the small trends he\u2019s striving to highlight.<\/p>\n

Where data are available, Gen Z performance generally rose during the social media era (2009 forward) compared to the pre-social-media era (1990s). The exception was 2022, amid COVID-19\u2019s severe school quarantines.<\/p>\n

Let us look first at U.S. data from PISA, for which Horvath cites no U.S. numbers.<\/p>\n

Figure 1. Programme for International Student Assessment data show that from the pre-social-media era, 2000, to the present, 2022, UNITED STATES\u2019 15-year-olds\u2019 (all races) reading and science scores rose, while math scores fell.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/picture>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
Source:\u00a0PISA, 2024<\/a>.<\/h5>\n

Scores bounce around (highly visible when the y-axis is truncated), and the PISA site shows some years are unavailable. Reading and science scores generally are up from the first years surveyed, 2000\/03, in which few teens had access to social media, to 2018, when over 90% did. (The best surveys (generally\u00a0Pew Research<\/a>\u2019s) show\u00a0daily social media use<\/a>\u00a0among U.S. high schoolers rose from 0% in 1990 and 4% in 1995 to 93% by 2010 and 96% today. Similarly, student cellphone\/smartphone use rocketed from 0% in 2005 to 75% by 2010 and 95% by 2024.)<\/p>\n

The exception, math scores, would have remained stable (483 in 2003; 474 in 2006; 478 in 2018) if 2022\u2019s COVID-era school-shutdown score (465) was eliminated. One could just as easily cite the declines in test scores from 2000 to 2006 as proof that Millennials are the dumb ones.<\/p>\n

Gen Z\u2019s achievements by race\/ethnicity and discipline<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now, let\u2019s examine the largest criterion-referenced data set available, NAEP, which Horvath mentions briefly but does not present U.S. trends, the only ones relevant to his testimony.<\/p>\n

Figures 2-5 show why. They present all the scores for all years available and subjects going back to 1971 tabulated in the most recent\u00a0Digest of Education Statistics<\/em>, focusing on the same age group (8th<\/sup>\u00a0graders) and controlling for demographic changes.<\/p>\n

Figure 2. U.S. 8th<\/sup>\u00a0graders, all races, National Assessment of Education Performance reading and math scores, 1971-2022.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/picture>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Horvath has not been honest with senators, media reporters, or us. He cites the drop in reading and math scores from 2013 to 2019-2022 as proof that Gen Z is less intelligent than their Gen X parents were around 1990 (assuming a 30-year time lag between generations).<\/p>\n

Even on its face, that claim is false. Gen Z\u2019s scores in 2019, the year before COVID-19 closed many schools, were higher for reading (263 vs. 260 in 1990) and substantially for math (282 versus 270 in 1990). Even after COVID-19 quarantines shifted most schools to less effective remote learning, Gen Z scores in 2022 remained equivalent for reading and higher for math than their parents\u2019 scores in 1990 or 1992.<\/p>\n

Horvath blames social media and\u00a0Ed Tech<\/a>\u00a0for the imaginary test score decline he invents, which is also illogical: 2013 students were already heavily exposed to both. He fails to note that the pre-social-media schools he praised as \u201calive,\u201d \u201cdeep,\u201d and \u201cborn of human connection\u201d had substantially lower reading and math test scores even though test-takers back then were dominated by higher-scoring demographics.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s a big problem. Horvath fails to account for a big factor in average student scores:\u00a0changing demographics<\/a>. Socioeconomic disadvantage is far more important than anything attributable to screen time. In 1990, just 27% of 8th<\/sup>\u00a0graders were Black or Hispanic, the lowest-scoring demographics, compared to 40% in 2022. Figures 3-5 show that separating 8th<\/sup>\u00a0graders\u2019 scores by demographic groups makes Horvath\u2019s deceptions even clearer.<\/p>\n

Figure 3. READING<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/picture>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Figure 4. MATH<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/picture>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Figure 5. HISTORY<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/picture>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
Source for figures 2-5: NAEP,\u00a0Digest of Education Statistics<\/a><\/em>, 2025<\/a>,\u00a02000<\/a>.<\/h5>\n

By every measure and for every race, Gen Z (through 2018-19, with 90% social media use and heavy Ed Tech investment, but before COVID-19 disruptions) is strongly outperforming its parents (near-zero social media use and very little school technology in the early 1990s).<\/p>\n

Comparing 2019 to 1990, reading scores improved 10 points for White students, 14 points for Hispanics, and 2 points for Blacks. Math scores rose 18 points for White students, 13 points for Hispanics, and 11 points for Blacks.<\/p>\n

History scores are available only after 1994, but with expanded races. Through 2019, they rose 6 points for Whites, 10 points for Hispanics, 18 points for Blacks, and 13 points for Asians. That\u2019s also important, given Horvath\u2019s claim that internet-savvy Gen Z doesn\u2019t really know much.<\/p>\n

Scores did fall in 2022 during the COVID-19 school closures and educational disruptions. Even so, they generally remained substantially higher than their parents\u2019 scores of the early 1990s.<\/p>\n

So, by multiple measures, it\u2019s a flat-out falsehood that Gen Z is \u201cless intelligent\u201d than its parents.<\/p>\n

Horvath: \u201cmore screen time, lower performance\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Horvath rushes to blame the Gen Z test score crisis he concocts on social media and screens, led by\u00a0EdTech<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Again, on its face, the blame-screens premise is nuts. Back in the pre-social-media days Horvath glorifies as educationally superior, Boomer and Gen X teenagers spent\u00a025-30 hours a week<\/a>\u00a0watching TVs (the worst, passive kind of screen), plus many hours on landline phones and listening to radio. Monitoring the Future shows Gen X teens were just as\u00a0(un)happy and (un)lonely<\/a>\u00a0as Gen Z teens.<\/p>\n

Horvath\u2019s position is purist:<\/p>\n

\u201cHigher daily screen exposure consistently corresponds to lower scores in reading, mathematics, and science. The relationship is monotonic: more screen time, lower performance.\u201d<\/h4>\n

Not exactly. Pro-Futuro\u2019s international team\u2019s more detailed analysis of PISA data, separating learning time from leisure time on computers both at school and outside, reaches a more complex, useful conclusion:<\/p>\n

\u201cModerate and regulated use of digital devices in schools is associated with better learning outcomes.<\/h4>\n

\u201cThe findings of PISA 2022 reveal that 15-year-old students who use digital devices moderately for learning in school tend to perform better and report a greater sense of belonging in school. Students who spent one to five hours daily learning on digital devices achieved better learning outcomes than those who did not use them.<\/h4>\n

\u201cPISA data revealed another interesting trend: students who use their devices recreationally for up to an hour a day achieve better results than those who do not. Beyond one hour of recreational use, educational outcomes begin to decline. On average, in OECD countries, students who spent up to an hour a day on leisure activities on digital devices in school scored 49 points higher in mathematics than their peers who spent five to seven hours daily on their screens, even after adjusting for the socioeconomic profiles of students and schools.\u201d<\/h4>\n

No one is arguing for the \u201cindiscriminate digital expansion\u201d Horvath criticizes. The best information indicates 1-5 hours of computer use in schools is the ideal, but even here, nuances intrude. Moderation derived from ongoing research and recognition of individuality \u2013 not dogmatic purism \u2013 is the key for implementing every type of learning strategy, including digital.<\/p>\n

Nostalgic atavism always seems to trump complex reality<\/strong><\/p>\n

Every elder generation has indulged the same we\u2019re-so-smart-they\u2019re-so-dumb self-backpatting Horvath and yet another critically-thoughtless, amnesiac media and political class worships yet again.<\/p>\n

In 2009, Emory University\u2019s Mark Bauerlein accused Millennial teens of being\u00a0The Dumbest Generation<\/a>, \u201cstupefied\u201d by the \u201cdigital age.\u201d In fact, Bauerlein\u2019s incoherent claim turned out to be that Millennials weren\u2019t really dumber; they were just less smart than he thought they should be.<\/p>\n

In 1983, a US Department of Education commissioned report,\u00a0A Nation at Risk<\/a><\/em>,<\/a>\u00a0accused Gen X and Boomer youth of being the worst ever, all but ineducable, the student detritus of schools that threatened the country worse than enemy invasion. We already mentioned 1960s education critics, and Socrates, who would have fit right in.<\/p>\n

Instead of Horvath\u2019s recitation of atavistic fears that each new technology and media innovation is a horrific threat,\u00a0evolving concepts<\/a>\u00a0of\u00a0multiple intelligences<\/a>,\u00a0practical intelligence<\/a>, and\u00a0adaptive intelligence<\/a>, which helps \u201cto make the world a better place by achieving a broad, common good,\u201d hold promise for assessing our species\u2019 ability to meet emerging challenges.<\/p>\n

Certainly, Gen Z\u2019s ability to \u201cfind information quickly\u201d (a skill that horrifies Horvath) in an age of billions of terabytes would seem a crucial skill in meeting these emerging challenges. Critical, evidence-based thinking \u2013 the ability and imagination to see patterns in chaos and chaos in patterns \u2013 is another. Some evolving measures may prove as faulty as those of the past, but they are pointing to vital new ways of thinking.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Mike Males, Principal Investigator, YouthFacts.org| August 2026 Not ANOTHER media- and politician-pandering \u201cexpert\u201d wildly distorting data to berate teenagers and screens\u2026 and, of course, winning uncritical accolades. \u201cA leading neuroscientist explains why Generation Z is the first generation to be less intelligent than their parents,\u201d the\u00a0MSN headline\u00a0(one among dozens over days and days) blares of<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[30],"class_list":["post-161409","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-social-media"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161409","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=161409"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161409\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":161410,"href":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161409\/revisions\/161410"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=161409"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=161409"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.youthfacts.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=161409"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}