What is work today for the average university graduate in Canada or the USA? How different is it from 100 years ago — or even just 10 years ago? Picture 1926, 2016, and 2026. You can imagine it for yourself. What interests me most is how the nature of our work affects our IQ. What we think about for 16 hours a day — and physically engage with for 7–8 hours — has an obvious impact on our emotions. But it also shapes our ability to score on IQ tests. Our raw cognitive horsepower is limited by the society and era we live in, and therefore by the work we do.
The Flynn effect makes this clear. It has been documented in more than 30 countries (Pietschnig & Voracek, 2015). James Flynn (1984, 1987) showed that each new generation in the 20th century got more correct answers on IQ tests. He believed the cause was a broad cultural shift from concrete to abstract thinking — what he called "putting on scientific spectacles" (Flynn, 2007). A pre-modern person shown a fish and a crow would group them by use ("the crow can eat the fish"). A modern person groups them by category (both are animals). IQ tests reward the second style, so scores rose.
In 1926 and earlier, most work was agricultural or early industrial — repetitive tasks that rewarded machine-like thinking. Modern work, by contrast, demands self-directed problem solving and cognitive flexibility. On the kinds of problems that appear on IQ tests, the flexible, global mind has a clear edge over the focused, local one.
So what happens when that cognitive flexibility drops sharply for university students? I graduated with a Psychology undergrad in 2020 and an MBA in 2025. I invested roughly the same amount of time per class in both programs, yet the experiences were completely different.
In undergrad, the only thing I automated was citations using citethisforme.com. In my post-ChatGPT master's, I tried to automate everything possible without losing quality. I mostly succeeded — but instead of sitting down to write a paper, I found myself opening a chatbot. I started to miss my old self and the deep sense of accomplishment that came with the old-school process.
Eventually I realized I had accidentally built a world where I was continually getting dumber. Life is a use-it-or-lose-it proposition, and cognitive abilities are no exception. Years of unthinking ChatGPT use had done exactly that to my mind.
At my last job as a Canadian Sales Rep at an AI startup, the flaws finally became obvious as my performance and quality started to slip. I immediately went back to writing, reading, and tackling projects the old-school way. Everything except formatting, I decided to do myself. I could literally feel my cognitive abilities returning. It was time to find a balance: I needed to master both the old style and the new style.
If I can become the best writer, the best presenter, the best listener, and the best problem solver — using both old-school and new-school techniques — I'll be the best.
I started this journey earlier than most. Anyone who jumped on ChatGPT in early 2023 began at the same time. But where are we now? Are the early users true AI experts? Most aren't. They're still stuck in the grey zone — spending more time figuring out which tool to use than actually completing the work and moving the needle.
The grey zone is a terrible place to be. I would rather build a discounted cash flow statement from scratch in a few hours than spend those same hours researching the best tools and prompts to create one. You end up with models that look impressive but rest on shaky assumptions and overly complex formulas.
So how do you move from the old school to the new school without getting lost in that grey area?
For now, you don't. You accept the grey area. You watch YouTube tutorials, follow the latest AI updates and use cases, and you simply get your shit done. Right now is the time to live in the grey, work more hours, test more tools, delete what doesn't work, figure out what actually helps, and keep moving forward. The people who learn to see colour in the grey will gain a lasting competitive advantage — and they'll enjoy the best of both worlds.
The new world could bring amazing intellectual careers that push IQ higher over time (a continued Flynn effect). But human nature loves the path of least resistance, so I doubt it will continue for the next 30 years. In much of Northwest Europe it already hasn't. Bratsberg and Rogeberg (2018) analyzed full-population data on more than 730,000 Norwegian conscripts and found IQ peaked with the 1975 birth cohort and has since declined — about 0.33 points per year within families. Denmark, Finland, and the UK show similar reversals. The US is one of the few exceptions, at least for now.
The top performers will become orchestrators of AI tools, combining incredible writing skills and imagination with powerful technology. For everyone else in the normal distribution, daily life risks shrinking to a chat window, leaving you at the mercy of whatever the model produces.
The choice is up to you.
References
Bratsberg, B., & Rogeberg, O. (2018). Flynn effect and its reversal are both environmentally caused. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(26), 6674–6678.
Flynn, J. R. (1984, 1987, 2007).
Pietschnig, J., & Voracek, M. (2015).