“Swedes are getting dumber; Sweden’s average IQ has fallen for nine years and no one knows why.”
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Claims that “Swedes are getting dumber” rest on a shaky mix of partial data, contested international rankings, and long‑running research on a so‑called reverse Flynn effect in Scandinavia; serious academic work finds declines in some Nordic test cohorts since the mid‑1990s but Sweden lacks clear, recent national time‑series that would prove a steady nine‑year fall, so the blanket statement is not supported by the sources reviewed [1] [2] [3].
1. What the academic record actually says about Nordic IQ trends
Peer‑reviewed analyses and syntheses of military and standardized test data in the Nordic countries document that the decades‑long IQ gains known as the Flynn effect have stalled and even reversed in some cohorts, with inflection points clustering around the mid‑1990s and projected multi‑point losses over decades in Norway, Finland and Denmark—these studies explicitly include Sweden in broader regional patterns but note limited recent Swedish data [1] [2].
2. The weak link: Sweden-specific, up‑to‑date national measures are scarce
Multiple popular IQ rankings and test‑platform averages report differing contemporary numbers for Sweden (examples range from mid‑90s to above 100), but these are drawn from online test takers or aggregations with varying methods and non‑representative samples; the academic reviews that detect a reverse Flynn effect emphasize military draft or longitudinal data rather than consumer test sites, and several authors flag that Sweden “has no recent data” in some comparative compilations [3] [4] [5] [2].
3. Why a nine‑year continuous decline claim is unsupported
The specific assertion that Sweden’s national average IQ “has fallen for nine years” is not substantiated by the sources provided: scholarly work documents multi‑decade shifts and a reversal starting around 1995 in Nordic tests, not an annually tracked nine‑year collapse, while the many online country‑IQ listings do not provide rigorous longitudinal national sampling or the metadata needed to demonstrate a nine‑year trend [1] [2] [3].
4. Plausible explanations researchers and commentators raise — and their controversies
Scholars who study national IQ trends point to multiple candidate influences—changes in education, nutrition and health, infectious disease burden, test content and administration, and demographic shifts—including migration patterns—as potential contributors to cross‑national score movements, but these hypotheses are contested, sensitive, and vary by study; some media pieces and commentary foreground immigration as an explanation, a claim flagged in the literature as correlated in some analyses but debated for methodological and ethical reasons [6] [7] [8] [2].
5. How to read popular rankings and what remains unknown
Commercial and crowd‑sourced IQ rankings (platform test averages, global aggregator sites) are useful for rough snapshots but they standardize to different norms, rely on self‑selected testers, and frequently lack the representativeness and controls of cohort or national surveys—therefore they cannot by themselves demonstrate a national cognitive collapse and cannot definitively explain causes; crucially, the sources reviewed do not provide direct causal proof that Swedes as a whole are “getting dumber,” and they acknowledge both data limitations and contested interpretations [3] [5] [9].
6. Bottom line and journalistic verdict
The best current academic evidence supports a cautious claim that parts of Scandinavia have experienced a reversal of prior IQ gains since roughly the 1990s, but Sweden lacks the clear, recent national time‑series and representative measurement to validate a newsy claim of “nine years” of falling average IQ or to single out a definitive cause; policy, demographic and measurement explanations remain live hypotheses, and popular online rankings should not be read as decisive proof [1] [2] [3].