Gen Z is Getting Dumber and That’s Hurting the GOP — and America

American Thinker 

A troubling shift is unfolding within Generation Z (Zoomers), born between 1997 and 2012. It is not merely cultural or political. It is cognitive.

In February testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, neuroscientist Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath statedthat Zoomers have become the first generation in modern recorded history to score lower than its predecessor. This was across key cognitive measures such as attention span, memory, reading comprehension, numeracy, problem-solving ability, and overall IQ.

For more than a century, the trend had moved in the opposite direction. Each new generation typically scored higher on intelligence measures than the last. Scholars called this the Flynn effect. Improvements in nutrition, education, and living standards steadily boosted cognitive performance throughout the twentieth century.

That trajectory appears to have reversed.

Researchers point to an environmental cause rather than a biological one. The most frequently cited factor is the overwhelming dominance of digital media in both classrooms and daily life. Experts note that excessive exposure to short-form content such as rapid-fire social media feeds, short videos, and abbreviated summaries discourages sustained attention and deep reading. As a result, the intellectual discipline once built through long-form study is eroding.

Horvath summarized the problem bluntly during his Senate testimony. The human brain, he explained, is not wired to learn complex ideas through brief online clips or condensed digital summaries. Effective learning requires sustained engagement and cognitive effort. Without those habits, memory formation and deep comprehension weaken.

An international analysis drawing on standardized testing results found a striking correlation between heavy technology use in school and poorer academic performance. Students who used computers for roughly five hours per day in educational settings scored more than two-thirds of a standard deviation lower. This was on reasoning, literacy, and numeracy tests, compared with students who had minimal exposure to classroom technology.

Such findings have raised serious concerns about long-term economic productivity. A generation that struggles with sustained focus and complex reasoning may face major challenges in innovation, technical fields, and strategic decision-making.

Unfortunately, politics does not escape the consequences.

Lower cognitive ability tends to correlate with greater attraction to rigid ideological thinking. A 2025 study published in the Journal of Personalityfound something highly important. Adolescents who displayed authoritarian tendencies consistently demonstrated weaker cognitive ability and lower emotional intelligence compared with peers who rejected such views.

The pattern appeared across ideological lines. Right-wing authoritarianism, left-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance attitudes all showed the same relationship with reduced cognitive performance.

The implication is uncomfortable but difficult to ignore. When reasoning ability weakens, simplistic explanations gain appeal. Nuance disappears. Political debate collapses into simplistic, self-gratifying emotional narratives of right and wrong.

The consequences are already visible among younger voters.

A study examining how cognitive ability interacts with political information found that individuals with lower verbal ability who consumed large amounts of political media actually developed less coherent political views. Instead of becoming more informed, they absorbed contradictory talking points without resolving them. Their opinions became less stable and more polarized over time.

In other words, the information explosion did not create a generation of sophisticated political thinkers. In many cases, it created a generation of rigid ideologues without a coherent ideology.

The result is a volatile political climate defined less by traditional hot-button issues than by deeply personal grievances.

Surveys across Western countries illustrate the shift.

A large study examining the political attitudes of Zoomers in the United Kingdom found that 52 percent of respondents agreed the country might function better with a strong leader who did not have to worry about parliament or elections. Thirty-three percent said it might be preferable for the military to run the country. Nearly half supported radical revolutionary change to the entire political system.

Subsequent analysis suggested that explicit support for dictatorship is smaller than those headline numbers implied. When researchers replaced the phrase “strong leader” with the word “dictator,” agreement dropped sharply to roughly 22 percent in one survey and even lower in others.

Yet the underlying problem remains. Large numbers of young people express deep disillusionment with powerful institutions.

The same pattern appears in the United States.

A study of American Zoomer attitudes found that 47 percent agreed that leaders should sometimes set aside bedrock principles such as constitutional checks and balances to fix the economy. Twenty-five percent declared a lack of real care for the Constitution. Fifty-one percent said they would be willing to surrender some democratic powers for more effective government.

Crucially, the divide is not a traditional left-versus-right conflict. Instead, it is an increasingly bitter us-versus-them mindset rooted in grievance. Many young voters feel excluded from economic opportunity, socially maladjusted, and alienated from political institutions. Their anger often lacks ideological coherence.

That dynamic produces strange alliances and equally strange political behavior.

A young voter might support textbook Marxian economics while also endorsing unreconstructed medieval theocracy. Another might claim an all-American conservative identity while simultaneously embracing the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The political spectrum begins to fracture.

A recent scandal in Florida offers a disturbing glimpse of where that trajectory can lead.

Earlier this month, the Miami Herald published an investigation into a WhatsApp group created by Abel Alexander Carvajal, a law student at Florida International University (FIU) and secretary of the Miami-Dade County Republican Party. The group had been formed the previous fall to help conservative students coordinate Republican events on campus.

Within three weeks, the chat descended into something depraved.

According to message logs, which were independently verified, the group included more than four hundred variations of the worst anti-black and antisemitic slurs, among other vitriol. Participants also discussed graphic violence against blacks, including lists describing dozens of methods for killing them. At one point a member renamed the chat “Nazi heaven,” framing this in a positive context.

Several prominent campus conservatives were involved with the group. This includes Ian Valdes, then president of FIU’s Turning Point USA chapter, and Dariel Gonzalez, a former FIU College Republicans recruitment chair.

The backlash was swift.

Kevin Cooper, chairman of the Miami-Dade Republican Party and its first Jewish leader, condemned the chat. He announced that a majority of the party’s board had voted to request Carvajal’s resignation while initiating formal removal proceedings.

FIU also launched an investigation. University president Jeanette Nunez confirmed that campus police were coordinating with local, state, and federal law enforcement authorities. This was due to the violent threats described in the messages.

Republican officials across Florida quickly demanded accountability. The Florida GOP initiated an internal review, describing the comments as “repugnant” and completely contrary to the party’s principles.

For non-lefties, the lesson is clear.

Populism rooted in prosperity, public safety, and social stability can attract millions of voters. But grievance-mongering spirals into ugliness that repels the broader public.

The Miami scandal was not simply a controversy about offensive language. It revealed something deeper. Zoomers have a serious problem in dealing with reality. After taking to the political arena, they increasingly resort to self-destructive behavior. This soon becomes cancerous for other people, and even entire institutions.

Under these circumstances, which amount to an escalating intelligence deficit, a first world society cannot remain first world for long.