What!? Kids in earlier times, even as recently as the 80s grew up in a time where they were constantly facing the very real threat of nuclear annihilation at moment's notice! With nuclear drills only being ended sometime in the 90s. In the 80s the we had a political era that included real assassination attempts on the president, the pope, and more, violent crime was at record highs, and more. Today is more "stressful, distracting, uncertain, unstable, etc" how exactly?
And you're again doing what I think is actually quite dangerous, yet also standard practice in the social sciences. While I think your presumption is wrong, you're assuming that not only is it true but if it were true than it would naturally have a causal explanation for another factor. Yet I think there is an extremely strong argument that your presumption would actually have a causal effect in the exact opposite method of which you imply.
Humanity excels when dealing with crisis. Nearly all of our evolutionary existence has been living in times of great adversity. I think the fact we live in such relative comfort and safety now a days is something may be interacting negatively with our evolutionary wiring (such a hypothesis would even explain things such as 'outrage culture' and internet activism - in lieu of problems, create them!) As I mentioned IQs are decreasing (and literally decreasing - not 'increasing more slowly' towards an asymptotic zero), but this is something that's only happening in the developed world. In the developing world, where lives are still much harder and threats more imminent - IQs continue to increase, academic performance is increasing, and so on. Vietnam for instance, today is ranked 8th in the world in science - as they teach with a per student budget a tiny fraction of ours, even parity adjusted. There are clearly many factors to progress that we seem to just have 0 interest in considering.
I grew up in the early 70s and while the threat of nuclear annihilation was ever present, it rarely impinged on every day life. Meanwhile we were playing in the streets after school and riding our bikes around during the school holidays from 10am until 5pm.
Bullying was restricted to the playground and the few kids that you kept away from. If you were lucky, your folks probably had a job that they would stay in until they retired, and there was far less homework and exam pressure than these days.
The fact is that no-one really understands why the Flynn effect is apparently reversing. It's likely that the extraordinary increases in from the 1948s until 2008 were prompted by improvements in nutrition, education... or possibly that people got better at the skills needed to do well in the test.
The hypothesis that improvements were down to hardship and adversity is certainly a novel one. Novel and speculative. Novel, speculative and unsupported. Still, if it makes you happy, make sure you scare your kids every night.
A couple of the things. The first is that if your explanation, which is the most convenient, to explain the Flynn effect was correct we'd expect to see a decline approaching some asymptotic zero as we experienced diminishing returns from things like nutrition and education. But this is not what's happening. IQs are getting literally lower (not growing more slowly), and substantially so. 84% of people fall within the first standard deviation, which in IQ is normalized to 15 points, and we're seeing declines of multiple points that don't seem to be stopping. That's really something that I think should be extremely concerning, but socially we seem to have a bit of head-in-the-sand defense mechanism in play.
On support. I'd say my hypothesis is just about as supported as the average view in social sciences. I could certainly formulate an experiment of passable merit to confirm my biases. Of course that by no means means the hypothesis is right, but rather that the notion of scientific support in social views is something I think we should take as a default to be practically meaningless. There are so many ways to quantify and qualify various aspects of society that near any hypothesis can be proven if you play with the data enough. This paper is evidence of such:
"To date, however, research on the relationship between adherence to masculine norms and fathering has yielded mixed results, which
may be due in part to the fact that many studies use measures of masculinity that do not fully capture hegemonic masculine norms. ...we address this question and extend the literature in three key ways. First, we use a multidimensional and more comprehensive indicator of masculinity than used in prior studies... we consider whether masculine norm adherence influences fathering in different way...."
Or to put another way, 'previous research has not yielded the results we wanted to see, so we spun the data in a way such that we could get it.' It's really quite absurd.
And you're again doing what I think is actually quite dangerous, yet also standard practice in the social sciences. While I think your presumption is wrong, you're assuming that not only is it true but if it were true than it would naturally have a causal explanation for another factor. Yet I think there is an extremely strong argument that your presumption would actually have a causal effect in the exact opposite method of which you imply.
Humanity excels when dealing with crisis. Nearly all of our evolutionary existence has been living in times of great adversity. I think the fact we live in such relative comfort and safety now a days is something may be interacting negatively with our evolutionary wiring (such a hypothesis would even explain things such as 'outrage culture' and internet activism - in lieu of problems, create them!) As I mentioned IQs are decreasing (and literally decreasing - not 'increasing more slowly' towards an asymptotic zero), but this is something that's only happening in the developed world. In the developing world, where lives are still much harder and threats more imminent - IQs continue to increase, academic performance is increasing, and so on. Vietnam for instance, today is ranked 8th in the world in science - as they teach with a per student budget a tiny fraction of ours, even parity adjusted. There are clearly many factors to progress that we seem to just have 0 interest in considering.