Is ‘brain-rot’ real? Gen Z’s IQ scores fuel global alarm

A growing debate over “brain-rot” is resurfacing in classrooms, workplaces and policy circles as reports of weakening cognitive performance among younger cohorts collide with anxieties about heavy screen use and fragmented attention. The discussion gained fresh momentum after renewed scrutiny of test-based indicators, including IQ trends and standardized assessments, that some researchers say point to stagnation or declines in certain skills among late millennials and Gen Z.

A BusinessMirror report examined how these signals are being interpreted—and contested—by psychologists and education experts, many of whom caution that headline claims can overreach. While some datasets suggest that decades of steady gains in measured intelligence may be slowing in parts of the world, specialists stress that IQ scores are an imperfect proxy for learning, problem-solving in real environments, and the broad mix of skills demanded by modern economies.

What the IQ trend debate is actually measuring

For much of the 20th century, researchers documented a sustained rise in average IQ scores across many countries, a pattern often linked to better nutrition, public health, mass schooling and more cognitively demanding work. In recent years, however, several studies have reported that the long-running increase has weakened, plateaued, or reversed in certain populations—sparking questions about whether younger generations are losing ground.

Experts cited in the BusinessMirror article frame the issue as less about any single generation “getting dumber” and more about a shifting mix of environmental factors and measurement limits. IQ tests capture specific types of reasoning under standardized conditions; they are influenced by education quality, familiarity with test formats, and cultural context. That makes small changes in average scores difficult to interpret without examining what subtests moved, what cohorts were sampled, and whether changes reflect real cognitive differences or broader social shifts.

Researchers also note that intelligence is not one monolithic skill. Some assessments focus on fluid reasoning and processing speed, while others emphasize vocabulary and accumulated knowledge. When performance changes over time, the underlying driver may not be a broad decline in ability but a rebalancing of strengths—such as weaker sustained attention paired with improved visual-spatial navigation or faster pattern recognition shaped by digital environments.

Attention, screens and learning: competing explanations

The “brain-rot” label has become shorthand for worries that constant notifications, short-form video feeds and multitasking are eroding deep focus. In the BusinessMirror account, specialists treat this as a plausible but incomplete explanation. Digital media can compress attention into shorter bursts, but the same tools can also support learning through access to tutorials, collaboration platforms and self-paced instruction. The net effect depends on how technology is used, what replaces it, and the support systems available at home and in school.

Educators and psychologists point to the broader learning environment: pandemic-era disruptions, uneven access to effective remote instruction, and widening gaps in foundational literacy and numeracy. These disruptions can show up in test performance, including on components that correlate with IQ measures. In that context, the “brain-rot” debate risks oversimplifying what may be a complex recovery challenge for education systems and employers that rely on cognitive skills.

Another thread in the discussion is reading. Several analysts argue that reduced long-form reading—whether due to time constraints, platform design or changing habits—can affect comprehension, vocabulary growth and the ability to process complex arguments. Those skills matter for higher education and knowledge-intensive work, and they influence how young workers learn on the job.

Implications for employers and the economy

For businesses, the concern is less about any single statistic and more about whether the entry-level workforce arrives with weaker foundational skills or less readiness for sustained problem-solving. Companies already report rising training needs in communication, critical thinking and basic quantitative reasoning, especially as jobs integrate more data, compliance requirements and customer interaction. If test-based indicators reflect real gaps, employers may face higher onboarding costs and longer ramp-up times.

At the same time, firms are increasingly hiring for adaptable skills—learning agility, collaboration, and digital fluency—that can be developed through targeted training and mentorship. Some experts argue that focusing narrowly on IQ metrics can distract from practical interventions: strengthening apprenticeships, improving assessment of job-relevant skills, and designing workflows that support attention and accuracy.

The debate also intersects with mental health and productivity. Chronic stress, sleep disruption and anxiety can impair concentration and memory, affecting both academic performance and workplace output. Business leaders monitoring retention and performance are increasingly looking at wellness, workload design and clear expectations as levers that may improve both human outcomes and organizational results.

What experts say is missing from the “brain-rot” narrative

Specialists quoted in the BusinessMirror report emphasize that generational generalizations can mask wide variation within Gen Z. Socioeconomic background, school quality, language environment and access to support services strongly influence outcomes. Treating an entire cohort as cognitively impaired can stigmatize young people and shift attention away from structural fixes.

Another caution is that different countries and datasets do not always tell the same story. Changes in testing, participation rates, immigration patterns, and educational reforms can alter averages. Some researchers argue that the most responsible reading of the evidence is conditional: certain cognitive skills may be under pressure in some environments, while others may be stable or improving.

Even within the same population, trends may differ by skill domain. Analysts suggest that modern life can strengthen rapid information scanning and visual processing while weakening patience for complex texts or multi-step reasoning. That tradeoff matters for business and policy because it affects how training is designed, how information is communicated, and how performance is evaluated.

Factors commonly discussed in the Gen Z IQ scores brain-rot debate

Across the research and commentary highlighted in the BusinessMirror article, several drivers recur. They are typically presented as interacting influences rather than single causes.

• Education disruption and quality: learning loss from closures, teacher shortages, and uneven remediation
• Media and attention: constant connectivity, multitasking, and platform incentives that favor short engagement
• Reading and language exposure: reduced long-form reading and weaker comprehension practice
• Sleep and health: fatigue, stress, and lifestyle changes that affect cognition
• Measurement issues: test design changes, sampling differences, and limits of IQ as a proxy for capability

Experts stress that policy and business responses should focus on what can be changed: improving foundational learning, rebuilding study habits, and creating environments that reward sustained effort. In workplaces, that can include structured training, clearer documentation, and realistic performance metrics that reflect the real tasks employees perform.

The BusinessMirror report ultimately frames the issue as a signal for closer analysis rather than a verdict on a generation. Whether IQ score trends are meaningful, and how they map to workplace performance, depends on the details of the data and the surrounding conditions shaping learning and attention.

Disclaimer: This article is a newsroom summary of a BusinessMirror report and related expert perspectives for context. It does not provide medical, psychological, or educational advice.