this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2026
390 points (92.4% liked)

News

37418 readers
2023 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Gen Z has managed something no modern generation pulled off before. After more than a century of steady academic gains, test scores finally went the other direction. For the first time ever, a new generation is officially dumber than the previous one.

The data comes from neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath, who has spent years reviewing standardized testing results across age groups. “They’re the first generation in modern history to score lower on standardized academic tests than the one before it,” Horvath told the New York Post. The declines cut across attention, memory, literacy, numeracy, executive function, and general IQ. That’s not just one weak spot. That’s the whole darn dashboard blinking at once.

Horvath took the same message to Capitol Hill during a 2026 Senate hearing on screen time and children. His framing skipped the generational dunking and focused on exposure. “More than half of the time a teenager is awake, half of it is spent staring at a screen,” he told lawmakers. Human learning, he argued, depends on sustained attention and interaction with other people. Endless feeds and condensed content don’t offer either.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

"Omg! I gave my kid an Ipad as soon as he was able to hold it in his hands so it would do my job as a parent and now my kid is dumb?! How did this happen?!

Wait, and you also tell me that me voting for assholes that wanted to destroy the education system is also to blame?!

I can't believe I'm the one responsible for this!"

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If its screens it should be effecting all the generations but at a certain point you stop taking standardized tests. Would be interesting for a societ if they kept on having them and you could see how cognitive decline worked.

[–] Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago

If your brain was fully developed before screens came into existence, the screens couldn't undo the learning you already had. However if you have spent your entire life viewing a screen and never learned to read, write, converse, dress yourself, etc and get to adulthood that way, your brain no longer has enough ability to fully erase that accumulated learning deficit. Many people under the age of 20 have large accumulated learning deficits. Unless babies, toddlers and young children are restricted from using them, the overall intelligence of the population will continue to decline. Apparently humans, in general, are very bad at learning from history. Through my life it was often asked how could Germans have allowed the Nazis to take over. We are seeing it in real time in the US. We also wondered how apparently advanced civilizations crumbled and their knowledge was lost. Again we are seeing in real time how that happens.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

Screens is too reductive. Technology is a tool, and right now the way its used for children at home and in schools is causing a negative impact on their cognitive ability. Different generations use technology in different ways, and some generations haven't used technology to replace social interaction but simply to aid it.

[–] MrSulu@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago

Lots of comments about "who's fault", parenting, schools, microplastics etc. The combined evidence appears to be strongest for screen time and how that gets in the way of usual brain activities and challenges. That doesn't detract from the need to improve parenting, diet, exercise, and reduce microplastics and other contaminants

[–] root@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That would mean that we peaked at the millennials?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago

That's so aesthetic. It's giving aura.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

This is actually kind of surprising since some of the more pervasive poisons (like lead) were reduced. I wonder if some others were introduced that we'll learn about later...

I know people like to jump right to screens and devices and "social media", but it is fairly instructive that some fairly prominent people in tech had set some boundaries on their kids' use of such things...

https://www.thelist.com/677684/the-real-reason-tech-moguls-dont-let-their-kids-on-social-media/

Also - when I read that studies show that people tend to absorb the content of actual, physical books better than reading an ebook, I tend to seek out the hardcopy of a book for important topics I need to really understand.

[–] Baggie@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 months ago

Don't blame the kids, they grew up with a vastly different environment and influences. Poor bastards have had enough problems without this shit.

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 months ago

More slop op-eds blaming systemic issues on personal failures.

[–] disconnectikacio@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›