I will speak from my experience. When I was younger, I considered myself very smart, and I was pretty unhappy. As I grew, I met people much smarter than me; I stopped seeing myself as "the smart" one, and now I am pretty happy.
It's not that I became happier because I became less smart; I became happier when I stopped thinking my value was based on my intelligence, so I stopped trying to be recognized by my intellect and started working on my mental health and building healthy relationships.
I got labeled "smart but lazy" at a pretty young age (high test scores, didn't do any homework), and I let that label stick with me for far too long. I took some pride in how I could get the top score in a class without studying, and didn't realize that studying itself was a useful skill. I let this whole mindset drag me down through undergrad (especially once I hit the point where I really ought to have studied), and I think it made me miserable.
> I got labeled "smart but lazy" at a pretty young age (high test scores, didn't do any homework)
Same experience here. I could find just about anything else I wanted to do except homework. Spent all night coding many times. Went to school and aced all the tests, skipped all the homework, did not get good grades as a result. My dad actually arranged a visit with a psychiatrist who did an official IQ test (wooo! I'm a genius! yay!) and then told my dad I was destined to either be a fabulously wealthy entrepreneur, or homeless. LOL
The joke's on them, I ended up deciding to succeed in school after all, got my BS & MS in CS, and I've had boring, predictable jobs throughout my whole career. Neither fabulously wealthy nor destitute. Oh well!
Real happiness remains elusive. Even though I adore my wife & kids and have what the vast majority of the population would consider a pretty cushy job and lifestyle.
>> My dad actually arranged a visit with a psychiatrist who did an official IQ test (wooo! I'm a genius! yay!)
One must love the irony that those tests are mainly use as a way to pat yourself on the back (you and your dad) more than any possible actionable item out of it.
Funny how most people that take an IQ test come out as "geniuses"
The initial use was to ration advanced education (secondary or higher), so as not to lavish it on "morons" (at the time a technical term).
Similar in concept to the German Abitur, which originally tracked students into Gymnasium or vocational tracks. Today it comes at the end of a secondary education (high-school) programme, and is comparable to British A-levels.
When the test is designed, they use a wide variety of people.
But the only people I ever hear taking an IQ tests are people that already know they are smart. Why? Because it probably feels good. Because why else? Is there any actionable item out of that test?
I'd imagine the only people taking it are on either end of the curve - smart people who want a gold sticker, and not-smart people that need a sufficiently low IQ score to qualify for a government program.
They are usually taken when a child struggles in school. The actionable item is 1. IQ is low, they probably need tutoring or special education classes; 2. IQ is high, they are probably too bored and need harder classes or some other intervention; 3. IQ is normal, probably it's some other issue.
As an adult the actionable item may be to adjust your expectations of yourself. For example if I'm 90IQ and beating myself up about not being a 10x dev despite my efforts, or if I'm 150IQ and feel too unqualified for some intellectual endeavor, I could make adjustments after knowing the truth.
I took one as an adult and my impetus was that I am contrarian about a lot of things, i.e. there are a lot of things I believe that most people don't believe. I wanted to know if I was just a midwit being an idiot contrarian or if there's at least some reason to believe I might have a better idea about things than average people. In the end I scored very highly, so I can now feel more comfortable trusting my own judgement. If I had scored much lower, I would accept I'm probably wrong about a lot more things and stop having such strong opinions.
> The actionable item is 1. IQ is low, they probably need tutoring or special education classes; 2. IQ is high, they are probably too bored and need harder classes or some other intervention; 3. IQ is normal, probably it's some other issue.
And this is precisely why I took the test. The only 'official' IQ test I've taken in my life. Psychiatrist told my dad I didn't have enough grit to stick with things I found boring. Guilty as charged. Fortunately grit did eventually happen, about 5 years later.
OP said he was successful without ever studying. That directly shows higher IQ, low Grit. Not sure what extra information the IQ test added except the vanity and ego boost it gives someone.
You know, except for Luis Alvarez and William Shockley who were deemed too unintelligent to be included in Terman's study. Yet, both of them later went on to independently win Nobel Prizes.
> and William Shockley were deemed too unintelligent to be included in Terman's study
So I’m one of his few remaining descendants and.. funny story, though likely for the best, despite knowing his professional history and subsequent legacy of “Doc Shock” I didn’t even consider to ride the coattails of our family name.
It wasn’t until a decade into my career when I found myself in a founding engineer role of a small database proxy startup, and presented with the problem of “how do I get a room full of engineers to hush up and listen” (as a conference speaker), did the idea to leverage the family name as a pseudo appeal-to-authority dawn on me.
I’m happy that I took the self-made route, rather than leveraging the family name earlier in my career (and to more direct effect). Though the dramatic irony of knowing it was through my own incompetence, not through some greater moral code, that I didn’t lean more into nepotism as a career advantage will never cease to get make me laugh at my own little inside joke at the self-schadenfrende of it.
But back to your quote, I can confidently say the “genius” apple doesn’t fall far from the tree in regard to Shockmeister’s sub-genius status. My only hope is that I can continue to avoid whatever apple gave him the eugenics bug.
Based on my relationship with intelligence, it’s not been my sheer intelligence that’s been my greatest asset. It’s actually the inverse! I can easily reform my mental model at different levels of resolution. This means I can be both an engineer’s engineer when building, while also being able to communicate the same ideas to hundreds of people in a conference context and achieve great sales funnel conversations from that.
I attribute whatever this latent predisposition to recognize potential applications of technologies strategically early to whatever led my former to his discovery. As a result, I have a great track record of spending ‘innovation tokens’ wisely, to quote Choose Boring Technologies.
Concretely, the latest investment I made was in standardizing my current startup around Mise. Not because it’s a great DX, but because I believe the primitives mise provides are a key enabler for agentic development in a distributed org and team context. I _may_ be productizing a public version of our organization’s agent runtime, since I believe my choices in technologies, conventions, onboarding flow, and most importantly - positioning within the organization - provide a turnkey solution to the problem every mid-size-and-up tier CTO has with their board: having a defined AI strategy where token spend justifies due to run costs scaling with respect to engineering & product deliverables produced.
Happy to answer any questions, though to be blunt, considering that Willie B (a.k.a. William Bradford) passed before I had the opportunity to meet him, I don’t have much tribal knowledge of his life to share. Though, to the credit of my immediate family’s character, he was already estranged leading up to his infamous public television appearances.
I’ve been considering writing a biography on what my experience with the duality of living ‘up’ to his (positive) professional legacy while navigating recognition of the harm he caused has done to affect me, both the headwinds & tailwinds.
I am constantly amazed by the people I interact with on this site. We live in a large universe, but a small world.
So, how are you related to Mister Transistor?
> did the idea to leverage the family name as a pseudo appeal-to-authority dawn on me
Did it work? I have the opposite problem. It takes a room full of engineers to get me to stop talking. I've been told I am very charismatic (though Dyslexia hinders my writing severely). Though perhaps like Icarus, my strengths are my weaknesses. I am, let's say, not a very serious person. I like to have fun and I am goofy, hyperactive, immature, and obnoxious. It makes people love me, but makes me Hell to work with. ;)
Good for you for being a self-made man. I know very little about your ancestor, but he was likely self-made, so I imagine he would appreciate the same traits in you.
> I can confidently say the “genius” apple doesn’t fall far from the tree in regard to Shockmeister’s sub-genius status.
I am too asymptotically close to stupidly to understand what you are implying. I am confused because you use genius and sub-genius in the same sentence.
Also, the 'eugenics bug' doesn't work that. Shockley likely experienced something in his life that made him that way. I do not think it's some innate trait. I grew up 45 minutes away from where the KKK was founded. I have heard words out of people's mouths that would make Shockley sound like Mother Teresita. I did not acquire any of those wretched views.
> Based on my relationship with intelligence, it’s not been my sheer intelligence that’s been my greatest asset. It’s actually the inverse!
Say it louder for the people in that back. Real life is based on the game Dungeons & Dragons (except life is a much shitter, boring game). Everyone has various amounts of 'skill points' in their stats. Intelligence is one stat, and while necessary, it ain't enough on its own.
> spending ‘innovation tokens’ wisely, to quote Choose Boring Technologies. Concretely, the latest investment I made was in standardizing my current startup around Mise. Not because it’s a great DX, but because I believe the primitives mise provides are a key enabler for agentic development in a distributed org and team context
I am sorry, I have no idea what any of this means. I assume AI tokens? What is "Choose Boring Technology?" What is "Mise" and what does "DX" mean? In my world, DX means "diagnosis."
> he was already estranged leading up to his infamous public television appearances.
Why?
> while navigating recognition of the harm he caused has done to affect me
What harms? Is the harm not fulfilling his legacy or rather his eugenic views or something else? If so, may I offer some unsolicited advice? Well, you can't really respond in real-time, so I am just going to offer it anyway. I took me many years on this rock to understand that we are responsible for our own joy and suffering. The mind can easily poison itself via attachment. Or more aptly, as Zen Master Ts'ao-shan once said:
Student: Whenever there is any question, one's mind is confused. What is the matter?
Master Ts'ao-shan: Kill, kill!
In a similar vein, my grandfather was also a "genius." Definitely of no notoriety like your ancestor. However, he definitely held his own. He worked on the Manhattan Project (met Oppenheimer, Von Neumann, etc.). My grandfather also was an performed Opera at the NYC Metropolitan, was supposed to compete in the 1936 Olympics for weight lifting (pulled a hernia on his way to Germany, thus he couldn't compete), and helped program the computer system for the Apollo 13.
My cousin is the like the 4th or 5th highest rank in the U.S. Navy and a combat experienced Navy Seal. I am just some underpaid pawn wasting my life away building boring CRUD apps for my local government. To say I fell short of any legacy would be an understatement. However, I am not truly bothered by it.
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair..."
I learned in my young adulthood to appreciate and enjoy whatever it is that you have, because no matter what it is, you’re going to lose it one day. You might lose it in death, or like von Neumann, you might lose it in life.
The Wheel of Time turns and everything is crushed beneath it.
That is a complicated question. There is probably a dictionary definition, and a lot of personal opinions.
For me, I would count happiness as a meaningful reduction in anxiety and some ability to feel content. A full night's sleep that isn't interrupted by a couple hours at 2am of lying awake lamenting life choices, lack of achieving goals I had wanted when I was young, missed opportunities, etc. Worrying about the future, are the kids doing okay, are they happy, will they be successful, could I have done a better job raising them?
Objectively I have no justification for the strength of these worries. I am in a great place and I should be able to enjoy that. And yet. The demons have been chasing me since my earliest childhood memories. At best I have fought them to a draw.
> I got labeled "smart but lazy" at a pretty young age (high test scores, didn't do any homework), and I let that label stick with me for far too long
I just never understood why the secondary education system is set up to make smart and lazy people succeed without effort while the hardworking, but less gifted kids struggle.
It just gives you an impression that life is much easier than it is, and you can BS your way through it.
It sends the wrong message both ways. Skills that are useful/meaningful IRL certainly are much harder to acquire. Being smart won't get you a date, wont get you fit, play an instrument, learn to draw, program, wont allow you to fix the crooked cabinet door etc.
It just sends the wrong message either way. The 'smart but lazy' adults who stayed that way, who I've encountered IRL have been maliciously manipulative work avoiders, or straight up losers with superiority complexes.
An alternative design for an education system is quite a challenge. You say it allows smart but lazy people to succeed. In truth, it allows many kinds of people to succeed.
And “the hardworking but less gifted kids struggle” doesn’t ring particularly true, unless you mean something quite strong by “less gifted”.
As with all things human it's a continuum and the education system (at least as it existed when I went through it which was to be fair decades ago) wasn't always great at getting that message across.
I had a friend in my year, bright enough but where he excelled was in putting in the work, he studied harder for GCSE's (our secondary school educational qualifications) than basically anyone I've ever met studied for anything.
I still frequently outscored him on tests/coursework and did in final exam results and I did basically no work beyond reading the books and homework was an alien idea, the only real differences between us was I read for fun outside of what was assigned by school and I had a much better memory where he ground away at the assigned material but reading for fun would simply not have occurred to him.
Sadly an exam usually only captures a single metric, the final score - it in no way captures the effort put into that score and it's really not fair (in a general sense) that two people can get the same score and put in wildly disparate levels of effort.
But there isn't a Universal Law of Fairness, he had a stable loving home with two parents and I did not, that wasn't "fair" either but I realised early sometimes life simply isn't.
Though stepping out of structured education into post-secondary education where you had to actually study came as a spectacular shock to the system because I had no framework to build on - having coasted my entire way through school putting in minimum effort.
I had a similar experience in mediocre exurb HS. Was top 5% or whatever of my class without really studying or even handing in completed homework.
Good friend in most of the same classes as me would often ask me for help on questions, but he just worked so much harder. He has a very intense father who obviously was on top of him about stuff. But putting in the effort to be top 1% instead of top 5% while also being a varsity football player got him into an Ivy, which was great for him. In some sense the system worked.
> An alternative design for an education system is quite a challenge.
How about some tweaks, then?
Here's the problem as I see it. People seem designed to work together, but school isolates everyone. The people who are natural leaders, natural persuaders, natural consensus-distillers, natural "dig deep into a hard problem to solve it" people SHOULD NOT need to wait until 22 fucking years old to discover that "the hard way" at "real work"!!
There were SCANT FEW group projects when I grew up, but they all stick out in my memory because it was suddenly abundantly clear who was better at what and that we had to work together! And the best part is that riding coattails becomes immediately noticeable and socially punished.
We need MORE experiences in school where people actually NEED to use their gifts to succeed TOGETHER. Exactly like at a job in real life! But their parents apparently won't have that!
This is a very difficult discussion, especially considering there are many countries and many schooling systems, but you have to admit there are common failings across systems.
> the hardworking but less gifted kids struggle
Sorry, I think I miscommunicated what I wanted to say, which is I know for a fact that there were people in my HS class that put in a lot more effort than I did, yet got worse grades, even in subjects (like literature) they cared about more than I did. In retrospect I kinda feel sorry for them and envious of them at the same - they got a lot more out of that class than I did by making effort.
> You say it allows smart but lazy people to succeed. In truth
I think this the issue of what they call the 'skills-based' education system. The 'Are you smarter than a 5th grader' type shows which translate well across cultures really show a trend - kids and teens are taught and tested on an immense breadth of subjects, most of which will be quite useless and forgotten, not only by adulthood, but by the time they graduate. The reason final exams tend to be 'skill-based' are to paper over this fact. Most kids don't really remember much about the composition of the water table, but can write an essay. Smart kids are usually better at writing essays, than not so smart ones given an equal amount of practice. So basically they force you to learn stuff you're not interested in, are liable to forget and won't matter in terms of your future, even in the scope of the narrowly defined schooling system.
> it allows many kinds of people to succeed.
This is what's not really true imo. It's essentially a 'Kid Job' where you have to blindly submit to authority, follow instructions, not seek meaning in what you do, and not act out. They're just conditioning you to the fact that your prime waking hours will be essentially thrown away for most of your adult life (for most people).
If you can do that, and you live in an okayish country, you can get through life doing alright by doing that, so by that definition its true.
But the only people who are rewarded by the (academic) purpose of the schooling system, are the ones who excel at core subjects. If you're a gifted artist, but suck at math, you'll likely not enjoy being in the system.
Most people, dumb or smart, could likely end up in the same place in life playing video games in their youth, instead of going to school.
> It's essentially a 'Kid Job' where you have to blindly submit to authority, follow instructions, not seek meaning in what you do, and not act out.
According to John Taylor Gatto's research, the US school system was explicitly designed from inception to be just that. I haven't looked into it beyond his words, but he seems to have actual quotes and notes from the people at the origin.
> I just never understood why the secondary education system is set up to make smart and lazy people succeed without effort while the hardworking, but less gifted kids struggle.
I think it's just as simple as its designed for the average case not the extremities. If it's designed for any extremity, it's to ensure the least bad outcome for the bottom 25%. If you're doing well you are not a problem as far as most schools are concerned.
Unfortunately "smart but lazy" types kind of fall through the cracks. For me "smart but lazy" was more being smart enough to understand the rewards in the system, but not smart enough/having context for the long term rewards.
In a lot of ways I saw life as a game, and had no one around me who could explain the higher level games of elite school admissions/job funnel/etc.
In the end I don't know if my life would have been drastically better if I'd gone to MIT/Carnegie Mellon instead of a "a top 25 engineering program". I'd have had more options for sure.
> I just never understood why the secondary education system is set up to make smart and lazy people succeed without effort while the hardworking, but less gifted kids struggle.
My high school math teacher didn't subscribe to this idea, so for the first time in my life I had poor scores in math.
We took six previous years' math finals as part of our preparation. I recall scoring a humbling 33/50 on my first attempt.
My final result was 45/50 because there was a 3pt. problem I couldn't solve, but decided not to since I had like 15 minutes left and was confident that the rest was largely ok.
Lost 2pt. on some minor stuff I overlooked.
Of course I didn't learn my lesson just yet back then because I had years of being lazy under my belt, so I struggled through college.
"The 'smart but lazy' adults who stayed that way, who I've encountered IRL have been maliciously manipulative work avoiders, or straight up losers with superiority complexes."
Counterpoint, the "I had to work twice as hard for my A" people are prudish buzzkills who think that working hard has inherent value.
"Being smart won't get you a date, wont get you fit, play an instrument, learn to draw, program, wont allow you to fix the crooked cabinet door etc." I mean...it could? The whole article is about how "intelligent" isn't exactly one thing.
Obvious Smart and Lazy here: Life is easy, and I've been BSing my way through it for over 40 years. I work at one of the largest companies in my field on the planet, I'm well respected by my supervisors and coworkers, I make enough money to keep the lights on (and my artist wife and I both fed). I have friends I see regularly, love an affection, and time to garden and play video games.
There's no "right" way so there can be no "wrong" way, only ways that don't work for your skillset. Also, understanding how to navigate society/hierarchy is a skill and a lot of the try-hards don't realize that so they just brute force for results.
Makes the transition from secondary (high) school to post-secondary school education particularly brutal since you've never really had to work for something and have no idea what good habits look like.
Reading the material before the test/exam and then getting high enough marks that everyone leaves you alone so you can go play with computers/chess was not an effective long term strategy.
College (UK meaning not US) came as a brutal reality check.
>>Reading the material before the test/exam and then getting high enough marks that everyone leaves you alone so you can go play with computers/chess was not an effective long term strategy.
I was in the same position in high school and college and then—over a decade later!—I got diagnosed with ADHD and everything made a lot more sense. Just having the diagnosis on its own made me happier because it let me understand what was happening, get some coping strategies and feel less guilty about it. (And, later on, getting treated helped even more.)
I had a similar experience. My college roommate, within the first week of meeting him, said something like, "you're one of those people who never studies and gets A's aren't you?" I thought back to high school and he wasn't wrong, so I figured I keep it going in college. It didn't work so well and started me off on really weak footing.
Most folks I've seen getting kicked out of university in first 2 years were in this category. High school was easy for them, so they lacked discipline and habits to learn stuff the hard/slow/boring way once topics went complex enough.
In that, and many more regards, I am happy I fall into 'above-average' category and nothing more. Especially memorizing larger texts and poetry wasn't easy (good ol' crappy rota education system in 80s and 90s in eastern Europe). Grit and discipline got me much further in life than those just coasting on natural talents.
Humans really need a bit of struggle to get the best out of us. Not too much, but not too little. One of quiet ways why capitalism on long enough scale outperforms other systems. Sweeping obstacles from life is one of the worst things that parents can do for their kids, regardless if its motivated by pure parental love.
I got labeled smart but lazy because I had dysgraphia. It took me a PhD to get rid of that label. And don't get me wrong, I loved doing the work I did in my PhD and I love the job I have now due to the PhD, but sometimes I wonder if I did a PhD and did a lot of sacrifices for it only to get rid of that label, and I might have probably been not as rich but somehow may be more happier otherwise. (And might have still done a PhD anyway, since I think I was inclined like that.)
Now I am still called smart, and due to the sheer effect of having to get rid of the label, also called hard working, and I'm happy or at least quite content.
That's interesting. I'm considering going back to get a second bachelor's in biology or biochemistry (my first is in math) and then going to PA school or medical school. I have to wonder a bit if part of that whole plan is that I want to show myself that I can be a good, hardworking student.
I am now and have in the past been in this sort of position, albeit not with an existing completed degree under my belt, just a simple one-year continuing-ed diploma and years of sporadic career experience.
I went back to attempt to complete my CS degree on the basis that I figured I already had learnt most of what I would learn anyway and might as well both prove to myself I can do it, as well as get the credential for whatever it was worth. This was when I was ~27, and hadn't been diagnosed with ADHD yet. I discovered that I was absolutely capable in theory, but that the hard part wasn't the material, rather it was doing rote tasks to get the grade regardless of that grade's relevance in the field. I found myself completely capable of doing the homework and understanding, writing various persuasive essays, and intellectually applying myself, but failing horribly when it came to anything my brain identified as less interesting than any other subject matter, and I had effectively no control over that (unmedicated). I also had no ability to be on time, and once I realized that I was effectively wasting time and money trying to pass through the Type A Gen X career gate defined largely by the binary of having a degree/not having a degree, I opted to not continue. It wasn't about learning anything, it was about a checkmark, and I didn't and never have really internally care about checkmarks.
It would be the easiest material or courses that I'd bomb the hardest at, forget to do entirely, or simply not be stressed enough to do well; basic trivia, courses where 50% of the grade depended on labs where I'd be required to draw diagrams by hand, exams that required writing Java for 3 hours in pencil. When other students were anxiously scribbling away, I just flatout wasn't worried about it and just kind of spaced out for a while wondering why I was trying to bother. Exams require anxiety in some form or fashion, and in many cases I could not provoke that in myself. In some cases, I indeed didn't do so well on an exam either because I couldn't burn it into working memory well-enough (never having learned a study practice that worked for me) or I overslept... as a 27 year old adult.
Now, I'm once again out of work, considering going back to school for... something, but I have all that exposure in the back of my mind. Even now that I'm medicated and otherwise quite happy, I have doubts that I'd be able to succeed in any type of educational institute unless every facet was perfectly aligned for me. Having money on the line or an abstract incentive aren't sufficient rewards to have a functional impact; I need to find it intriguing throughout and believe it's useful, or be fighting my way out of a tangible corner, of which I'm not in and don't naturally panic about being in.
I did take a one off course at a local college a couple years back and was able to do well (had a 95% average all semester) and get all my homework done. It was, however, a subject I found fascinating. On the other hand, my work performance severely suffered that semester and I got my first poor performance review.
Over the years, I've come to the conclusion that stimulant ADHD medication isn't for me. It worked well as a child, but as an adult it's just unpleasant and jittery. I took strattera for a couple years and it seemed to help, but we swapped it for wellbutrin to help with seasonal depression, and it just doesn't have the same efficacy.
In the end I may need to come to the conclusion that I'm not temperamentally cut out for academic success, and my math bachelor's does seem to have been a decent enough entry point to a career in software.
That may be true, or maybe you need to try some other things, including different medications and different pursuits.
Fwiw, I've been taking Concerta 27mg since being diagnosed. Haven't really felt much of a need to experiment with others, but full-on depression is a rarity for me, perhaps helped by investing heavily in my social and physical life. The only time I get jittery is when I accidentally drink as much coffee as I would on a non-medicated day, so I have to be a little careful with that. It's a very mellow, long-acting, subtle effect that is most noticeable when I'm trying to flow through a conversation or imagine things, which I think I'm better at on non-medicated days, but am okay with the temporary tradeoff. Overall, it's not magic, but it helps keep me on track. Higher doses have been slightly unpleasant and I've dropped back down.
I think what's become more clear to me over time is that I really shouldn't try to live like the stable careerists around me and on HN who have different kinds of parameters for success, yet have what I'd describe as immensely boring unhealthy or obsessive vanity-oriented lives. I'll never have a house, and I may never hold a job for 2 full years, but I can push myself to the top of a mountain, make friends and keep them in my thirties, and maintain a strong lean physique. The most difficult thing is figuring out how and where to apply myself when I have a blank slate professionally. I don't and will never speak like a manager, and yet my conduct with juniors in a recent role seemed to be welcomed and appreciated, before they threw me under the bus for some inane issue and fired me.
I say this mostly because although life is difficult, isolating, and ambiguous at times, to be comfortable in ones own skin means coming to terms with the things you do well, having humility, being open, ambitious, and authentically grateful for what that brings you (without depending on explicit praise or reciprocation, because it may never come from what you'd hope). You must be able to throw your own parade sometimes, be proud of the floats you can put together, and happy about whoever was able and willing to show up.
On this site there's constantly a vibe of "what should I be doing", but fuck that, do whatever you need to do and then let yourself do what you want to do; take some time, figure it out, let the nebulous sense of guilt subside, because it's not good for much.
Given you have some experience with this sort of medication would you say it could help with restoring any motivation? It's killing me slowly, but surely...
Welbutrin, while having some sort of stimulant effect, and often prescribed for ADHD, is not at all the same as real stimulant medications.
It often helps people with ADHD because they have been prescribed this almost-stimulant to anxiety or depression (often caused directly or indirectly by ADHD symptoms and life), and it makes them better, because it's finally treating an actual cause rather than a downstream effect.
But most people running into that situation are way better off just taking a real ADHD stimulant.
It looks like Strattera is similar. It claims to be about as effective as Concerta, but being someone who has tried welbutrin, there is just no comparison to what a moderate dose of a real stimulant does.
The continued refusal for society to just let ADHD people take a tested, proven, safe, effective medication because if you smoke an entire bottle of it at once it will get you high (something that is less useful to someone with ADHD! Lots of people found out they were ADHD when they tried cocaine for the first time, and instead of being high, were suddenly normal ) is infuriating.
One other note, my family for multiple generations has massively struggled with "seasonal" depression, or chronic depression, or constant "Fatigue" where working a full 8 hour day leaves you feeling like you just ran a marathon and your brain screams out to just go lay down and not function. My mother continues to suffer from this. I was starting to suffer from this immensely, and was worried I also had Fibromyalgia like my mom.
Right up until I took the first, minimum dose, of concerta. I haven't had that fatigue since. Because it was ADHD. It was always ADHD. I no longer get Seasonal Affective Disorder. I recently went through a life event that in the past would have left me crying in bed for an entire year. I am sad, actually I am gutted. I am depressed. But I can still do my job right now, because I can focus on what I want to focus on, and process my feelings when it's healthier to do so.
Did you know one of the side effects of Concerta is "elevated mood"? Literally a happy pill. You know what's really effective for an ADHD person who has spent their entire life spiraling in anxiety and suffering from depressive episodes? Being able to focus on the here and now, rather than whatever anxiety your brain was stuck on.
I'm not going to tell you to try those stimulants since you might have already, but so many people are sandbagged with their ADHD diagnosis by people giving them a shittier medication just because it won't involve paperwork with the DEA, or some moral panic bullshit.
I have tried a wide variety of stimulant ADHD medication over the years, but I developed bipolar disorder in my late teens and it just doesn't work the same ever since. I haven't made it more than a couple months on any stimulant med without discontinuing it since then. Let's just say that "elevated mood" is no longer a selling point.
Strattera really did work well for me but my doc won't let me take both Strattera and Wellbutrin, and the depression is a much more pressing concern than focus.
I'm also very internationally mobile at this point, and it's much easier to get a walk in GP in a foreign country to refill Wellbutrin/Zyban than Concerta.
Those are all "me" problems - I definitely suggest everybody who gets an ADHD diagnosis does full trials of some kind of extended release adderall variant and an extended release ritalin variant at some point.
In hindsight, I realized it was b/c I hadn't found subjects in high school that really resonated with me (although HS science was cool).
When I got to college I majored in computer science (academics) and discovered paintball (physical/social) and threw myself into both with abandon. I would do my CS homework as soon as it was assigned b/c I just loved solving the problems so much that I couldn't stop myself.
For paintball, it became an obsession that eventually turned into a job after college. Again, it was something I loved so much that it just seemed like a natural thing to work really hard running big tournaments. Why wouldn't I work hard on something that resonated with me so deeply.
This reminds me of a quote from Joe Rogan (who I know is somewhat controversial) that encapsulates this perfectly:
"In high school I thought I couldn't focus. I realized I can't focus on things I don't care about. I can focus for hours on things I'm into."
Sometimes, even controversial people are right. Not just the "broken clock is right twice a day" kind of right, but actually right. We should endeavor to separate the message from the messenger, and evaluate the message on its own merits.
> In hindsight, I realized it was b/c I hadn't found subjects in high school that really resonated with me
My most frustrating experience was barely lazing my way through calculus I could not care about only to be working on a personal project years later where I really wish I paid attention.
Sometimes accountability is not enough. Medication and therapy might help, as it can be the case with ADHD. Many people with it fit the pattern of “smart but lazy”
I have come to wonder if lazy actually exists as a thing in it's own right. I too had the 'smart but lazy' label, was diagnosed with ADHD past the age of 50.
One of the things I noticed was when people talk about "Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and do the thing you don't want to do". That was an ability that just came and went with me, the same task one day would be "Right I had better do that thing now" and I could do it, another day, even the idea of it seemed impossible. The fluctuations were clear enough to show that it wasn't a moral failing, or just me doing the things I wanted to do. The same thing in the same situation was just so radically different. I can see how people who have only experienced the easy side could fail to understand the difficulty, I don't think night and day would do it justice.
ADHD is quite highly correlated with depression, one of the main hypotheses of why is because people with ADHD have grown up being told that the thing that is intrinsically them is a bad thing to be. A hypothesis of why not everyone with a genetic predisposition for depression becomes depressed is because there might be a form of feedback loop that makes things that make you feel bad make you feel more bad. Being critical of ADHD behaviour is an easy on-ramp to that feedback loop.
I'm in a similar boat. I don't think "knuckle down and learn something" has ever worked for me. It's more like "set things up so the learning aligns with my interests" and then... woosh! I'm off and deep into the topic. That was something I had to teach myself (nobody at school said anything other than "pay attention"). And quite often I still miss and steam off in the wrong direction.
I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was 7 and took medication for it until 9th grade when I went off it because I didn't like how it made me feel, and I have really disliked it when I've been back on it as an adult. Strattera was better, though now I'm on Wellbutrin instead. I did a lot of therapy over the years, and never found it helpful, though I never did it with an organization focused coach.
I do think a lot of it was the attitude I took towards school. I know a lot of other people with ADHD who were less arrogant and approached school in a better way because of that.
In education these kids are termed “twice-exceptional” because they test as gifted but have some kind of disability that makes some things challenging.
I think you might be misreading this person. If the point of homework is to learn the subject, while tests assess your understanding of the subject, why do the homework if you already have a strong grasp on it as soon as the teacher explains it? If the point of doing homework is to keep you busy, there are better things to do with one's childhood. Unless the disability you're referring to is that they never learned how to struggle (because no struggle was offered)...
It wasn't necessary to learn the material, but homework counted for 20% of the grade in a lot of my classes, and if I had done more of it, I would've had a higher GPA that would've given me more opportunities later on. And, I would've practiced that skill of sucking it up and doing stuff that you don't feel like you need to do.
On the other hand, I had so much free time as a child and I spend a lot of it reading or messing around with computers.
Yeah, I was labeled twice-exceptional and medicated for it, but there was also this general thing where I felt like I was special for not needing to study and that it was something to take pride in, which I don't think is inherent to ADHD. I have some friends who also have ADHD and are decently smart, but they have always taken pride in being hard workers, and have come out much more academically successful than I did.
I won't claim that I've ever suffered real ADHD, but after an experience I had years ago with phentermine, that stuff would have been magic when I was a teenager. Turned me into an unstoppable, focused machine. And phentermine isn't labeled for that effect, which makes me wonder what adderall would be like.
Yeah similar here. By the time I needed to really study (3rd year of undergrad) I faced the hard reality that I had never developed the necessary habits.
Given the amount of replies you are getting, I think you are not alone. In fact, I was the same kind of kid as well and really, what I regret more is not learning to study, which made me a college drop-out. But that's it. I'm pretty happy and satisfied with how life turned out to be for me, but I totally understand your position.
In my case I have a daughter that's showing already the same signs I had when I was her age and what I'm trying to do is to stay gently on top of her and create the habit of studying, because given the same brainpower, she will go farther if she learns to study well.
And coming back to you, I don't know you or your age but I think you can - maybe - still turn around the "miserable" part. What's miserable for you, now?
The miserable bit is more past tense. Back in college I desperately wanted to have the academic success that my friends were having but I had never built that groundwork of organizational habits and consistency. I remember not doing any of the homework for my measure theory course, and getting an uncurved 50% on the midterm. I went into the professor's office hours to ask if I needed to drop the course, and he told me I had actually gotten a B and I was above the class average. There was this deep sense that I could've been a star student if I could just get my shit together.
Nowadays I'm generally happy and living a great life in a New Zealand mountain town. But, whenever I talk to anybody back home who's more academically successful, I really have this jealousy and I tell myself that I could've done that if I'd just tried. It's this combo of ego and self hate that's really toxic.
I would even think that "smart" and "lazy" has a strong correlation ;-)
If you give a smart one a task, he will look for a way to do it with lowest effort. Probably most would do it but the smart ones will find way more the shortcuts, automations and exploits.
Edit: also smart people will more often ask "why" if a task makes no sense to them.
I think there's an overload of the meaning of 'lazy' that describes a person who measures twice and cuts once, basically thinks the problem through rather than just piling on it. And as you said, they might even conclude the task isn't worth doing.
Since thinking is not a visible effort, these people are taken to be believed to do less work, when the truth is anything but.
This is painfully familiar. Being able to coast through school can actually delay learning one of the most important skills school is supposed to teach: how to struggle with something for a while without interpreting the struggle as a verdict on your ability
It’s quite telling how most of us have had the same experience, proud of being able to ace without the effort, the smart but lazy comments, all ended up here on the same website.
I just don’t know what it is telling but it’s telling something.
I recognize this to some extent, but not to the same degree as some others in this thread. School and all other forms of obligations were just annoyances to avoid with minimal effort. Took me many years before I could find my own motivation to pretty much anything that wasn't immediately fun or engaging. And I was really picky with what I found fun to do.
And as other responses to you mentioned, the transition to college was thus absolutely brutal. I ended up having to take multiple leaves of absence from Cornell (the longest- 5 years, during which I enlisted for 4 years in the USAF in California- this actually helped me a lot), and despite entering in 1990 I only graduated in 2000. One of the shorter leaves left me so depressed that I think I was close to suicidal (the only way I can describe it is like wearing poop-shaded glasses that you cannot take off... I also noticed that I cared as little about other lives as I cared about my own, which is something I still think about whenever I hear about family annihilation/suicides, etc), but something kept me going and I pulled out of it.
On the bright side, I saw the potential of the Internet not only before my peers but before basically everyone (I was always a huge computer nerd), so that has aided my career.
For the action-RPG gamers out there, ADD is a hell of a rough minmax perk lol
Oh and I have a toddler son now- don't get me started on how much more difficult parenting seems to be
Yes, my mom has never told me the score, but it led to me being put in gifted classes. I took the SAT at 12 and did well enough to make JHU CTY's SET program.
So in terms of raw brainpower it's there, but I've never really been able to apply it consistently for whatever reason and have ended up very average. Still haven't really come to terms with that in my late 20s.
I've got a perfectly good life but I have this vague "what if" about if I had applied myself more.
This was me down to a tee. I took pride in not doing a single piece of homework during the last years of school yet getting top marks regardless.
When I got to uni it was a bit of a shock to realise everyone was suddenly at least as intelligent as me. But I remained lazy. I still got top marks because I was doing computer science and enough of it interested me that I wanted to do well.
It all changed during my PhD, though. It's not enough just to be intelligent. You've got to actually deliver. That means doing a lot of writing and corrections I didn't particularly want to do. I became deeply unhappy and came close to giving up. But I persevered (which seems to be a family trait).
Post-PhD I'm a different person. I pride myself not on being intelligent but on being useful and actually getting things done. I meet loads of "smart but lazy" types all the time. They start 100x more things than they ever finish. I can't comment on their happiness, but I know I'm much more happy being able to tick things off and make other people happy rather than trying to wow people with my so-called intelligence.
Not really sure. The ADHD/"Gifted"/Twice Exceptional labels were even worse. I really wish my parents had made sure to always praise effort more than they praised me for the exam scores I got without studying. There was more focus from them on the final exam grade than on the process of showing my effort to the school system, and it created a sense of pride in how lazy I was.
I guess, don't praise your kids for lucky talents, praise them for the work they put in. I also wish that there had been more focus on participating in sports as a young child and less focus on therapy/psychiatry. As an adult I have found staying active is a much better treatment for my distractible/hyperactive tendencies than meds/therapy ever were. My mom didn't sign me up for sports because my brothers and I had so many shrink appointments, and looking back, I think she had it the wrong way around.
Wow the pride in laziness really resonates with me. I had exactly the same thing, and still suffer for it now I think. If someone scored better than me on the test - oh well, they studied for it and I didn't, so I'm still better than them really.
It ingrained a sense that trying hard and working on things to get a result is less valuable than being able to simply achieve the result without effort. The problem is, nothing in the real world is really achievable without consistent applied effort. I could dunk on my peers by focusing for 45 minutes on a test, and this taught me that was all that's required to outperform.
Obviously I've gained a bit more self awareness to be able to see this now, but it's still my gut reaction - to take pride in "intelligence" and dismiss "effort".
After uni in the real world it was a brutal reckoning. Sit me down in an office with a task that requires more than 45 minutes of concentrated output, I'm useless. I got an ADHD diagnosis and the amphetamines help for sure, but I still don't know if I really have a condition, or I just grew up conditioned to be lazy.
My dad once told me that being smart was a curse in some ways, but he framed it as having a World view that few others had.
I think however your take on it is closer: when you're smart, you're told you're smart (both as a positive and as a negative - I was bullied for it), it just becomes part of your self dialogue and identity and it gets in the way.
It's taken years of therapy for me to get to the point where I realised none of that really mattered as much as having great relationships with people I liked, and going for long walks in green spaces and not thinking about anything.
RE self dialogue: I think it is also self-reinforcing in a positive way. "I am competent and capable of this" is certainly less distracting internal dialogue than "maybe I'm not smart enough" to children. I believe most adults eventually get better at ignoring this type of thing altogether, since it isn't really useful or productive.
Parenting philosophy rooted in growth mindset advocates less for "I am smart and therefore I can do this" but rather "the hard work that it will take to do this is worth investing, and failures along the way are opportunities to learn rather than judgments of whether I'm good enough or should continue."
Having great conversations with Uber drivers, coworkers, and online folks (nothing can compare with real life interactions due to a few concussions), and walking a nature trail every so often has done many wonders for my mental health where I thought I was unrecoverable.
I think it's pretty frustrating being an outlier in any dimension. Your specific needs are always ignored. Being smart is no different. At least when I was in school they were always like "eh he'll do fine, let's concentrate on the borderline dunces".
When you leave school you can find your level a lot easier - go to a university and get a job where other people are at the same skill level. At least that's what made me happier after leaving school - I didn't have to mix with stupid arseholes.
It wasn't until I had kids and was suddenly thrown into a roughly random selection of 30 people that I remembered just how few of the general population I have anything remotely in common with. School sucks.
That's one of the only real downsides of apparent intelligence that I've seen: people in positions which exist to be supportive tend to assume you don't actually need their help.
Which, comparatively, might be true. But just because someone else needs more help doesn't mean it wouldn't be welcome.
Parents, teachers, advisors, supervisors, they just let you figure it out because they know you can, and they need to focus on those who can't. I had a career coach once tell me I didn't need to worry about finding a job, smart people always find work.
If you've never needed to ask for help before, this can really cause problems when you finally do.
Sure, McDonald's probably doesn't want a hyper-intelligent fry cook. But in almost any intellectual line of work, there is a high-impact, high-ceiling place for truly intelligent people - as long as they also have sufficient work ethic and social skills to back it up. (social skills optional if the other two are high enough). And they will never struggle to find a job.
I think there's a gap between "hyper-intelligent" people like you describe here and people who are just intelligent enough that nobody thought they needed help.
i still, deep down, identify as being "smart". i don't like being wrong, and it's my go-to ego lick at work, "well bad thing x may have happened, but at least I'm still valued for being smart". it was my label in high school that i've never quite shed.
obviously now i have so many more facets - father, husband, leader, writer/reader. Smartness is just raw horsepower, it's what you do with it that matters. And there's lots of kinds of "smarts". As an example, my wife wasn't the traditional "book smart" but she's emotionally & street smart - knows how to get things done, how to think on her feet, etc.
but still despite that increased richness from life experience, I'm still "smart" and hold on to it
My process was a multi-year process of recognizing my vulnerabilities. A couple of things that come to mind.
Meeting and liking people who were really different from me, with mindsets completely different. The kind of people I would previously judge as "dumb" were suddenly teaching things that improved my life. For example, my beliefs are science-oriented, and I am very skeptical, but now I have close friends who are esotericists, and I really enjoy passing time with them.
The book "The Courage To Be Disliked" by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga. Help me a lot to understand myself and my insecurities.
Is it that you think you are smart, or smarter than the others? Is it about your deeper knowledge about a few specific subjects that interest you but not others?
I've been and am in this trap. I think I am not dim. I doubt it's genetic, because I have living relatives, so :) I am smart about USB-C accessories, nobody else cares. They are smart about living their lives to the fullest.
Good points. I often think about this and I've come to the conclusion that just because other people don't have deep or niche interests doesn't make them any less smart than me. I lived in a city during my "social learning" phase and then moved back to my village. I realized that people I might have mistakenly categorized as less smart than me are absolutely amazing at things I constantly struggle with. They're street-smart, practical and genuinely content. It blows my mind to see how resilient they are when dealing with personal suffering and natural calamities. They're the perfect example of what Marcus Aurelius calls "living according to nature" in his Meditations.
In what way are you smart? I started to think about the things I was good and bad at, and I realized I'm only good at certain types of problems and work due to practice and study. Try to be confident in your interests and pursuits where you know you have experience or you want to gain experience, but don't be overconfident and begin think you know about things that you barely scratched the surface of. A good start is to never assume you know how to solve a problem that has been unsolved for ages, in general. Often, the people who hang out here don't know that line because they think they're "smart".
For me, I realized how insufferable my smart friends were, and I looked at people who I admired and whose company I enjoyed, and I realized humility was a key trait among the people I liked best. I’m still insufferable, though, but hopefully less than before!
Sometimes you just need to let it go, choose peace over proving something. Occasionally I still get caught up in something but it is very rare nowadays.
For me it was a combination of being around people much smarter than me (I got lucky and worked at some crazy places) and realizing how disfunctional they are. There is some happy medium where you can be pretty smart and realize you are a normal person.
I've met people that are about my intelligence, who have been better educated than me, and they think they are fucking brilliant and it's just tiring as shit. They are insufferable to be around. Honestly I think a lot of silicon valely/tech bro people are a fucking chore to deal with because they have this "I'm so smart" attitude.
If you want to check your ego, try to prove yourself wrong, test theories, talk to people to get their perspective and actually try to understand them. At some point you realize how much you don't understand about the world, about other fields, and about other people's experience.
Love seing all the introspection in the comments. There is a general awareness on personal struggles much higher than before. I almost never heard my parents talking about this subjects.
It was Buddhism Monk Ajhan Brahm, before he started down that path he was going down the university path studying theoretical physics. The one thing that stood out to him was just how miserable so many of the smarter people where, and just how much they clung to their ego's and status. There was a moment when it dawned on him "I don't want to be anything like these people!".
Another great one was this by Gen Kelsang Sherab. In his final interview for his music studies they asked something like "How will you pursue this in future?", his response was "I will not, I choose to pursue happiness."
i was humbled by peers smarter than me fairly early so i havent seen myself as the smart one since i was 13
now ive discovered i have a social issue where i assume everyone is on the same page and assume that if i spell out a logical conclusion than i would be patronizing a person who i assume would find my remark obvious and pedantic. its only in the past few months my therapist pointed out im still in the 9xth percentile or whatever based on standardized testing and education and most people are nonplussed by my expectations
in very simple, rude terms, im now treating others much more helpfully. but internally i feel like im treating adults like theyre children which feels gross and bad. people receive me MUCH better now so it seems to have solved my social issue, but now im noticeably a bit more depressed at the state of the world
I’m quite happy that my friends have labelled me as “an absolute idiot with anything but computers.” It’s much easier to relate to people at that level, adopt a happy-go-lucky attitude, and being wrong about 99% of things. being the smart one isn’t such a great label, and is (mostly) all in your head
I'd say it's more "ignorance is bliss". I spend far too much time thinking about various tradeoffs etc, whereas others just seem happy to stick a 'live, love, laugh' picture on the wall and get on without thinking about stuff.
Yes, I'm aware this is a gross oversimplification.
Im not smart (maybe average), but a lot of my unhappiness starts from just having access to information. And then more I process the information, the more unhappy I become. Smarter people than me probably have more information and are able to process it faster, uncovering effects that are not readily perceived by normal folks like myself.
I stopped viewing all news media companies five years ago. Real news will get to you pretty quickly by other means such as HN which I still frequent a couple of hours a week. Modern news is re-hashing even the trivial in the worst possible way and inviting the extreme idiots on both sides to fight it out in the comment section, I can honestly say I am missing nothing and still find myself informed and happier.
It is hard to abstain from news completely. The mainstream media is becoming increasingly like social media, feeding on shared sentiment and vague feelings of outrage.
Maybe it's like a drug? I never read/watched news in my entire life and find it pretty easy. It's impossible to completely shield yourself from getting the news at all, which is a bit unfortunate. I feel I would lead a happier life if I didn't get to know who the president of the USA was, for example. It's completely meaningless knowledge anyway. But for some reason most people are really interested and will tell you, even if you never ask.
It really isn’t. I haven’t watched the news on tv in probably 20 years, I haven’t had any social media accounts ever, and at this point I use the internet as part of my day job, to do my job.
It is absolutely amazing to be so disconnected and I encourage everyone to try it. People at work tell me about interesting things happening in the world, and my role and my spouses role at her job have the (mis) fortune of keeping me informed about the goings on in the wider world. But there is no spin.
> It really isn’t. I haven’t watched the news on tv in probably 20 years
It's frequently beneficial to know what's happening in the world around you, even though possessing a sense of empathy can make knowing what's happening in the world around you unpleasant.
You're asking me to enumerate the benefits of knowing what's going on the world around you? It's probably not relevant or beneficial if it's something like miners being trapped in a cave on the other side of the planet, but when you get down to your local community you might want to know about things like:
- Road closures
- Boil orders
- Product recalls
- Neighborhood breakins
- Weather forecasts and alerts
- Updated laws and court rulings that might impact you
- Public safety notices
- Health inspections
- Public works projects
- and a zillion other things that happen as a consequence of living in a complex society
Just visiting this site means you're inundated with a lot of news about AI or tech companies, and politics pertaining to those matters. It's hard to remove politics from issues. I think only the most niche of communities avoid politics completely.
The news is virtually never important enough. And my definition of “important enough” is “actionable”.
There’s a pervasive idea, mostly among more educated people, that keeping up with political news is civic minded and responsible. I’m not sure if I’m just cynical or small minded but I just don’t see the point. Getting a daily blast of topics to worry about that I have no control over doesn’t seem like a good use of this life journey.
While my intelligence is ~ constant, my levels of happiness fluctuated during my life and now, at 48, I am maybe twice as happy as I was at 24. There is definitely an upward trend with me...
During the same period, I also absorbed a lot of information, including some ghastly one. And yet my overall feeling of well-being improved.
IDK what happened, I can at best describe it as if "someone slowly changed the lens I am using to view the world for a less cloudy one".
Maybe some sort of hormonal development. It seems to be outside my will, though. Just happened.
I think a part of happiness is just knowing that you cannot win the game of life. Even if you could process a thousand times more information, would that make you any happier? If anything, your craving for information would only increase.
It's not the processing that is the problem but the craving.
That said, ignorance is bliss but the consequences are dyer. There is a nice middle ground.
pretty sure if you're commenting on here then you're way above average. It's not a compliment, its just that you're misunderstanding how low the bar is.
I don't think it's egoistical. I understand it's often uncomfortable to compare people by their intelligence, but by many measures of 'smart', people here have it, more often than not.
Nah, people here often have knowledge in varied but very niche subjects, but because this is the place for niche subjects, you can always find a handful of people knowledgeable on any given subject.
Plus, it’s fairly common to see people saying the most amazingly simple things but with big words, fancy terms, heavy phrasing and all that just to sound that little bit smarter.
None of that tells me people here are more intelligent than the average Joe walking by living their life. Just that people here flock on posts with subjects they enjoy or know a bit about.
It’s very easy to sound intelligent, all you have to do is leave people confused with a bit of theatre and misdirection (oh, and a dash of arrogance!). True intelligence, though, is owning what you don’t know. True intelligence is not trying to make everyone around you feel dumber so you can be the clever clogs.
I don't think its wildly optimistic at all. Coming here, reading stuff and commenting is such a self-selecting process that it leaves you mostly with people who have extremely high cognitive function and intellectual curiosity and bravery. This is so far away from the fold and is an extremely aggressive filter.
The dread is that even this suggested "5%" contains many idiots (this idea of 5% also being rather idiotic). But if you think 5% is wildly optimistic then I fear you don't appreciate what the baseline is like. People are proper stupid and uninterested in thinking when it comes down to it.
To get a mild appreciation of the bar, at least in technical ability. My source is the OECD’s Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), specifically its assessment of “problem solving in technology-rich environments.”
Around 5% of the sample on average (116k) got to the top level. A top level task was as scary as being able to successfully reschedule a meeting in an email client with multiple participants. That's the sort of bar 5% can clear, which gives me the anchor. So think about that, well over 90% of people really struggle with that level of task, which I'd imagine all of us could clear (even our idiots). Sure its an annoying task, but its really not _that_ hard.
Aw, sorry. I just wanted to sound sincere. Like you're underestimating yourself or well er.... others. Idk I'm sure you're smart. Stupid people think they're _really_ smart, imho being smart is mostly associated with having some level of self-doubt.
Humans simply didn't evolve to be connected to a constant firehose of random information. I firmly believe that even the smartest person will become an idiot if they just scroll X all day
> Let’s not pretend X is bad because of Musk alone. HN can be just as terrible too.
I am yet to see racial slurs, hateful speech, scams, porn (consensual and non consensual) or any of the endless things that are okay on X but not on HN. So no, HN can not and will not be just as terrible. The two platforms aren’t even close in terms of the health of the discourse.
I think being smart universally trumps being less smart - but the definition of smart needs to be more encompassing.
For example take the stereotype of a brilliant man or woman who neglected family for career, and are forever single and childless forever -- while someone less brilliant just "ends up" with a family and ultimately more fulfilled in life.
Superficially this is an example of an average person being happier than the really smart one but I don't agree with this. I look at this as the non-brilliant person being smarter in the areas that matter. Or vice versa the "brilliant" person neglected a really important area of life - which isn't that smart.
With this expanded definition - where smart isn't just a measurement of raw processing power or a spike in one area, but rather the product of "smart about what's important" * "smart about how to go about it" - that kind of person I think is consistently happier than anyone else.
One dimension of this is the (in)ability to stick with tradition and culture rather than "smartly" invent everything yourself. In the scenario above, the average person maybe ended up with a family because they were more able to follow family patterns and advice while the "brilliant" person tries to figure out everything from scratch, not able to benefit from the "well troden paths" that are available.
As a single and childless person, I don't like the implication that those are marks of a less fulfilling life. I know some people married with kids who seem very happy and fulfilled, and some profoundly miserable and trapped. I may be missing out on some good things, but I'm also avoiding some extreme misery, and generally do feel content and fulfilled.
The thing about having children is that you absolutely cannot know what it's like until you actually have them. And then, of course, it's too late.
I'm convinced that I would have been happy without children. I would have lived a wonderful life, maybe with a spouse, maybe alone, traveling the world, working on my interests, and generally doing whatever I wanted to do. You don't miss what you never had.
But now that I have two kids, that life seems so hollow. Kids make you feel things that you've never felt before. It's like suddenly discovering a new rainbow of colors, or like listening to a piece of music that makes you simultaneously giddy with joy and wistfully sad and you can't explain why.
You can't compare the joy of having kids with any other pleasure you've experienced. It's like trying to compare having sex with having a great meal. It's not even the same scale.
Of course, everyone's different. Some people absolutely regret having kids (and that's sad for everyone). But if you have even a slight feeling like maybe you want to have kids, I would absolutely do it. My only regret is that I waited so long.
> you absolutely cannot know what it's like until you actually
Is probably true for all life changing event. Extreme poverty, wealth, loss of a parent, etc. There's nothing special in that regard about having children.
> if you have even a slight feeling like maybe you want to have kids, I would absolutely do it
Nah, that's just being egocentric. Have children if you're pretty sure you can raise them in the best conditions possible for them to end up being happy, if not, better keep on hesitating.
> you absolutely cannot know what it's like until you actually have them
While it's less common now, I don't think anyone who grew up in a bigger family under one roof could agree with that. Nothing divine is gatekeeping this experience. It's the socioeconomic climate we've created doing that.
It makes perfect sense that you value your family so deeply, but you might want to reconsider where you anchor your pride. It's a lot of responsibility. Unexpected things can happen.
I'm extremely grateful to have examined all stages of life on a daily basis before even going to college, but I think having kids is a heavy choice. It's perhaps the heaviest choice of all. Since there's no mystery in it for me, I'm still enjoying being unchained.
My wife is one of seven. Her five older brothers nearly scared her off of ever wanting a son. Our kids are not like her siblings' nor their kids.
You might have an idea that there is no mystery. You've only seen a glimpse yet, even if you were changing your siblings' diapers. There is much more of that mystery iceberg.
I grew up in a large family of 5 kids and I think it’d be very ignorant to suggest that experience is at all comparable to having children of my own.
I promise you that you do not know what having children is like and that the mystery remains alive, should you ever choose to take that journey. One is reminded of Plato’s cave.
> […] I don't think anyone who grew up in a bigger family under one roof could agree with that.
I do. I grew up with 5 siblings, and having brothers and sisters is very, very different from having your own children. My relation with and my emotions towards my children is very different from my relation with and my emotions towards my siblings, both now and when I was still living with them in the same house.
Off-topic: I have absolutely no idea why my comment got downvoted. I shared a personal anecdote that's directly relevant to the discussion at hand and which counters the claim of the comment I replied to. Does someone think I'm lying? Was my comment too controversial? I don't get it. What is wrong with this site?
For what it's worth, I think that happens to everyone now because of all the bots and toxic astroturfing.
Since comments are sorted by points, it's more of an indication how touchy or dogmatic a subject is. I expect to lose points when I'm not the only reply. I've seen discussions where hours later a brigade of green accounts skyrocket to the top out of nowhere simply because they reinforce a more convenient idea. All of the original more interesting comments get downvoted.
With this one though, I don't know since all your replies are basically the same and you've all been here a while.
I actually expected my comment to get more downvotes since I was describing a tougher upbringing in a multi-generational household, but it got buried in noise. HN generally doesn't know how to handle more down-to-earth topics and defaults to thinking in stereotypes.
If there is a difference between the replies, the top one was made after yours and elaborates on being "tough" while still disagreeing, so maybe that's more convincing to some people?
Thanks for sharing that. Obviously respect your choices on the individual level.
The contrast you provided between those who are happy with family and those two seem miserable is in line with what I am saying: it's both 'be smart about what you persue' and 'be smart about how you persue it.' So likely the first group was 'smarter' about who they chose as a spouse and how they set up the life with them than the second group.
So maybe we can score the miserable group as a -1, the happy group as a +1 and your avoidance strategy as in-between: 0.
So you can look at your strategy as good because it avoids the extreme misery but it also denies a shot at extreme happiness. And then if one were to go that potentially high risk/high reward path, their actual outcome (are they happy or miserable) is a function of how smartly they persue that endeavor.
Many people, including myself, just know that we don't want to have children. Our outcomes won't have the same distribution as those of people who always wanted to have children, no matter how "smart" we are about it.
Another factor is that when you have children and regret it you can suffer a lot more than just "-1" of misery - I'd say the scale is more like -10 to +1 (centered around 0). Furthermore if you end up regretting it you will also inflict some part of that misery onto your children.
I've never met anyone who was sorry they had children, but I've met a lot of people who missed the opportunity (to be fair, I've never met the parents of a violent criminal).
Kids can be hard, especially if you're not a natural, and especially when they're young, but-- it's impossible to describe the fulsome love I have for my kids. I'm not a sentimental person, and probably wouldn't have had them without my wife (which is a funny thing to say). Even when they're a pain and a disappointment, even with the ever present guilt, my kids give me some baseline purpose for free. And the wins are great--"all joy and no fun" as I heard once. The conversations as they become real people. It's impossible to describe and totally worth it.
I don't really expect anyone to casually admit that they regret having children to anyone but their closest confidants, perhaps not even themselves, the social stigma and shame would be unbearable.
I don't know how much research there is on this but anecdotally there are many emotionally absent and neglectful parents out there. They might be able to cope with the way their life is but that doesn't mean that they're good parents (or that they wouldn't do things differently if they got to start over again).
There's also a chance that your child is born with disabilities that demand intensive life-long support. I know that I couldn't cope with that, so even if my general outlook on having children changed some day I could never get past this, for my own good and out of responsibility for my hypothetical child.
Of course there are bad parents. I'm unlikely to encounter them, and even if I did I would probably not associate with them. But I suspect that you and anyone else on this thread offering thoughtful responses, are not the kind of person who would fall into that category.
I only offer my own experience, because I had the same fears as you. One datapoint, but parenting changed me in so many good ways, and the hardships fade from memory.
Strongly agreed, and it's also worth it for those who think too narrowly along those lines that those aren't even the same axis. I used to be single and childless, and my happiness fluctuated a lot, but now I'm married and much more consistently happier. Neither my wife or I want kids, so if we had them, suddenly we'd be back to being less happy again. There are also plenty of single parents, and I'm sure many of them are happy and fulfilled without needing a partner.
Plus, kids who grow up with parents who are unhappy and would prefer to be childless are probably a lot more likely to grow up into unhappy adults.
Important to define what is happy and what were problems to begin with. I'm 39, no kids, and my parents weren't happy with me, but were happy otherwise. How does this factor how I'm unhappy?
Happiness should be the end goal. Contentment is part of it. Compromise. Quality over quantity and the quality doesn't have to always be great, just no regrets according to modern death bed speeches. Being happy can mean chasing one thing and not the other, which would lead to some unspoken regret, loud enough in our head.
I said "more likely", not "guaranteed". I feel like the whole point I'm trying to make by building onto the parent comment is that there's not a one-size-fits-all template to being happy and fulfilled, and that not everyone will fit expected trends. At no point did I try to prescribe anything to someone as the way to avoid being unhappy, nor did I attempt to categorize the world into buckets of who would be happy or unhappy. That's literally the opposite of what I was trying to say, which is that trying to force expectations of what one person thinks would make someone happy onto someone else is not a good thing.
Your second paragraph seems to be mostly quibbling of my use of the term that already was being used throughout this thread (and in the article itself). I don't understand why you chose my comment in particular to litigate the definition when it's not something I've introduced to the discussion.
I think you are reaching for the word "wisdom" (I heard about smart vs. wise a bunch of times) and are tending to define it in a... narrow way. I'd damn prefer to live the live of Plato, Roger Bacon or Isaac Newton: experience the universe in novel, rich ways, contribute a lot to humanity, give up offspring, than be "below average" smart (whatever it would mean) with 7 children.
Of course, by statistics no one of us is Plato or Roger Bacon. I'd agree that a problem with the modern world is an ideology of (objectively) crappy career or climbing some fake institutional hierarchy being a worthy substitute for family. I myself do believe that a family is one of relatively easiest (but still hard and demanding) ways to being happy [1].
I also see a lot of people here overcorrecting and arriving at some strange worldviews.
Some people are childless because of objective circumstances: what are they, damned by God via predestination to unhappiness? In the Catholic world, they have been, esp. in the olden days, a lot of childless priests, monks, nuns. If you want to at the same time value tradition and not reinventing (quoting parent) and "evolutionary DNA survival", you either have to somehow condemn Catholicism and Orthodoxy [2], or start adding some epicycles to your philosophy.
Oh, and on topic: I believe being happy requires working for it. Maybe for "smarter" people their allotted amount of work is higher. Don't know if it's nice to hear, but sounds true to me.
[1] Maybe one lure of career is that people are culturally accepting of life at work being terrible in many ways, while a poorly constructed family (one or more immature people etc.) scares people off pretty fast. Maybe because it's a more total institution and harder to escape.
Right, there is a problem with even defining "smart", a decent number of mathematicians I have known would not call themselves smart, but persistent. I have known a lot of physicists too, some of whom forget simple integrals all the time, but publish like a monster, and some very smart physicists who know almost any fact you could want off the top of their head who don't publish almost at all. One group is more successful than the other.
The issue here is that if the smart brilliant man decides that he will prioritize his family and friends, creating happy community around him ... you will just say he was not brilliant. Because he earns less money.
As in, your example assumes that if you are brilliant you will neglect family, if you care about family you are not brilliant.
You do indeed need to change the definition of "smart" to not be just "earns a lot of money".
> they were more able to follow family patterns and advice while the "brilliant" person tries to figure out everything from scratch, not able to benefit from the "well trodden paths" that are available
You know, sometimes the well-trodden paths are chains worth breaking man. Most families aren't exactly The Brady Bunch.
I think we agree that it takes all kinds of people, but you are mischaracterizing what it means to spend a little more time alone before committing to a family. That time will pay dividends when/if they go for it.
I gotta invoke Hanlon's Razor on this one and refrain from elaborating on what I think your comment sounds like. It's a sign of the times we live in that even this can become a hot political issue.
I am genuinely curious as to what you think my comment "sounds like"
But I don't disagree with your first paragraph. Some well troden paths maybe bad - the trick is to know which ones. Because if you make that fall wrong you end up in a bad state which is what I was talking about.
Almost every reply to your comment points out your example "being smart" with a tired one of family vs work.
What people in many other comments here point out that for many familie is just one of many areas in life and can have nothing to do with smarts or happiness.
Is the man abandoning his wife and child to find a better life happier for it, he can be. Has nothing to do with if he used his smarts to arrive at that solution to his unhappiness or resolution.
How many people choose their family based on some calculation where there is a right or wrong answer?
Like an comic said, most people choose their life partner while drunk in a bar (obv local example) but no way you would ever choose which toaster to buy while drunk! The toast have to be just right, doesn't it?
not that wage is any indicator of inherent goodness but yea electrical engineers get paid average wage in my country while miners earn many multiples of said wage, who's the dumb one now ???
Presumably miners get a high wage to offset the negatives of the job and attract people. So to an extent you have a choice which way to go and you try to make a smart one.
Personally I wouldn't have a highly hazardous job if it paid any multiple of what I make now and that feels smart to my situation. But for someone else that might be a different calculus.
> Presumably miners get a high wage to offset the negatives of the job and attract people.
A common thread I see when these types of topics come up too is that the high pay in many of these jobs (trades, policing, nursing, etc.) is dependent on working large amounts of overtime.
You reduce massively this complex topic into having kids = more happiness. Divorce rates, marriage counseling intensity and just looking around paints a very different and much more realistic picture. Most marriages either fail or keep it up in semi-miserable fashion (for kids, money, insecurity and so on but never due to actual strength of the bond or any love remaining).
That comes from married father of two - the idea that having kids somehow magically makes life better and everybody happier is what got society into pushing everybody into marriages for decades long after pressure from religions waned. Suffice to say it didn't work very well. Works great for some, is a proper mistake for others.
We are having a conversation about smart outcomes here.
The divorce rate is not a random thing. My odds of being happily married or miserable are heavily influenced by how I have worked on myself and who I chose to marry.
So part of being "smart" is navigating that situation to achieve the right outcome. The outcome itself is not guaranteed but to cite the rate without acknowledging the factors that are in your control misses the point here. Someone's terrible marriage is of no relevance to your situation.
Marriages where the couple had children together are considerably less likely to end than marriages without children. A recent Canadian poll showed an effect size of ~60%. [1] Table 1 covers this nicely.
I’d be curious what data you’re citing to suggest children are by far the most destructive thing for a happy marriage. It seems like the kind of redditism most popular with people for whom it doesn’t apply :)
Ugh. This analysis starts off a little interesting with its observation that "intelligence", as analyzed historically, tends to be about solving bounded-context problems (with a known right answer) rather than open-ended problems (D&D called this "wisdom", right?)
But it is lacking so, so, so much in explaining why smart people aren't happier or evaluating the premises of the question.
If my teenager gave me this analysis and question, I'd give them 8 more avenues to explore, none of which the article addresses:
1) Is intelligence Kahneman's "type 1 thinking" or "type 2"? Do people (including you) act on their thinking or their emotions? (Can/do you think smart + act dumb and end up happy?)
2) What does being happy have to do with having autonomy and control and purpose? (Existentialism)
3) What does happiness have to do with contentment and the scope of what one wants to control, ie ambition? Attachment? (Buddhism)
4) What does happiness have to do with one's overall outlook of being pessimistic or optimistic?
5) Is there some deeper insight why a widespread religious tradition such as the Judeo-Christian one has a creation story where where "knowledge of good and evil" is inherently problematic?
6) What does happiness have to do with dopamine and the timing or frequency of solving problems of small vs large size? What degree of problems need to be present for an intelligent problem-solver to be happy vs, say, bored, (example: Marvin the "brain the size of a planet" android in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, bored and depressed?)
7) What is the connection between happiness and benevolence, giving vs receiving? Relationships? Why?
8) Why does a socio-economic system based on money-maxxing intended to obtain happiness lead to oversupply which leads to demand-generation/creation/marketing which leads to unhappiness? And similarly leads to conflict and resulting unhappiness? Is there an inherent ying/yang dynamic to intelligence and happiness on a personal or socioeconomic systems level?
I do agree with the author that it's a question worth re-evaluating in an age of "Artificial Intelligence" promises.
It's a blog post. Unless you're reading Gwern or something, you shouldn't expect a really deep comprehensive take on an issue this ill-defined. I mean what does happiness mean? Its hard enough to get people to agree on that.
When you look into the void, the void looks back into you. When you start empirically testing the void, the void says "Hey, what are you doing, stop touching me there".
I'm not very smart, but I've read so much history.
I've also got a pretty strong pattern matching engine.
Since the age of 8 my family traveled across the world interacting and working with thousands of folks of all walks of life. I still travel a lot and love to talk to people and ask them their stories. I've worked many different jobs, to this day some of my jobs are minimum wage, some are extremely high earning.
The pattern matching engine has a lot input to match on and it reminds me a few dozen times a day that today my current country is fractionally less safe than it was yesterday. There's nothing I can do to fight against a high tech propaganda media campaign that's morphed into a mass cult that craves genocide.
No amount of prepping or homesteading or storing away gold will help when the food riots come.
CBT and journaling and meditating have helped me come to the realization that while I'll almost certainly die from violence, I will be present and enjoy every second until that happens. I form deep connections with my neighbors and build a big community of people I love. I share joy with all I can, and I comfort those who are sad. The only thing in life that matters are people and how I treat them, so I try to embrace them all and meet them where they are with kindness and love.
A brilliant thru-hiking documentary says it best: "It's The People".
I do think an important part that we leave out when we analyze datapoints like "people who test well in one subject tend to test well in other subjects" is that "test taking" is itself a skill that people can be good or bad at.
I was always an expert test taker from a very young age. I loved standardized tests, and excelled every time.
I remember thinking many times how I was pretty sure I could do pretty well on a test on any subject, even if I didn't know the subject itself.
I had a chance to test (hah) that theory when I took a summer job at a college testing center when I was a college student myself. I would give out these tests in a number of different subjects, but I had time to kill while the students were taking the tests. I decided to try taking some for subjects I had never studied.
I scored well above the average scores on these subjects I knew nothing about, I just knew how tests were written. I could pick up context clues in the wording of questions, use my experience on how test questions usually go, and use clues from other parts of the test to figure out how to answer a different question.
That doesn't mean I was any good at those subjects, I just was good at that form of test.
There may be such a thing as pure test-taking skill, but I think it boils down to two things: General knowledge/literacy, and knowing the specific format of the test. A well-written test should not have question context for one thing that informs the answer to another question, or have logical inconsistencies/redundancies/ambiguity that can be exploited. Questions should also not build off of each other in a way that causes cascading failure if you can't answer one. These things may happen in low-stakes classroom exams but they certainly shouldn't in a standardized test.
Practically everyone goes to school in our society, so they have very similar opportunity to learn how to take a test. Some of them never get good at it after many years. Maybe that is a sign that they also wouldn't be good at any academic subjects. You wouldn't have a reliable way to measure that, because test-taking is out. I guess they could try to practice test-taking by taking a ton of random tests and grading themselves, but then they might accidentally become experts in some subjects!
There's different flavors of stupidity. There's the "oh damn, why didn't I think of that first" and there's the smug "I did my own research and your evidence doesn't match by beliefs".
Stupidity in the sense of doing nothing good for themselves or anyone else, yeah. People are mostly a collection of local context clues about overly emotional nonsense.
> Because we're depressed at being surrounded by stupidity
And then we visit websites like HN, filled with people who think they are smart.
I don't mind a stupid person who knows they are stupid, but I despise the so-called 'expert' who is wrong, but society considers that person to be the authority
I've learned that the more intelligent you are the more models you know and the more trust you place in them being actual reality vs just being models. This leads to overconfidence in things being a certain way so when life calls for flexibility, your rigidity will make you suffer. Cynicism develops from this rigidity.
Additionally, the more intelligent you are the more skilled you become at thinking about things logically. An intelligent person can convince themselves of anything using logic without realizing that all logic depends on unproven axioms and assumptions. Combined with cynicism, logic leads to a negative outlook on life that is hard to shake off.
An intelligent person can convince themselves of anything
Not to mention via shortcuts, reductionism, and other (ironically) lazy thinking. After all, they're too smart to take a shortcuts that lead them to the wrong answer, so if they took a shortcut it saved them effort and was also right!
> _An intelligent person can convince themselves of anything_
I think it might be just the opposite: convincing yourself of things relies on exploiting limits for which very intelligent people have much higher threshold they might as well not have them. When it comes to happiness, it’s kind of a superpower which I think very intelligent people just don’t have because it fights against their intelligence by definition. It’s also something that I think happens unconsciously.
It’s ironic, as you yourself provided a perfect example: a logic argument depending on unproven assumptions, if it lands in “convincing” yourself, exploits a limitation in accounting for the validity of the assumptions themselves (meaning: you believe it anyway). Assuming one could pick and choose the arguments (i.e., what to believe in) wouldn’t that trivially unlock happiness?
People choose to believe what they desire and all desire eventually leads to disappointment and dissatisfaction. So, no, even if you could choose to convince yourself of whatever you want you're still not going to be happy. Also, people tend to pick the worst case scenario as a defense mechanism in most cases.
If you really want to be happy you need to let go of your preferences; your desires and aversions.
I find it interesting that there's an expectation that smart people would be happier.
Being smart is essentially "having a strong brain". Would we expect people with a strong back or legs to be happier? I wouldn't expect someone good a maths or puzzles to be any happier than someone good at carrying heavy things.
There's a difference between smart and wise. Some smart people become wise people, and I find them to be happy.
> I think there's a strong correlation between health and fitness and happiness
Most depressed people don't have the energy to exercise, and people with executive function disorders have problems with procrastination and often can't form the routine needed for increases in fitness.
Yup! Depression can cause psychomotor retardation, which can make even basic physical activities like sitting or walking painful because it feels physically heavy to carry all that weight.
Yes, but awful relative to... our brain's presets, which are an artifact of the world it evolved in. So in my view, there's nothing fundamental about it. Kant would say that the true nature of reality (noumena) are unknowable because our only connection to the real world is our sensory inputs, organized into perceptions within our brain (phenomena).
My partner describes me as a professional problem solver. Since I was a child, I have fixed things that most people throw away, taught myself many skills because I'd rather know how to do things before handing things to others to do for me, read many books on a huge variety of subjects, and everyone thinks I am extremely lucky.
I don't see problems, I see opportunities.
I work hard every day, whether it's writing code, digging ditches, clearing scrub, making firewood, planting trees, tending a large growing space, running my business, preparing and canning food for the the next year...and on it goes.
Lots of setbacks along the way, such as the leak I fixed isn't fixed, almost all of my tomatoes failed, 100% of my winter onions failed, the stator on my ATV needs to be replaced, I need to deer proof a field, scrub clearance is a massive and backbreaking job that sucks energy...and on it goes.
I am deleriously happy.
No idea if I am "smart", but life takes work, and mostly it's what you make of it.
Perception is the biggest enemy, and it can be changed.
Drawing from my own life experiences, the more I learn the more things I worry about that could go wrong. This worry creeps into all aspects of life and becomes the norm. This creates a sense of dissatisfaction which can be a form of unhappiness.
Smart folks get aware of environment/challenges etc much sooner than others and maybe that creates the pathway to erosion of happiness.
You can easily flip this perspective on its head and postulate that being smarter helps you come up with more complex and logical rationalizations for your unhappiness in a way that totally orthogonal to its source. You could view excessive worry about things outside of your control as a pathological case of a certain kind of intelligence.
A lot of very intelligent philosophers written about how to lead a good/happy life over the centuries and none of them to my knowledge encourage a focus on problems outside of your control.
It is possible for many people to learn how to be happier, but this skill doesn't automatically emerge just because one is smart. Being smart doesn't automatically give you the skill of riding a bike, either. It doesn't automatically give you the skill of being charming in social situations. It doesn't automatically give you the skill of knowing how to box. You can learn all those skills, but they have to be learned. Same with being happier.
There are all kinds of effective approaches for becoming happier, ranging from things like changing one's circumstances, to cognitive-behavioral therapy, to Eckhart Tolle style present-moment awareness beyond mental narratives, to what some pick-up artists call "getting in state", and many other approaches as well.
Being smart does potentially make it easier to learn, because it makes it easier to understand the concepts that other people use to describe skills and to apply them to one's own situation. Being smart also makes it easier to originate one's own ideas for how to become happier. And on the other hand, being smart can also cause problems if it makes one hyper-aware of problems, and so on. Emotional intelligence does not automatically increase just because verbal or mathematical types of intelligence increase. It's its own kind of intelligence. I have no idea whether it is correlated positively with the other kinds of intelligence, but certainly there are many people who have high emotional intelligence and low intellectual intelligence, and people who have low emotional intelligence and high intellectual intelligence.
Ambition is antithetical to contentment, not intelligence.
This is the drunkard's search principle [0]. If you go looking for intelligence, it is easiest to find among perpetual strivers, either because they will sit for any test and take it seriously or because they have already distinguished themselves as an elite competitor in chess, physics, whatever.
This gets posted here often even though its a complete fantasy. The actual relationship between happiness and intelligence is well known to be the opposite. IQ correlates significantly with happiness.
IME a lot of smart people aim at optimizing for whatever system they find themselves in, rather than questioning that system and asking themselves if it’s actually the life they want.
And so you get an army of very bright people all jumping through the same hoops to achieve the same goals, and half of them are miserable.
As someone who spends far too much time questioning the system, I often assume the hoop-jumpers are somehow happier. I wonder if life would be easier if I stopped worrying about the big picture.
I got to this point somewhat recently, I stopped worrying, I kind of broke. I still think about the big picture a few hundred times a day, but went from worrying about it and thinking it was something I could do anything about, and really am just kind of a nihilist now. I was a nihilist for a time as a teenager, saw the world, grew to want a better world, got mad (still am pretty mad) that we don't live in a better world (good job greed), and now I am just idk, participating in the circus for what it is.
A whole combination of things lead to that last year, I had to fire a bunch of people, quit my job, trump, family stuff, living situation stuff, dog passing, etc. But ya, not fun to go through, but I would say life is a little easier if you stop worrying about the big picture, you don't have to stop thinking about it or paying attention, but just recognize there's basically fuck all you can do by just worrying about it.
Bering "dumb" for a day just to know if I could be happier... I feel you.
My way to her happier was too stop following global news, even regional news. People around me well tell me the important things anyway.
Don't use the so called "social media"!
With so much free energy and attention, I now care about the areas that I can positively influence: me, close family, neighbors, friends, work, remote family.
As others have noted being smart will enable you to comprehend more of the World around you. This will in turn increase the amount of negativity you can be exposed to.
But in my opinion this ultimately comes down to your thinking patterns. Those must be practiced and learned. If you do not make an effort to adopt positive thinking patterns about the information you perceive you will become unhappy, as the negative patterns appear to be the default. What you become aware of, how you process it and form a conclusion, is your subjective experience.
Most people agree that exercise is healthy for your body. But if your form is lacking you can injure yourself quite severely.
In my experience, low self esteem and harboring negative emotions can be the cause of a "bad thinking form".
I strongly agree. I am not bragging (it's not even really impressive) when I say I have an IQ of around 125-130, depending on the test. We often get professional psychometric tests here in Denmark while we're interviewing for cognitively demanding jobs.
As a child I was profoundly depressed. I absorbed everything around me, and the negative stimuli affected me to a far greater degree. I'm not sure if that's innate or if my surroundings were in fact unfortunately negative. It wasn't until the age of 25 (which is itself an interesting age for the prefrontal cortex) that I was better able to control my thinking patterns. I used cognitive behavioural therapy methods in combination with lifestyle improvements (including exercise, sleep, alcohol, drugs, career, friends, money, country, and living arrangements). I figured out how to not hate living. I'm grateful I was stubborn enough to persevere that long. There were dark times.
I had friends who were not bright. They didn't absorb as much as I did. They weren't phased by the negative things around them to the degree I was. I envied them immensely.
I'm glad it worked for you. Lifestyle interventions had a positive impact on me as well but depression can be much more complex/stubborn and it affects everyone differently.
It's not just maladaptive thought patterns or beliefs that make it harder to feel happy or function normally. Chronic depression can shape the trajectory of your life in ways that are difficult to undo. So even treatments that increase flexibility(like SSRIs or ketamine) can't necessarily convince you to put on rose-tinted glasses and see the world differently.
In my personal experience, escaping depression also seems to get harder the longer you've had it. It can create catch22 situations and strong path dependencies that severely limit your ability to change the circumstances that are helping keep you depressed in the first place.
I agree, and my experiences acho yours. I was put onto SSRIs at age six, which is highly unusual - especially at the time. It was not an easy hole to climb out of.
I like this but find the dismissal of multiple intelligences pretty unconvincing. I'm amenable to the idea that IQ (and associated tests) measures some underlying `well-defined` problem solving ability (with each problem having other factors), but the 'poorly-defined' problems sure seem like multiple intelligences by another name.
In my experience, different poorly-defined problems have different shapes and how much skill a person can make progress on them depends on a lot of things. For example, it seems like problem of finding ways to make poorly-defined problems fit into a well-defined space ("engineering") and the poorly-defined problems of organizing groups of people into coalitions ("politics") draw on different sorts of intelligence. The author claims that this is often not tested (which is probably true) but the basic observation that unstructured problems are related to each other and different people solve different areas with consistent skill seems true to me.
Given that the purpose of a measure is to make predictions: IQ can be used to improve predictions of academic outcomes, whereas the multiple intelligences models are worse at this.
Whether or not there are multiple intelligences or not is an implementation detail unless knowledge of this has measurably lead to some better prediction.
There's no actual IQ test. Any data you've ever seen using "IQ" to predict academic outcomes is actually just using prior academic scores bent into the shape of a symmetric normal distribution.
Because we see how things fail, and why. And it's usually intentional incompetence and/or greed.
Both are fixable, but both require the person or system wants to fix it. So, it's usually not fixed.
Things like death "fixes" things. So does leaving the position in simpler ways. Technology can force the issue and force removing incompetence, or equalizing greed.
But yeah, it's seeing "intentional incompetence and/or greed" causes stagnation or worse is very disheartening and sorrowful. We could do so much better.
> This large, nationally-representative study from the UK finds that people who score the lowest on an intelligence test are a little less happy than everyone else, but that’s pretty much it
There’s a rational explanation here: IQ is not an absolute or proportional scale, and the happiness data actually is reflecting the true absolute difference in intelligence, which is smaller than the authors and many people assume.
IQ is a ranking measure, not a proportional measure of intelligence. A high IQ does not imply high intelligence on an absolute scale. The IQ scale is just standard deviations. If we measured height in standard deviations, this becomes clear, but somehow people don’t understand what IQ is, and it has become essentially a popular misconception.
Let’s measure height using HQ, where the mean is 100 and 1 stddev is 15 HQ. Then a 30 year old male who’s 5’9” has an HQ of 100. A 30 year old male who’s 6 feet tall has an HQ of over 115. That’s a 15% increase in HQ score for a 4% increase in height. Someone who’s 7 feet tall would have an HQ of 175 - a score some people label as supergenius, or in the “profoundly gifted range” on the IQ scale - yet they’re only 20% taller than the average male. (IQ doesn’t even work reliably above 160 anyway). And the HQ distribution stops at 8’11” (HQ of ~195, tallest person to ever live, ~50% taller than average), humans don’t ever grow taller than that.
There are good reasons to assume IQ works the same way - score ratios exaggerate intelligence differences, and the highest IQs are only moderately more intelligent than the median. This fully explains the result above - higher IQ does make someone happier, but only in proportion to actual intelligence, not in proportion to IQ.
> There are good reasons to assume IQ works the same way
What are these reasons? For most abilities not tied to physical limits of the body (reading speed, musical skills, memory, bow/gun shooting, bowling, bull riding, knitting), the top 1% are at least several times better than an average person, and the bottom 1% are several times worse. Why would intelligence be constrained to +/-20% range unlike all those other things?
Because intelligence is a physical attribute, and everything you listed is not a physical attribute and depends almost entirely on learned skill. None of those are physical limits of the body, and they change dramatically with practice. Most (all?) human physical attributes have relatively narrow ranges of distribution, which is why we should assume physical intelligence capacity does too, until proven otherwise. Assuming that an IQ of 160 is way way more intelligent than an IQ of 130 is a unsupported and incorrect assumption, that is simply not what IQ measures.
You can’t train human intelligence. It seems like you’re unaware of the goals and history of IQ. The whole point is to try to factor out learnable skills and measure pure cognitive capacity.
And yet, people who do IQ tests a lot score better. Sure, you can claim IQ test solving skill is not the same as intelligence - but then why are you measuring intelligence with IQ tests?
I’m not measuring with IQ tests nor defending the use of IQ tests, the authors of the article implicitly accepted them as a valid measure or proxy for intelligence, and implicitly assumed that happiness surveys should reflect proportional IQ scores. That is a bad assumption given that IQ scores do not measure absolute intelligence and they have an unknown scale factor at a minimum.
Well, you made the arguably far less substantiated claim that intelligence is a physical attribute and thus bounded to +/-20% range for most of the population... And that it can't be trained, despite all the evidence to contrary. If you're no longer interested defending that position, that's okay.
Speaking of unsubstantiated claims… what evidence is there that intelligence can be trained? You’re confusing intelligence with IQ tests. I made no such claim that intelligence is bounded to 20%, you seem to have misunderstood. I pointed out the fact that IQ tests are by design not tied to nor proportional to actual intellectual capacity. If you disagree, maybe you can provide some relevant information? So far your objections have been either irrelevant or factually incorrect.
Okay, let's step back a little. When you said "there are good reasons to assume IQ works the same way [as the hypothetical HQ]" - what exactly did you mean by that? Did you mean to imply the ratio between intelligence of someone with IQ 100 and IQ 180 is smaller than a factor of 1.8, or did you mean something else?
The evidence that intelligence can be trained is that every metric of intelligence ever invented is consistently going up when the subjects spend time to prepare themselves before being measured. IQ tests, school grades, chess performance, math olympiads, you name it. Sure, you can always claim that all of those are skills separate from intelligence and that's why becoming better is possible - but then how do you explain that being better at one of these automatically makes you better at all the others, if the overall intelligence stays the same?
Also, I said the range is +/-20% already in my very first reply. Why didn't you correct me back then? Why did you wait until now?
Great question. My primary point was that the IQ scale and absolute intelligence aren’t the same things, and people often assume they are (this article’s premise, for example), or even worse many people assume that absolute intelligence goes up exponentially along with the rarity of the IQ ranking. Height was simply an example of how there’s an obvious discrepancy between standard deviations and the underlying absolute metric; the rarity of one person’s height says literally nothing about how tall they are, and yet people assume without any justification whatsoever that the rarity of someone’s IQ score does say something about how smart they are. All human physical characteristics have a relatively narrow range, and they don’t increase exponentially. Running is another example - Usain Bolt can run faster than 99.9999% of people, and yet he’s only 10% faster than the average competitive sprinter and maybe ~50% faster than the average person not trained in running. You’ll see similar distributions with weight lifting. The number of brain cells doesn’t grow without bound - we all have similar amounts. The construction of the brain cells and the structure of the brain isn’t wildly different from person to person. Most skulls are approximately the same size. Most eyeballs and ears and arms and legs all vary by about the same amount height and head size varies. So, there really is good reason to start with the hypothesis that raw biological cognitive capacity and speed don’t vary by a lot more than height does, and - importantly - that they all top out at the upper end of the distribution.
> Did you mean to imply the ratio between intelligence of someone with IQ of 100 and IQ 180 is smaller than a factor of 1.8, or did you mean something else?
I meant that from the start, assuming the factor is 1.8 is a very bad assumption. That’s simply not how standard deviations work. Yes, please consider the possibility that the cognitive capacity of IQ 180 is less than 1.8 times more than that of IQ 100. If intelligence has a similar distribution to other physical characteristics, then difference between the mean and the first standard deviations is much larger than the difference between the first and second standard deviations. Translation: the jump from 130 to 160 is probably much smaller than the jump from 100 to 130. And going from 160 to 190 IQ, there is likely a negligible, unmeasurable difference in absolute intelligence. This is the opposite of the popular conceptions of IQ, right?
> The evidence that intelligence can be trained is that every metric of intelligence ever invented is consistently going up
Again, you are confusing raw intelligence with psychometric tests. Yes you can train for an IQ test. No, you cannot train intelligence. ‘Intelligence’ in this context, the kind we are discussing, is defined as the biological component of cognitive capacity that cannot be trained. Intelligence and skill are two different things, go ahead and google that question. The fact that IQ tests are not currently able to differentiate between intelligence and skill is a well known shortcoming of IQ tests, and that relates directly to my initial point: IQ is not a great measure and assuming that IQ score and happiness would have a correlation anywhere near 1 is a very bad assumption.
> Sure, you can always claim that all of those are skills separate from intelligence
Yes, yes I can, since it’s true. Therefore, given that fact, the question you asked is one for you to ponder and answer. What is the source of the claim that being better at one “automatically makes you better at all the others”? Does taking IQ tests give you more brain cells or increase your cognitive speed? You’re hand-waving this training argument and ignoring the fact that people who train for IQ tests still top out and hit a wall regardless of the amount of practice, they don’t increase their scores indefinitely. If intelligence could be trained, why isn’t everyone a so-called high IQ genius?
> Why didn’t you correct me back then?
Hehe I don’t need to argue every wrong thing you say, and doing so doesn’t make for good conversation. Your assumptions only reflect on you, not me. I assumed you’d eventually re-read the comment you replied to and figure out that using 20% in your argument was straw man given that I actually gave an example of a 50% variance in height in that same comment, and that I only used height as an analogy, not a claim about intelligence. When people seem to misunderstand my comments, whether it’s a mistake or intentional, I prefer to try to clarify my broader intent and not nitpick every word. Rebutting every single thing tends to escalate arguments and send the impression that you’re reflexively arguing rather than thinking, and seeking disagreement rather than agreement. I try to follow the HN guidelines, and I’m by no means always perfect, but they are pretty good guidelines, right?
> Hehe I don’t need to argue every wrong thing you say
No you don't. But if it's a central point of my argument, and ESPECIALLY when you throw it in my face later on that I based my argument around it - it feels like I wasted a lot of time and effort for nothing, and makes me wonder how much else of what I'm saying is a similar waste of time because you refrained from telling me I'm wrong about something else similarly important. Makes me hesitant to put too much effort into this conversation.
> I meant that from the start, assuming the factor is 1.8 is a very bad assumption.
I agree with the literal words - exactly 1.8 is almost certainly the wrong answer. But where we differ is that you believe it's less than 1.8, and I believe it's more than 100. A person with IQ 180 is likely two orders of magnitude more intelligent in absolute terms than someone with IQ 100. On the other hand, someone with IQ 60 is only marginally less intelligent than someone with IQ 100. It's because intelligence is not a physical attribute, but closer to a skill.
Usain Bolt is only a little faster than a typical adult because speed is capped by the physical limits of the human body. Intelligence is not, because it's not a physical attribute.
And if you want to continue insisting it is a physical attribute, I'd like to ask you for some evidence that it's actually the case, rather than assuming it a priori. As far as I know, neither brain size nor the number of neurons nor synapses is correlated with IQ.
> it feels like I wasted a lot of time […] Makes me hesitant to put too much effort into this conversation
Hahaha, buddy, this is very funny. Lack of effort is what caused your problem in the first place. I’m super surprised you’re digging in your heels on this. If it was me, I’d drop it, since it’s not a good look, but suit yourself. You got something wrong. So what? Own it. Fix it. It isn’t my responsibility to correct you, it’s yours. You did indeed waste a tiny little bit of time by arguing and jumping to conclusions before reading carefully. ;) And that’s okay, which is why I ignored it. I’ve wasted time making mistakes too. There’s nothing wrong with making mistakes. How you deal with mistakes is revealing though, and blaming others for your mistakes isn’t typically very productive here, even if some politicians seem to get away with it. :P I do honestly appreciate that your previous comment tried to de-escalate a bit. Asking what I meant was a positive step, and asking that earlier would have saved you some time. Always assuming good faith and making sure you read carefully and understood everything is a good thing to learn to do on HN, that’s what the guidelines are trying to hint at. I have learned this lesson myself the hard way, multiple times, FWIW.
> Intelligence is not, because it’s not a physical attribute
Well okay this is our core problem. We have been talking about different things. And, I need to concede on this point that you are right. If I google “is intelligence a physical trait” the results I get say: no. In my defense, I thought I was careful to qualify that what I was talking about earlier as the biological component of intelligence, but I’m okay admitting I’ve made some mistakes here.
It is worth noting that “Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits” and that “studies have consistently shown that genetic influence on individual differences in intelligence is substantial”. https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2014105
> A person with IQ 180 is likely two orders of magnitude more intelligent in absolute terms than someone with IQ 100.
There is zero scientific basis for that claim. This is exactly what I was talking about from the top. This popular interpretation of extremely high IQ scores substantially overstates what can legitimately be inferred from the numerical scores. That’s why I call it a misconception. IQ only directly measures how unusual someone’s intelligence is, not how good it is. IQ is at best only moderately good at predicting cognitive performance on some tasks, and whether it predicts anything is highly dependent on the type of task. And after reading about it more, I’m going to correct myself and agree that IQ does not predict cognitive brain capacity, and we don’t yet have anything that does. But scientists are looking for that.
Anyway, this belief you have that 180 IQ vs 100 IQ is 100x more intelligent - whatever more intelligent actually means - is extremely extreme!! Why do you believe this, and what evidence is there of your claim? You’re absolutely right that I disagree with you there. But I will read and consider any supporting links or data you can provide, and I am open to changing my mind if the data is compelling. There’s a reason that IQ is considered outdated now, that scientists do not accept that intelligence is 1-dimensional, and that cognitive scientists now talk about multiple intelligences, and use g instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
> As far as I know, neither brain size nor the number of neurons nor synapses is correlated with IQ.
Human brain size does correlate with IQ somewhat. Now you know.
I think the essay has the implicit assumption that if you're 'better' at doing things, you'll end up happier. Since intelligent people aren't happier, the conclusion becomes that intelligence is mostly only relevant to a subset of well-defined abstract problems that don't represent the real messy problems of life.
I think the reality of human happiness is that being in better material circumstances, or being better at solving problems practical or not, doesn't necessarily improve long term happiness.
Adaption to circumstances, the 'hedonic treadmill', means most people aren't going to obtain some very high level of happiness and sustain it indefinitely, regardless of station.
Obviously a lot of depression is genetic or due to some unfortunate life circumstance. It's got nothing to do with intelligence.
But what I've also noticed is that a lot of people with unbalanced lifestyles end up becoming depressed.
For example, they might have a habit of going to bed at weird inconsistent times, wake up late, eat junk food, not regularly exercise or go to the gym, etc.
Someone with that lifestyle is much more likely to become depressed compared to someone who sleeps 8 hours a night, wakes up at a reasonable time every morning (i.e. 5am - 8am), has a stable job, and exercises regularly.
Humans are built for routine. Drifting away from that is unnatural.
Have you thought about whether this is kind of backward? It is possible that having a certain genetic predisposition makes it easy or difficult to stick to a good routine.
I see this in myself: No matter what I do I find it very difficult to stick to one routine day after day after day. I just kind of get extremely bored with it quickly. I know my life would probably me noticeably better with more routine, but I'm just not wired that way.
I do have a lot of creativity and a strong analytical mind, so maybe that's the price I have to pay for that.
Long story short: people are wired very differently from each other.
> But what I've also noticed is that a lot of people with unbalanced lifestyles end up becoming depressed.
This may be backwards in many cases from what you are thinking.
> For example, they might have a habit of going to bed at weird inconsistent times, wake up late, eat junk food, not regularly exercise or go to the gym, etc.
People with executive disfunction disorders (ADHD, Bipolar, etc) are going to have massive problems with procrastination which causes stress. The stress causes them to worry. The worry and procrastination prevent them from going to sleep. The lack of sleep causes their body to search out junk food (also because it's quick and easy). The regular exercise part is another routing thing.
And depression can cause reduced energy levels and procrastination that leads them to missing the gym and then the shame cycle.
Smarter to realize how the world actually works. Smart enough to reason through the “why,” solve problems, and stick with them instead of just letting them go. But thinking too much can also make it easy to overthink.
I am considered smart and yes I am unhappy from very young age. Mostly due to my family situation too but still: I don't see many kids realized unfair the world is at 6.
Higher IQ may give you more freedoms but also take some away. You can see what others can not, do things others can not, but at the same time you can get depression over something that won't affect someone else.
Not to mention we need people who's okay with doing simple hard jobs just as much as we need writers, doctors etc.
A nice quote from The Big Bang Theory:
Penny: Leonard, you are so great. Why can't all guys be like you?
Leonard: Because if all guys were like me, the human race couldn't survive.
This article is so mid. The author clearly feels how mid he is and is desperate to justify that mid people are also smart, maybe even smarter in that superior nebulous way on ambiguous, ill-defined problems than those squares that can only solve those boring textbook well-defined problems.
I think being smart and attentive means noticing a lot of poor craftsmanship (broadest sense, in a lot of areas from politics to whatever) and understanding why that can be sort of a stable situation with little chance of changing, so need to control attention which is not so easy.
When people talk about being happy (or not), I always wonder -- why does it matter? I don't expect to be happy, and I don't strive towards it. I DO strive towards making my life better in terms of engaging in enriching and rewarding experiences, spending time around people I care about, perhaps trying to ensure future stability to the degree I can, and generally growing as a person. Never do I consider the pursuit of "happiness". Interestingly this seems to kind of correlate with the premise of the post, where a lot of commonly-accepted definitions of "intelligence" often recognize only narrowly-defined scopes of intelligence, but not broad/overall multi-tiered general intelligence that translates to "having a good life".
It sounds like you're always in the pursuit of happiness, you just don't frame it that way. You are always trying to make your life better than it is, which either leads to less misery or more happiness. 2 sides of the same coin.
Yeah, maybe! I def don't frame it as "happiness", because I don't expect to be especially happy, but hopefully content or accepting of what my life "is". I actually have worked throughout my life to accept bad/difficult things, and just "work with what I have", because there are always some pretty bad things in life, and I know the badness level will probably increase as I get older (already had numerous friends pass away, family members, etc.)
I think your objection may be to a narrower definition of happiness than what was used in the article. The article's measure is a global life evaluation that would be the product of the activities that you "DO strive towards".
Oh yeah, my initial objection is/was indeed to the seemingly-more-common definition of happiness that people often use, and then I did see that the author uses a broader scope which I agree with a lot more (insert thumbs-up emoji here) :)
You understand that everything which you value about yourself is not what other people value you for. Also, what you value in others also probably isn't an accurate reflection of who they are either. Everything feels hollow, performative, lacking in substance.
Worst of all, your understanding of reality works against you because it's demotivating. It's harder to perform your role when you don't carry any illusions about its true purpose.
It's difficult to be happy when you believe that everything good which happens to you is at someone else's expense and can see a lot of the tricks.
All these studies suggest loneliness makes you unhappy, however I feel happiest most when lonely and doing my thing and not with people. With people I just feel frustrated or weird, because I think so different than the others.
I don't believe the evidence that this is based on, but if it is true I have a theory that sometimes applies to me. Your sweet, dumb friends have so many dumb problems that are fairly easy to solve that you run yourself ragged trying to solve all of them, and your success attracts more requests. Friends can start to seem like unpaid work unless you're playing dumb.
Maybe it's a generational thing but in my country we were given (real) IQ tests during grade school. Wanting to take an IQ test as an adult is questionable...
As far as what approaches to life are enabled by high intelligence at "low level", but which simply do not work as "high level".
He talks about dealing with 100 problems not by prioritizing them and taking the first step on the first one, but by rotating them and recombining them until there are only 90 problems, and this becoming a terrible habit as the scale & complexity of the problems makes it less productive.
He talks about intelligent people simply noticing more things about the world that are working poorly and understanding what has gone wrong, but not having any commensurate capability to fix them.
My observation is that people who are smart (or think they are) tend to express themselves via trying to be overly correct - on everything. And that gets exhausting.
People who try to be too precise and accurate, pay it with their happiness and peace. There is no better therapy than bullshitting with friends, just rolling with it instead of trying to make it all 100% perfectly accurate.
Technically, the article isn't about the title. It's about the limits of LLMs/AI.
It posits that smart people aren't happier because "living a good life" is a poorly defined problem and smart people aren't any better at figuring out poorly defined problems than anyone else.
And that may be fair. And I guess my conjecture is a bit in line with that.
Just because you know how the system works, does not mean you would be good at working the system. For instance, let's pretend that the easiest way to live a good life, it required you to do things that you felt were morally repugnant. Well, I'd have an unhappy life, because I won't do those things.
Or, let's say that you found out that in order to live a good life, you had to meet some physical requirement. Like, if you wanted to live a good life as a man, you had to be at least 6'0". I'd be fucked. And nothing I could do could fix it.
And in all honesty, there are a lot of factors that go into things like success and leading a good life. And while intelligence does help, it's not a guarantee. And I would think that intelligent people would also figure that out. And it's frustrating knowing that even if you do everything right, you could still fail through no fault of your own.
> Over the last generation, we have solved tons of well-defined problems. We eradicated smallpox and polio. We landed on the moon. We built better cars, refrigerators, and televisions. We even got ~15 IQ points smarter! And how did our incredible success make us feel?
One big outcome of this is being alive more, that doesn't really make you any happier. Also consider stuff like a growing global economy that helps with things like, well, not starting as many global-scale wars that decimate whole cities.
I also think there is a word for someone who is good at poorly defined problems. "Artist." If you define that very broadly and maybe throw in some religious type roles, community leaders, etc in there too, you have a whole group of people who are dedicating their whole life to this problem. But these are super ancient professions and it's not really surprising that we haven't got amazingly better at them recently. I mean, art from centuries ago is still incredible!
I don't think smart people ever ask this question.
It's an invalid question attempting to correlate unrelated dimensions. One would hope that's even the point the article goes on to make, I didn't read it.
The value of being smart, similar to the value of knowing the truth, is not in how happy it makes you.
There might be a coincidental inverse correlation that makes the two things seem related, but the two things are never the less, unrelated in any way that matters.
Your unhappiness isn't caused by your capacity to percieve or understand some bad thing, it's caused by the bad thing, and ignorance is no way to resolve it to get happiness.
The question isn't even interesting to ponder like some mystery, except for a few minutes one time one day as a young person.
Intelligence is a slippery term, as plenty of smart folks have made dumb decisions. That said, I’ve noticed that many people who don’t understand why their choices are subpar tend to blame others, i.e. life happens to them. Someone more aware might internalize their failures. Plenty of mutations of this mechanism.
Along this particular axis I prefer to think of intelligence is to wise as smart is to knowledgeable. It may be simply wordsmithing but it provokes empathy.
Bertrand Russell wrote a text which touches on this exact subject, The Conquest of Happiness [1].
Ignore the hyperbole of the "who should read it". In my opinion, it is his thoughts on happiness from his own life. Some of it is dated, but I found it a relaxing and rational take on the topic.
Emotional intelligence and rational intelligence are different things. If you believe in IQ, this is rational intelligence. If you believe in the measure of emotional intelligence, it is considered EQ. They are not the same, the ability to solve problems, is different than social skills.
Theory: There are more smart, happy people than it seems. It’s just, that particular combination tends to come with a reduced inclination to question their feelings and to engage in discourse about feelings.
A high IQ allows for a higher quality of life both superficially and meaningfully. This experience is usually weighted down by bullies and vindictive dysfunctional people. Envy is an intense oppressive force.
Smart people are smarter than stupid people, but not that much smarter. They are subject to thinking they’ve got it all figured out, when really they don’t. Warren Buffett spoke several times about this, saying that he’d much rather deal with a person of middling IQ and some humility rather than a person with very high IQ but not as smart as they think.
Then there are other attributes like discipline. A very smart person with little discipline could easily end up in a worse state than someone with good discipline and less intelligence. Sort of the Forest Gump model, if you like.
Superior intelligence is absolutely a gift. But not the only kind of gift, and not necessarily the best one. Ask someone like Stephen Hawking.
I don't think Warren Buffet is the last word on this.
The top of the IQ stratosphere is functionally unusual.
Set a room full of 130s on a hard problem. When they get stuck, adding more 130s won't help.
Throw a >160 into the room and see what happens.
>160s don't necessarily think they have it all figured out. But as long as they're functional - not always easy - their raw ability at certain tasks is qualitatively different to those closer the norm.
I've occasionally had dealings with these people. They really do understand things phenomenally quickly, and some of them can turn their insights into gold.
Buffett famously said “You don’t need to be a rocket scientist. Investing is not a game where the guy with the 160 IQ beats the guy with a 130 IQ. Rationality is essential”
Buffett said it in the book, “Warren Buffett Speaks.”
He also said if you do have an IQ of 160, you might as well give away 30 points, they’re not going to help you be a better investor.
Maybe he’s wrong, but at this time he’s regarded as one of the most successful investors ever, if not the very best.
no, it's not anything like a coincidence or a quote of Buffet.
People always say "160" as the example number because the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler series IQ tests are among the most commonly used and they have a maximum score of 160.
That alone is not enough, you also need to know the std dev is 15 or 16. Therefore, 160 is 4 sd's above the mean which, regardless of the thing you are measuring, is very difficult to measure without massive numbers of sample points because the population density becomes very sparse.
there are other intelligence tests, some top out at 200, but you have to know the SD for that to be useful.
Warren Buffett spoke several times about this, saying that he’d much rather deal with a person of middling IQ and some humility rather than a person with very high IQ but not as smart as they think.
I'm pretty sure he never said that. He has become like Einstein, where people have projected their beliefs onto him.
> Smart people are smarter than stupid people, but not that much smarter.
This is patently untrue. My middle school kid finished Calculus 1/2 last year and got a 5 on AP without breaking a sweat. He’s taking college calculus this year and we need to figure out what math he’s going to do next year already. He has friends who are younger and even more advanced.
There are genius level kids that are at another plane of intellectual existence. It’s quite something to see.
> There are genius level kids that are at another plane of intellectual existence. It’s quite something to see.
It does not require genius level intelligence to do Calculus. It takes a genius to discover Calculus in the first place. Genius refers more to curiosity in my opinion, and not being able to do something at a young age.
What about this: Happy people try less hard (because why would you? things are going great!), thus getting challenged less, thus appearing not as smart/proving themselves less.
Good question. For me the problem is complex. It is not only about self feelings, the educational system and our society is a part of it...kids are growing up with "facts" that good results and adults high income make happiness...and often the essential is forgotten!
If monkey know how to open coconut and monkey like coconut, then eating coconut is what make monkey happy, not knowing how to open coconut or reflecting on its ability to do so…
In my experience who live and work with smart people, and make smart decisions about their personal lives and families are pretty happy .
You can have a high IQ and make really stupid personal decisions.
Albert Einstein was notorious for this . He made catastrophic personal decisions that destroyed his families. His various wives and numerous mistresses ended up despising him and his son ended up in an asylum .
1. “Smart” people tend to constantly see patterns others are missing. So they’re fretting about problems others are blissfully unaware about. Sometimes these “problems” matter and somethings they don’t.
2. Contrary to popular belief, the smartest people in the room typically despise being the smartest person in the room. They typically are starving for someone to challenge them, to debate them, for them to learn something from others. That lack of stimulation is typically depressing to a “smart” person.
I think these things are true for some people, but I think there's also a sampling bias when it comes to generalizing these things for the broader population of smart people.
IMHO even just the phrase "smartest person in the room" already frames the conversation in terms of stack ranking and some form of implicit value judgement on being smart, and this in turn opens to the door to all kinds of squishy emotional bias and self-identity issues that go well beyond any objective measure of smartness. In short, I think someone who even thinks in terms of "being the smartest person in the room" is likely to have their ego tied up in the self-perception of being smart, and thus more likely to feel the lack of intellectual stimulation you describe. Whereas I hypothesize there are many equally smart people who do NOT have their ego tied up in being smart, don't see the world this way, and simply don't show up in the data for smart people and their relative level of unhappiness.
> In short, I think someone who even thinks in terms of "being the smartest person in the room" is likely to have their ego tied up in the self-perception of being smart, and thus more likely to feel the lack of intellectual stimulation you describe.
Nah. I wouldn't even admit to being smart until I was nearly 40 (no matter what people said, or what I accomplished), and that's only because after taking an IQ test I decided that it was obnoxious and often insulting to other people to deny it. I still don't emotionally accept it, and I think a faithful watcher of "The 1% Club" since it came on would have probably raised their tested IQ a standard deviation. I'm always confused and lost in this world, struggling to understand, and screwing things up, and that's not my mental image of how intelligence should feel.
But when you get something, the rest of the people in the room don't, and you say that you're just an idiot, how do you think it makes them feel? I've been told how it makes people feel, in no uncertain terms.
It's better just to accept reality, and also not to let people make you feel guilty about your needs. I don't know if that's what you mean to be doing, but you're obviously trying to cast the need for intelligent people to have stimulation as some sort of morally-dubious personality flaw. It's unfair.
Because you can be smart about 1 thing, but have all the wrong assumptions in life. I.e. just must deeply believe that it is your right to seek hapiness, not that you must adhere to what people generally believe is the optimal way to exist in your culture.
Such realizations require experience, wisdom, contemplation. Not whatever leads to a high IQ.
If you're interested in this topic, I love pg's Why Nerds are Unpopular. It was the first place where I started to realize things like being popular, being happy and others require their own sort of intelligence and effort.
I live by "everything is grey". I am interestingly smart in some niche domains that I have a hard time communicating exists. I also insist on not fitting any template. Pretty dumb, right?
Are you expecting some kind of positive reinforcement by saying this or were you just hoping to humble brags and leave it at that? Some applause maybe?
Subjectively, personally, we can all decide for ourselves what purpose we live for, but the purpose of life as a phenomenon in the world is not to enjoy itself. It's to perpetuate itself. Stay alive long enough and win a competition for scarce resources needed to reproduce. Being largely freed from the tyranny of constant threats and true scarcity, humans can aspire for more, but we're still living creatures. When bears come down from the mountains to fight to the death for winner take all access to the pool of twelve available mates, they're not happy when they win. They mate and get back to it, rest a few months, then fatten up again and prepare for another year of fighting to the death, until they finally get old and lose to a younger, stronger competitor. That's the tale of thousands of generations of ancestors spilled into all of us, humanity included.
Even just look at specific highly successful humans. Take famously miserable, no friends Michael Jordan. Win every year, enjoy it for twenty seconds, then immediately get back to work, 14 hours in the gym every day, alienating everyone you ever meet, having no friends, only to win again and feel just as hollow. Why? Because genes and behaviors that make an animal that driven, to succeed at any and all cost, including their own wellbeing, is the basis of success at the only thing that actually matters to life itself, as opposed to any individual thinking creature.
He may or may not want to be that way. I'm a reasonably smart guy, nowhere near as driven or successful as Michael Jordan, but I still often wish I was less smart and less driven than I am. The logic of life dictates that we always want more. Nothing is ever good enough. It's why we're collectively miserable no matter how much abundance and wealth we collectively create, even among those who have more than 99% of the world. We can tell each other all the stories we want about the fairness of the distribution, convince yourself your misery is especially justified because you believe you'll be the first generation of humans ever to pay more for housing than your parents. It isn't that. You're not special. None of us are. Dissatisfaction and always wanting more are core to what makes life life.
Being smart probably makes you better at life, but being better at life is barely correlated with enjoying it, if at all.
To address this question, apply a mathematical trick, and convert it to the equivalent "Why aren't happy people smarter?". This new question admits a range of straightforward solutions, depending on how kind you are to the handicapped.
I think the essay does a really good job of examining that question, and concludes that you shouldn't. It does, however, start off by explaining why people tend to think that it should.
It's practically a disorder. I remember the book, Too Smart to Be Happy by Jeanne Siaud-Facchin. (French)
Gifted people often are top-down thinkers, which has a lot to do with creating connections, so we can gain insight as we keep the bigger picture in mind.
Other people call me smart. I think I'm just hard working.
I read enough books to spot liars, and when people you built Idealistic trust with break it, you never leave your guard down.
No psychologist or psychology book can break it. They are just idiots. Or maybe they believe Plato's Noble lie is good for society. But once you see, you can't unsee.
Now everything in my life has ~0 trust but all supervision.
From politics to food safety to personal relationships, don't trust. Verify.
Simple, many-times-repeated fact: smartness -> high expectations but low yield -> disappointment. The imbalance between expected and returned may or not be the person's responsibility.
Every smart person should invest time to learn the dexterities to manage their talent.
I am not the smarter, but I believe that I am smart enough. My problem is that my mind overthinks all the possible scenarios that could happen. For example, now with AI, what happens if the AI replaces all jobs, are we going to all live happy lives doing nothing? or are we going to be all super poor with the top 1% living in closed cities?
I would rather know who is happy, what is meant by happy and why those cohorts are more happy. Smart may or may not be the primary thing. E.g. if parenthood makes one "happy" (defn. needed) and being smart makes you forgo that for ambition that would be interesting to know.
Pride. Regardless of intelligence the most miserable people I know are the ones who can't get over themselves trying to survive in a world that is not about them.
And being smart on its own really should not be seen as any kind of good thing.
Being smart _can_, however, be an enabler to achieving certain positive qualities (helping people, being considerate, being kind). But being smart can also enable negative qualities (exploiting people, being manipulative etc).
I used to think of myself as "smart" (top marks in high school, Oxbridge degree, PhD), but actually now I think I'm probably fairly average in objective intelligence, but I just try and think hard, and work hard.
I'm now surrounded by people that I think are smarter than me, but that doesn't mean I just give up thinking. Sure, it might take me longer to think of something, but that doesn't mean I still can't contribute.
Happiness is subjective, so that is the first obvious problem. Thee are probably a lot of smart people are are not as successful as they feel entitled to despite qualifications, and maybe this leads to feeling of inadequacy or resentment.
We know that intelligence tests and tests in general can be impacted by motivation and potential monetary gains (the article brushes on that). Maybe they can also be impacted by the happiness and other emotional states of the test taker.
Decades ago Gerry Weinberg (and maybe Gauss--i can't recall) went down a similar path and used the word "puzzles" for the ones the author calls "well-defined".
Knowing a problem is a puzzle helps a lot to replicate a solution.
Ever since I read "Flowers for Algernon" twenty years ago, I have known that being foolish does not necessarily mean being unhappy, nor does being intelligent guarantee happiness.
This is from Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament, and is a book worth reading even if you’re not a Christian or religious at all. (Some of the other books in the Bible are not in that category.)
I think saying the reason we are unhappy is because the biggest questions are poorly defined misses that happiness was never the goal for why consciousness is here.It's pretty clear to me that consciousness exists for the biology and not the other way around (I submit as evidence how much suffering your biological portion will let you experience before it dies, it's way more than your consciousness would ever authorize if it were in control). As long as your unhappiness isn't to the point of materially affecting your reproductive success, it's a non issue for your biology so has never been optimized for. Smart people are unhappy because they experience the irrelevance of their happiness more fully than dumber people. The dumbest people are slightly more unhappy because they have a way crappier experience on average and they are not dumb enough on average to not notice this.
I'm reading all these accounts of people who were considered "smart but lazy", who were bright but not disciplined or driven to participate in things that gets grades. As a kid I had a near perfect memory and limitless curiosity. I would sit with all the textbooks before the academic year started, flip through them and feel excited. I also loved doing my own experiments, sometimes with near-perilous outcomes too. I was way ahead of the curve and did great academically too until high school.
Over time I lost my golden memory and started finding it hard to remember exact details and even vocabulary as easily as normal people do. The slowness and the academic rut also stifled my natural growth. I forced myself through a bachelor's in computer science. I loved every topic and went diving deep into many of them and I could explain them better than my professors, but I had no desire to pass silly exams and prove myself. I passed with a CGPA 8.4/10 and entered a workforce that followed the same rut. Silly, irrelevant interviews that force you to "prepare" for months for them. I did it early on to get my first job but never indulged in it since.
I have had a fulfilling career so far, working on interesting problems with real outcomes. I switched to data science. I dabbled on both sides of the industry; the research papers obsessed R&D and the whatever-shit-sticks side of software development and found mediocrity and sleaze on both sides. I never climbed the corporate ladder and never got close to getting loaded.
I think for smart people happiness comes from chasing exciting and meaningful goals, but the realities of life keep them chasing other more mediocre things and that takes a toll.
Personally, I have stopped looking to my work for intellectual satisfaction or growth or safety or camaraderie. It's a purely transactional relationship. I work sincerely and I get paid. I give them inputs on what can be improved and what makes more sense, but I don't go overboard and make any efforts beyond my paycheck.
I let my true self run amok in exploring things I do on my own, in applying the scientific and analytical mindset to everything from gardening to sewing to building better learning environments. If some of it brings a windfall someday, I'll be marginally happier.
I suspect it's because they can see through all the bullshit but can't do much about it because being smart is not enough and actually makes you feel helpless and inconsequential.
Smart doesn’t mean they are necessarily emotionally intelligent or mature. Emotionally intelligent people know how to regulate their emotions and not to lose sleep over factors that are out of their control. Everything happening in and around the world is not your problem or concern most people are just unhappy because they focus on negativity
99% of the replies here speak from the point of view that they are of the intelligent group. Hmmm, either hacker news is some sort of naturally forming mensa community or there's a lot of ego being put on display here.
When someone tells me they are smart in person the first thing I check is how healthy/fit they are and their social capabilities. Most nerds aren't smart.
Can happiness even be measured? Do we have a unit for happiness? I think that's a big "no" to both questions, so the entire topic is a bit strange. Might as well ask which type of people are luckier.
I feel like happiness is not an absolute nor permanent state. It's ephemeral and relative. You go to a deli shop and your favorite sandwich maker makes your meatball sub just the way you like it. You eat that sub and relish every bite. You're happy and ... reasonably happy .... like Huell. Then later at night you get dumped by your g/f. Now you're sad and you experienced both on the same day.
I think the same way about sadness and depression. Not an absolute nor permanent state. You have your moments when you are sad and/or depressed and then you bounce back.
I think most people normally experience all these emotions on a cyclical basis.
Couldn't you say the very same about luck, too? I'd say luck and happiness are mostly an attitude thing. If life gives you lemons, make lemonade and all that.
> "Müller-Lyer illusion, the two lines that look like they’re different lengths but aren't"
I hate that the author gave a picture in which the two lines actually are of different lengths, as you can see from trying to pick a rectangular screenshot.
I'd quantify the exact feature in the line that I'm using for reference (which would be by itself ironic considering the discussion on well-defined relations between entities attached to that picture), but it's unnecessary - none of them match!
If you save the image as png, the tip of the leftmost arrow is at 68 pixels and the one of the rightmost one is at 393, while the crooks are 73 and 388.
If you're smart you probably have bigger, more challenging goals, so chances of success aren't higher. Deliberately setting goals lower might not help. Having a mindset which decouples happiness from goals would help, but people are generally not wired for that, evolution wanted us to push harder.
Because being smart doesn't mean being wise. Lack of wisdom can fuck up your life far, far worse than lack of intelligence... and I for one am not wise when it comes to people.
> people score higher on IQ tests when you pay them for performance, so what looks like a test of intelligence may in part be a test of how hard you’re willing to try.
I remember when I took the WAIS-IV for diagnostic purposes. I do not think I have ever taken a more boring testing in my entire life. Not to mention, the test felt like it was never going to end.
I eventually got so bored that I started intentionally giving incorrect to questions to just to see if the psychologist would say anything. That was until I got in an actual argument with the psychologist during the symbol matching section.
I do not think there is enough money that one could pay me to take one of those tests ever again. I seriously rather put toothpicks under my toenails and proceed to kick a brick wall. I already held much of the field of psychology in great contempt. After my test, I proceeded to do more reading of research on the topic of IQ, and I must say, I think it only furthered my contempt for psychology.
Honestly, I think the entire notion of IQ is disgusting and dehumanizing. If you need an IQ test to figure out if someone is "intelligent" then you might be incompetent or an imbecile.
As a Smart Person with at least 2 sigma IQ, never studied in school, college was not a wake up call it was also easy, yes it was a good college, blah blah...:
Knowing what is worth doing or what would make me happy is the hard part. Achieving the goal isn't the hard part, it's setting one. Knowing what will make me happy is something philophers smarter than me have been wondering about for thousands of years.
Lots of moving parts on this discussion and wise / smart people have probably all weighed in without solving the problem necessarily
I'll suggest that maybe "biologically" speaking, intelligence makes smart people seek out knowledge which makes them "unhappier"; this would explain why they can't simply use their knowledge to become happier, as "ignorance is bliss" and their native intelligence naturally has them seek "knowledge which isn't bliss".
Along with this, I've experimentally noticed that what we focus on seems to influence our sense of happiness, so then you could hypothetically just try to focus on things that make you happier; with the intelligent, though, they may tend to focus on things that do not make them happier, even though they may trade happiness for a greater sense of meaning and purpose. For example, it's been said that parents are less happy but have a greater sense of purpose in life (according to some studies). Likewise, the intelligent person may try to contend with difficult and troubling intellectual issues, or may become aware of thoughts which have a greater emotional impact on them than a less intelligent person. So again, intelligent people "just happen" to likely make themselves unhappy, by virtue of being intelligent (?).
There is some fuzziness about what it means to be intelligent or happy, and yet at the same time we seem to have an understanding of what those things mean. If it is clear what makes us happy, then the smart person can just do those things. But, basically happiness can be subjective - some people derive a lot of happiness from inflicting a lot of pain on themselves (like a smart person trying to tackle progressively more painful intellectual problems). So... it's also kind of unclear if we know what makes us happy (it might vary per person), and also if happiness is even the goal in life (versus living a meaningful life, although happiness and meaning are often thought to go hand in hand).
The article notes that positive psychology cannot be used to increase happiness; I'm kind of skeptical of this view, but sympathetic to the view as well. What I did was ask AI what makes people happy and to try to do likewise, and the conclusion was kind of like going fishing, like you can go out on the water and show up, but the fish still decide if they bite or not. Happiness is like the fish - still a little outside our control, but we can possibly create some conditions where it might be likely to "bite" us.
Also there may be "multiple happinesses" - kind of again getting at the question of what it means to be happy. I've seen Christian saints describe a kind of internal sense of joy, even when externally they might be in lots of physical or emotional pains. Or by contrast there may be a sense of "inner peace" which a person could have, while their life physically or otherwise is chaotic and might be associated with "unhappiness". A clean conscience can be important and overlap with some of these things.
Anyway, just a quick comment reflection after reading the article and mulling it over a bit - surely more is to be said on such an enduring topic.
At the risk of sounding arrogant, I will out myself as being incredibly smart and also incredibly unhappy in a general sense (although content with my life). The answer is very simple and mundane: I observe and understand problems that have simple solutions that will never be applied because the mass of people cannot understand the problem and solution or are unwilling for social reasons from implementing the solution. This creates a sense of powerlessness and futility, and if you aren't careful can cause you to spiral into nihilism.
Finding stoic philosophy was a major turning point in my life, because it helped me gain the perspective to understand that I should invest my mental efforts on things that are within my control. That's helped me be happier in my 40s than I was in my 20s.
Some of them put knowledge ahead of wisdom, but certainly intelligence also allows you to see the faults of the world and can create a pessimistic outlook.
The world is largely a horrible place and ignorance is bliss.
Also the smarter you are the more prone you are to mental illness, which may be related to the above or maybe like why you're more likely to crash a fast car.
Yeh what even is smart really? There’s a bit of objectiveness here I think. For me, if you’re not using your smarts to be happy (or content with life) that’s not very smart.
A few observations. I consider myself smart, but far from smartest.
tldr: intelligence lets you control some variables for happiness, but it is not the entire happiness function.
1. We're social and emotional beings beings. Emotions are more powerful than intelligence. We gladly choose something that we enjoy over something that will make us happier long term. All humans do this, mental fortitude is in short supply.
2. Life, and society move the definition of happiness constantly. Either through manipulation, new discoveries, new laws, new constraints. So even smart people need to adapt. If yo were happy last year, maybe today you have to pay higher taxes, or your country gets into a war, or you get a new president, or you're just competing with other smart people in an endless game of chess.
3. We move our own goalposts. Think the rich who thought wealth was the source of happiness, then they get there are are miserable. Or simply spend their time looking for new challenges, infinite growth, etc.
4. Living in a society means your happiness is always, always dependent on the state of that society, and therefore the happiness of others. It's like fluids. You can't be the one drop of water in a bottle that is red. It will dilute, and vice-versa. Maintaining a state of happiness in an unhappy society means building barriers and constantly fighting "them".
5. I have a theory that live is like a wave of ups and downs. The sum of all your highs will equal the sum of your your lows by the time you die. You have some control of when, how much and for how long to be happy/unhappy (unhappiness also means hardship, work, selling time for money, etc, the things we use to pay for happiness), and that controls how the quotas get distributed throughout your life. I have absolutely not tested this, I am still experimenting with my life. Counter examples may exist, I have a sample size of 1.
I see a lot of top comments here about how smart people will be disappointed by the world. They see everything broken about it because they are so smart.
I don’t really buy it. There is a sizeable minority here with high enough wealth and income that also (because of their place in society) think that a lot of things are more benign, neutral, or good than they really are. I’ve seen enough threads here demonstrating that. They think that this thing is just a mistake. That other thing can just be fixed by getting smarter people in charge. We just need good and capable people in charge of this other thing and it will be alright. And so on.[1] They watch the news and think that the presenters and people they interview are on their side—and they often are, relatively speaking at least.[2]
This is basically “Mistake Theory” that that Alexander psychologist wrote about. Out of what I have read from him that was the most true thing I’ve read. (But those high IQ + higher income bracket + gadfly interest people just dress it up in let’s say less academic and more improvised theories.)
Independent of intelligence, people with less authority and wealth have more input in their life that gives them reason to doubt and fret.[1]
PD: People lamenting their smartness: 355 comments and counting. Predictably catnip subject.
PDD: It is weird that for an IQ fetishist community where intelligence can solve most things, the only thing it cannot solve is your own contentment, as in it actively sabotages you. But why not? I’m not convinced.
[1] This is basically my vulgar understanding of standpoint epistemology.
[2] But note: sizeable minority. It’s not like I have numbers or anything, but I think there are plenty of people here who are cynical and pessimistic. Not as in, they are wrong. But due to intelligence or background they have reasons to doubt the great order of things. And this place has gotten more realistic/cynical (I say both) over the years. Still, this still is a hub for well paid US West Coast programmers.
This is one of those topics that everyone likes to have an opinion on, especially smart people :)
Folks that are smart also have a common set of medical conditions. This ranges from everyday annoying like insomnia, NCAH, EDS, IBS, and more to more life long ADHD, ASD, and Alzheimer's. I spent years researching the underlying genetics and how they are connected while working with a doctor to be able to take care of this group better. Being able to help so many fundamentally improve their life has given my life impact in a way that many things haven't. Often small things, but more than we as a society would like to admit, fundamentally changing their life for the better and in the long run helping to dramatically reduce their Alzheimer's risk.
Genetics is a compression system and re-uses stuff. Serotonin in the brain and the gut for example. The fact that we see overlap is both expected, but also a great way to decode what is going on. The fact that I can see their whole genome for under a grand is amazing. Combined with lab work and symptoms treatment has never been easier.
Intelligence can be broken down into a few different things. Starting with raw brain "stuff". Literally needing more brain stuff, faster brain stuff, etc. When I have given talks and walked through all of those mutations I can quickly draw your attention to the common pattern of what they are compensating and I can walk back through human dna several hundred thousand years talking about that, but that simply sets up the hardware. (A big AI model that is barely trained isn't great)
The other half is to keep trying, but trying something different and learn from what it tries. To do this the hormones result in someone who is more on edge, more sensitive to any change, etc. aka they are less happy.
While you can see this individually smart folks seek out each other, have kids and so you see this all together is a bit of a cop out. Long term evolution doesn't care about that. There is a fundamental basic biological systems problem that all of these are compensating for which brings up the how did humans even climb this ladder to begin with.
This heavily overlaps with AI models and at this point I have tools to rapidly convert from the brain and genetics related to intelligence to AI models You want bigger and better brains (more weights, etc) and you want to expose them to more data and you want to fine tune them etc.
A personal favorite topic is white boarding out why brains have ~4.7bit weights and why brains didn't go down to 2bits. I can show this both at the biological level, but quickly go to the information theory math on this.
There is also Williams syndrome aka "happy syndrome". Like anything you want to be able to articulate not just why some folks are sad, but why some are really happy.
This is a deep rabbit hole, didn't even touch on dreaming and many other topics that all influence this in their own way.
So why are smart people not happy? Sure there is always the outliers of bad environment and other causes, but more often than not the story can be found right in their genes and not one gene. Like everything it is more complex than anyone saying it is X.
This is a topic I have fallen into which heavily overlaps with AI for the obvious reasons. If any AI labs want a more detailed Friday afternoon talk on it feel free to reach out.
Because we’re social animals and 84% of the population can’t do calculus or understand any meaningful statistics. It makes honest discussion and cooperation with the average person nearly impossible.
My secretary is absolutely clueless about maths and yet every interaction with her
improves my mood, she is a lovely motherly 50something person who cheers you up every day.
Her being my colleague definitely makes me happier.
For me it's the lack of curiosity that makes me resentful of people. I can understand completely people are clueless about maths. But having no curiosity about anything seems to be so common in this country right now.
Can everyone afford to be curious though? I think being innately curious like cats is a double-edged sword. I think most people aren't privileged enough to explore their curiosities fully. Curiosity often costs much more than time when we take opportunity costs into account.
For example, I used to be much more curious about a lot of things but now that I'm stressed about my life, my priorities shifted.
She is equally pleasant to everyone, including her kids, her friends and her neighbors. We have known each other for 10 years as amateur singers before I even employed her.
Your cynical view of reality is also extremely narrow and misleading. The world is more varied and colorful than you think.
She would have laughed you heartily for suggesting that she could simply wear different personalities to her work like clothes. This is precisely what highly emotional people struggle to achieve. On the rare occasion when she feels dejected or depressed (the kids, twins, are 16 and sometimes a handful), everyone around will definitely know.
It’s not cynical, you’re just over simplifying. Many of my family members are very bright and funny. I’m generally considered a funny person. It’s not an either/or. I mean, you’re kind of illustrating my point.
I will speak from my experience. When I was younger, I considered myself very smart, and I was pretty unhappy. As I grew, I met people much smarter than me; I stopped seeing myself as "the smart" one, and now I am pretty happy.
It's not that I became happier because I became less smart; I became happier when I stopped thinking my value was based on my intelligence, so I stopped trying to be recognized by my intellect and started working on my mental health and building healthy relationships.
I got labeled "smart but lazy" at a pretty young age (high test scores, didn't do any homework), and I let that label stick with me for far too long. I took some pride in how I could get the top score in a class without studying, and didn't realize that studying itself was a useful skill. I let this whole mindset drag me down through undergrad (especially once I hit the point where I really ought to have studied), and I think it made me miserable.
> I got labeled "smart but lazy" at a pretty young age (high test scores, didn't do any homework)
Same experience here. I could find just about anything else I wanted to do except homework. Spent all night coding many times. Went to school and aced all the tests, skipped all the homework, did not get good grades as a result. My dad actually arranged a visit with a psychiatrist who did an official IQ test (wooo! I'm a genius! yay!) and then told my dad I was destined to either be a fabulously wealthy entrepreneur, or homeless. LOL
The joke's on them, I ended up deciding to succeed in school after all, got my BS & MS in CS, and I've had boring, predictable jobs throughout my whole career. Neither fabulously wealthy nor destitute. Oh well!
Real happiness remains elusive. Even though I adore my wife & kids and have what the vast majority of the population would consider a pretty cushy job and lifestyle.
>> My dad actually arranged a visit with a psychiatrist who did an official IQ test (wooo! I'm a genius! yay!)
One must love the irony that those tests are mainly use as a way to pat yourself on the back (you and your dad) more than any possible actionable item out of it.
Funny how most people that take an IQ test come out as "geniuses"
The initial use was to ration advanced education (secondary or higher), so as not to lavish it on "morons" (at the time a technical term).
Similar in concept to the German Abitur, which originally tracked students into Gymnasium or vocational tracks. Today it comes at the end of a secondary education (high-school) programme, and is comparable to British A-levels.
<https://www.verywellmind.com/history-of-intelligence-testing...>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abitur>
I agree, I am in fact an idiot. Thank you for reminding me.
> most people that take an IQ test come out as "geniuses"
This is by definition false.
When the test is designed, they use a wide variety of people.
But the only people I ever hear taking an IQ tests are people that already know they are smart. Why? Because it probably feels good. Because why else? Is there any actionable item out of that test?
I'd imagine the only people taking it are on either end of the curve - smart people who want a gold sticker, and not-smart people that need a sufficiently low IQ score to qualify for a government program.
They are usually taken when a child struggles in school. The actionable item is 1. IQ is low, they probably need tutoring or special education classes; 2. IQ is high, they are probably too bored and need harder classes or some other intervention; 3. IQ is normal, probably it's some other issue.
As an adult the actionable item may be to adjust your expectations of yourself. For example if I'm 90IQ and beating myself up about not being a 10x dev despite my efforts, or if I'm 150IQ and feel too unqualified for some intellectual endeavor, I could make adjustments after knowing the truth.
I took one as an adult and my impetus was that I am contrarian about a lot of things, i.e. there are a lot of things I believe that most people don't believe. I wanted to know if I was just a midwit being an idiot contrarian or if there's at least some reason to believe I might have a better idea about things than average people. In the end I scored very highly, so I can now feel more comfortable trusting my own judgement. If I had scored much lower, I would accept I'm probably wrong about a lot more things and stop having such strong opinions.
> The actionable item is 1. IQ is low, they probably need tutoring or special education classes; 2. IQ is high, they are probably too bored and need harder classes or some other intervention; 3. IQ is normal, probably it's some other issue.
And this is precisely why I took the test. The only 'official' IQ test I've taken in my life. Psychiatrist told my dad I didn't have enough grit to stick with things I found boring. Guilty as charged. Fortunately grit did eventually happen, about 5 years later.
Why did they need to do an IQ test though? Grit is a completely different dimension.
Answers the question: low IQ, or low grit?
OP said he was successful without ever studying. That directly shows higher IQ, low Grit. Not sure what extra information the IQ test added except the vanity and ego boost it gives someone.
This is consistent with the Terman study. The large majority of subjects had productive careers and lives for the follow-up.
You know, except for Luis Alvarez and William Shockley who were deemed too unintelligent to be included in Terman's study. Yet, both of them later went on to independently win Nobel Prizes.
> and William Shockley were deemed too unintelligent to be included in Terman's study
So I’m one of his few remaining descendants and.. funny story, though likely for the best, despite knowing his professional history and subsequent legacy of “Doc Shock” I didn’t even consider to ride the coattails of our family name.
It wasn’t until a decade into my career when I found myself in a founding engineer role of a small database proxy startup, and presented with the problem of “how do I get a room full of engineers to hush up and listen” (as a conference speaker), did the idea to leverage the family name as a pseudo appeal-to-authority dawn on me.
I’m happy that I took the self-made route, rather than leveraging the family name earlier in my career (and to more direct effect). Though the dramatic irony of knowing it was through my own incompetence, not through some greater moral code, that I didn’t lean more into nepotism as a career advantage will never cease to get make me laugh at my own little inside joke at the self-schadenfrende of it.
But back to your quote, I can confidently say the “genius” apple doesn’t fall far from the tree in regard to Shockmeister’s sub-genius status. My only hope is that I can continue to avoid whatever apple gave him the eugenics bug.
Based on my relationship with intelligence, it’s not been my sheer intelligence that’s been my greatest asset. It’s actually the inverse! I can easily reform my mental model at different levels of resolution. This means I can be both an engineer’s engineer when building, while also being able to communicate the same ideas to hundreds of people in a conference context and achieve great sales funnel conversations from that.
I attribute whatever this latent predisposition to recognize potential applications of technologies strategically early to whatever led my former to his discovery. As a result, I have a great track record of spending ‘innovation tokens’ wisely, to quote Choose Boring Technologies.
Concretely, the latest investment I made was in standardizing my current startup around Mise. Not because it’s a great DX, but because I believe the primitives mise provides are a key enabler for agentic development in a distributed org and team context. I _may_ be productizing a public version of our organization’s agent runtime, since I believe my choices in technologies, conventions, onboarding flow, and most importantly - positioning within the organization - provide a turnkey solution to the problem every mid-size-and-up tier CTO has with their board: having a defined AI strategy where token spend justifies due to run costs scaling with respect to engineering & product deliverables produced.
Happy to answer any questions, though to be blunt, considering that Willie B (a.k.a. William Bradford) passed before I had the opportunity to meet him, I don’t have much tribal knowledge of his life to share. Though, to the credit of my immediate family’s character, he was already estranged leading up to his infamous public television appearances.
I’ve been considering writing a biography on what my experience with the duality of living ‘up’ to his (positive) professional legacy while navigating recognition of the harm he caused has done to affect me, both the headwinds & tailwinds.
I am constantly amazed by the people I interact with on this site. We live in a large universe, but a small world.
So, how are you related to Mister Transistor?
> did the idea to leverage the family name as a pseudo appeal-to-authority dawn on me
Did it work? I have the opposite problem. It takes a room full of engineers to get me to stop talking. I've been told I am very charismatic (though Dyslexia hinders my writing severely). Though perhaps like Icarus, my strengths are my weaknesses. I am, let's say, not a very serious person. I like to have fun and I am goofy, hyperactive, immature, and obnoxious. It makes people love me, but makes me Hell to work with. ;)
Good for you for being a self-made man. I know very little about your ancestor, but he was likely self-made, so I imagine he would appreciate the same traits in you.
> I can confidently say the “genius” apple doesn’t fall far from the tree in regard to Shockmeister’s sub-genius status.
I am too asymptotically close to stupidly to understand what you are implying. I am confused because you use genius and sub-genius in the same sentence.
Also, the 'eugenics bug' doesn't work that. Shockley likely experienced something in his life that made him that way. I do not think it's some innate trait. I grew up 45 minutes away from where the KKK was founded. I have heard words out of people's mouths that would make Shockley sound like Mother Teresita. I did not acquire any of those wretched views.
> Based on my relationship with intelligence, it’s not been my sheer intelligence that’s been my greatest asset. It’s actually the inverse!
Say it louder for the people in that back. Real life is based on the game Dungeons & Dragons (except life is a much shitter, boring game). Everyone has various amounts of 'skill points' in their stats. Intelligence is one stat, and while necessary, it ain't enough on its own.
> spending ‘innovation tokens’ wisely, to quote Choose Boring Technologies. Concretely, the latest investment I made was in standardizing my current startup around Mise. Not because it’s a great DX, but because I believe the primitives mise provides are a key enabler for agentic development in a distributed org and team context
I am sorry, I have no idea what any of this means. I assume AI tokens? What is "Choose Boring Technology?" What is "Mise" and what does "DX" mean? In my world, DX means "diagnosis."
> he was already estranged leading up to his infamous public television appearances.
Why?
> while navigating recognition of the harm he caused has done to affect me
What harms? Is the harm not fulfilling his legacy or rather his eugenic views or something else? If so, may I offer some unsolicited advice? Well, you can't really respond in real-time, so I am just going to offer it anyway. I took me many years on this rock to understand that we are responsible for our own joy and suffering. The mind can easily poison itself via attachment. Or more aptly, as Zen Master Ts'ao-shan once said:
Student: Whenever there is any question, one's mind is confused. What is the matter?
Master Ts'ao-shan: Kill, kill!
In a similar vein, my grandfather was also a "genius." Definitely of no notoriety like your ancestor. However, he definitely held his own. He worked on the Manhattan Project (met Oppenheimer, Von Neumann, etc.). My grandfather also was an performed Opera at the NYC Metropolitan, was supposed to compete in the 1936 Olympics for weight lifting (pulled a hernia on his way to Germany, thus he couldn't compete), and helped program the computer system for the Apollo 13.
My cousin is the like the 4th or 5th highest rank in the U.S. Navy and a combat experienced Navy Seal. I am just some underpaid pawn wasting my life away building boring CRUD apps for my local government. To say I fell short of any legacy would be an understatement. However, I am not truly bothered by it.
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair..."
I learned in my young adulthood to appreciate and enjoy whatever it is that you have, because no matter what it is, you’re going to lose it one day. You might lose it in death, or like von Neumann, you might lose it in life.
The Wheel of Time turns and everything is crushed beneath it.
What does real happiness look like to you?
That is a complicated question. There is probably a dictionary definition, and a lot of personal opinions.
For me, I would count happiness as a meaningful reduction in anxiety and some ability to feel content. A full night's sleep that isn't interrupted by a couple hours at 2am of lying awake lamenting life choices, lack of achieving goals I had wanted when I was young, missed opportunities, etc. Worrying about the future, are the kids doing okay, are they happy, will they be successful, could I have done a better job raising them?
Objectively I have no justification for the strength of these worries. I am in a great place and I should be able to enjoy that. And yet. The demons have been chasing me since my earliest childhood memories. At best I have fought them to a draw.
Having no concerns and being healthy.
> I got labeled "smart but lazy" at a pretty young age (high test scores, didn't do any homework), and I let that label stick with me for far too long
I just never understood why the secondary education system is set up to make smart and lazy people succeed without effort while the hardworking, but less gifted kids struggle.
It just gives you an impression that life is much easier than it is, and you can BS your way through it.
It sends the wrong message both ways. Skills that are useful/meaningful IRL certainly are much harder to acquire. Being smart won't get you a date, wont get you fit, play an instrument, learn to draw, program, wont allow you to fix the crooked cabinet door etc.
It just sends the wrong message either way. The 'smart but lazy' adults who stayed that way, who I've encountered IRL have been maliciously manipulative work avoiders, or straight up losers with superiority complexes.
An alternative design for an education system is quite a challenge. You say it allows smart but lazy people to succeed. In truth, it allows many kinds of people to succeed.
And “the hardworking but less gifted kids struggle” doesn’t ring particularly true, unless you mean something quite strong by “less gifted”.
As with all things human it's a continuum and the education system (at least as it existed when I went through it which was to be fair decades ago) wasn't always great at getting that message across.
I had a friend in my year, bright enough but where he excelled was in putting in the work, he studied harder for GCSE's (our secondary school educational qualifications) than basically anyone I've ever met studied for anything.
I still frequently outscored him on tests/coursework and did in final exam results and I did basically no work beyond reading the books and homework was an alien idea, the only real differences between us was I read for fun outside of what was assigned by school and I had a much better memory where he ground away at the assigned material but reading for fun would simply not have occurred to him.
Sadly an exam usually only captures a single metric, the final score - it in no way captures the effort put into that score and it's really not fair (in a general sense) that two people can get the same score and put in wildly disparate levels of effort.
But there isn't a Universal Law of Fairness, he had a stable loving home with two parents and I did not, that wasn't "fair" either but I realised early sometimes life simply isn't.
Though stepping out of structured education into post-secondary education where you had to actually study came as a spectacular shock to the system because I had no framework to build on - having coasted my entire way through school putting in minimum effort.
I had a similar experience in mediocre exurb HS. Was top 5% or whatever of my class without really studying or even handing in completed homework.
Good friend in most of the same classes as me would often ask me for help on questions, but he just worked so much harder. He has a very intense father who obviously was on top of him about stuff. But putting in the effort to be top 1% instead of top 5% while also being a varsity football player got him into an Ivy, which was great for him. In some sense the system worked.
> An alternative design for an education system is quite a challenge.
How about some tweaks, then?
Here's the problem as I see it. People seem designed to work together, but school isolates everyone. The people who are natural leaders, natural persuaders, natural consensus-distillers, natural "dig deep into a hard problem to solve it" people SHOULD NOT need to wait until 22 fucking years old to discover that "the hard way" at "real work"!!
There were SCANT FEW group projects when I grew up, but they all stick out in my memory because it was suddenly abundantly clear who was better at what and that we had to work together! And the best part is that riding coattails becomes immediately noticeable and socially punished.
We need MORE experiences in school where people actually NEED to use their gifts to succeed TOGETHER. Exactly like at a job in real life! But their parents apparently won't have that!
This is a very difficult discussion, especially considering there are many countries and many schooling systems, but you have to admit there are common failings across systems.
> the hardworking but less gifted kids struggle
Sorry, I think I miscommunicated what I wanted to say, which is I know for a fact that there were people in my HS class that put in a lot more effort than I did, yet got worse grades, even in subjects (like literature) they cared about more than I did. In retrospect I kinda feel sorry for them and envious of them at the same - they got a lot more out of that class than I did by making effort.
> You say it allows smart but lazy people to succeed. In truth
I think this the issue of what they call the 'skills-based' education system. The 'Are you smarter than a 5th grader' type shows which translate well across cultures really show a trend - kids and teens are taught and tested on an immense breadth of subjects, most of which will be quite useless and forgotten, not only by adulthood, but by the time they graduate. The reason final exams tend to be 'skill-based' are to paper over this fact. Most kids don't really remember much about the composition of the water table, but can write an essay. Smart kids are usually better at writing essays, than not so smart ones given an equal amount of practice. So basically they force you to learn stuff you're not interested in, are liable to forget and won't matter in terms of your future, even in the scope of the narrowly defined schooling system.
> it allows many kinds of people to succeed.
This is what's not really true imo. It's essentially a 'Kid Job' where you have to blindly submit to authority, follow instructions, not seek meaning in what you do, and not act out. They're just conditioning you to the fact that your prime waking hours will be essentially thrown away for most of your adult life (for most people). If you can do that, and you live in an okayish country, you can get through life doing alright by doing that, so by that definition its true.
But the only people who are rewarded by the (academic) purpose of the schooling system, are the ones who excel at core subjects. If you're a gifted artist, but suck at math, you'll likely not enjoy being in the system.
Most people, dumb or smart, could likely end up in the same place in life playing video games in their youth, instead of going to school.
> It's essentially a 'Kid Job' where you have to blindly submit to authority, follow instructions, not seek meaning in what you do, and not act out.
According to John Taylor Gatto's research, the US school system was explicitly designed from inception to be just that. I haven't looked into it beyond his words, but he seems to have actual quotes and notes from the people at the origin.
> I just never understood why the secondary education system is set up to make smart and lazy people succeed without effort while the hardworking, but less gifted kids struggle.
I think it's just as simple as its designed for the average case not the extremities. If it's designed for any extremity, it's to ensure the least bad outcome for the bottom 25%. If you're doing well you are not a problem as far as most schools are concerned.
Unfortunately "smart but lazy" types kind of fall through the cracks. For me "smart but lazy" was more being smart enough to understand the rewards in the system, but not smart enough/having context for the long term rewards.
In a lot of ways I saw life as a game, and had no one around me who could explain the higher level games of elite school admissions/job funnel/etc.
In the end I don't know if my life would have been drastically better if I'd gone to MIT/Carnegie Mellon instead of a "a top 25 engineering program". I'd have had more options for sure.
> I just never understood why the secondary education system is set up to make smart and lazy people succeed without effort while the hardworking, but less gifted kids struggle.
My high school math teacher didn't subscribe to this idea, so for the first time in my life I had poor scores in math.
We took six previous years' math finals as part of our preparation. I recall scoring a humbling 33/50 on my first attempt.
My final result was 45/50 because there was a 3pt. problem I couldn't solve, but decided not to since I had like 15 minutes left and was confident that the rest was largely ok.
Lost 2pt. on some minor stuff I overlooked.
Of course I didn't learn my lesson just yet back then because I had years of being lazy under my belt, so I struggled through college.
"The 'smart but lazy' adults who stayed that way, who I've encountered IRL have been maliciously manipulative work avoiders, or straight up losers with superiority complexes."
Counterpoint, the "I had to work twice as hard for my A" people are prudish buzzkills who think that working hard has inherent value.
"Being smart won't get you a date, wont get you fit, play an instrument, learn to draw, program, wont allow you to fix the crooked cabinet door etc." I mean...it could? The whole article is about how "intelligent" isn't exactly one thing.
Obvious Smart and Lazy here: Life is easy, and I've been BSing my way through it for over 40 years. I work at one of the largest companies in my field on the planet, I'm well respected by my supervisors and coworkers, I make enough money to keep the lights on (and my artist wife and I both fed). I have friends I see regularly, love an affection, and time to garden and play video games.
There's no "right" way so there can be no "wrong" way, only ways that don't work for your skillset. Also, understanding how to navigate society/hierarchy is a skill and a lot of the try-hards don't realize that so they just brute force for results.
Makes the transition from secondary (high) school to post-secondary school education particularly brutal since you've never really had to work for something and have no idea what good habits look like.
Reading the material before the test/exam and then getting high enough marks that everyone leaves you alone so you can go play with computers/chess was not an effective long term strategy.
College (UK meaning not US) came as a brutal reality check.
>>Reading the material before the test/exam and then getting high enough marks that everyone leaves you alone so you can go play with computers/chess was not an effective long term strategy.
Don't tell my boss, but yes it is.
I was in the same position in high school and college and then—over a decade later!—I got diagnosed with ADHD and everything made a lot more sense. Just having the diagnosis on its own made me happier because it let me understand what was happening, get some coping strategies and feel less guilty about it. (And, later on, getting treated helped even more.)
I had a similar experience. My college roommate, within the first week of meeting him, said something like, "you're one of those people who never studies and gets A's aren't you?" I thought back to high school and he wasn't wrong, so I figured I keep it going in college. It didn't work so well and started me off on really weak footing.
Most folks I've seen getting kicked out of university in first 2 years were in this category. High school was easy for them, so they lacked discipline and habits to learn stuff the hard/slow/boring way once topics went complex enough.
In that, and many more regards, I am happy I fall into 'above-average' category and nothing more. Especially memorizing larger texts and poetry wasn't easy (good ol' crappy rota education system in 80s and 90s in eastern Europe). Grit and discipline got me much further in life than those just coasting on natural talents.
Humans really need a bit of struggle to get the best out of us. Not too much, but not too little. One of quiet ways why capitalism on long enough scale outperforms other systems. Sweeping obstacles from life is one of the worst things that parents can do for their kids, regardless if its motivated by pure parental love.
I got labeled smart but lazy because I had dysgraphia. It took me a PhD to get rid of that label. And don't get me wrong, I loved doing the work I did in my PhD and I love the job I have now due to the PhD, but sometimes I wonder if I did a PhD and did a lot of sacrifices for it only to get rid of that label, and I might have probably been not as rich but somehow may be more happier otherwise. (And might have still done a PhD anyway, since I think I was inclined like that.)
Now I am still called smart, and due to the sheer effect of having to get rid of the label, also called hard working, and I'm happy or at least quite content.
That's interesting. I'm considering going back to get a second bachelor's in biology or biochemistry (my first is in math) and then going to PA school or medical school. I have to wonder a bit if part of that whole plan is that I want to show myself that I can be a good, hardworking student.
I am now and have in the past been in this sort of position, albeit not with an existing completed degree under my belt, just a simple one-year continuing-ed diploma and years of sporadic career experience.
I went back to attempt to complete my CS degree on the basis that I figured I already had learnt most of what I would learn anyway and might as well both prove to myself I can do it, as well as get the credential for whatever it was worth. This was when I was ~27, and hadn't been diagnosed with ADHD yet. I discovered that I was absolutely capable in theory, but that the hard part wasn't the material, rather it was doing rote tasks to get the grade regardless of that grade's relevance in the field. I found myself completely capable of doing the homework and understanding, writing various persuasive essays, and intellectually applying myself, but failing horribly when it came to anything my brain identified as less interesting than any other subject matter, and I had effectively no control over that (unmedicated). I also had no ability to be on time, and once I realized that I was effectively wasting time and money trying to pass through the Type A Gen X career gate defined largely by the binary of having a degree/not having a degree, I opted to not continue. It wasn't about learning anything, it was about a checkmark, and I didn't and never have really internally care about checkmarks.
It would be the easiest material or courses that I'd bomb the hardest at, forget to do entirely, or simply not be stressed enough to do well; basic trivia, courses where 50% of the grade depended on labs where I'd be required to draw diagrams by hand, exams that required writing Java for 3 hours in pencil. When other students were anxiously scribbling away, I just flatout wasn't worried about it and just kind of spaced out for a while wondering why I was trying to bother. Exams require anxiety in some form or fashion, and in many cases I could not provoke that in myself. In some cases, I indeed didn't do so well on an exam either because I couldn't burn it into working memory well-enough (never having learned a study practice that worked for me) or I overslept... as a 27 year old adult.
Now, I'm once again out of work, considering going back to school for... something, but I have all that exposure in the back of my mind. Even now that I'm medicated and otherwise quite happy, I have doubts that I'd be able to succeed in any type of educational institute unless every facet was perfectly aligned for me. Having money on the line or an abstract incentive aren't sufficient rewards to have a functional impact; I need to find it intriguing throughout and believe it's useful, or be fighting my way out of a tangible corner, of which I'm not in and don't naturally panic about being in.
I did take a one off course at a local college a couple years back and was able to do well (had a 95% average all semester) and get all my homework done. It was, however, a subject I found fascinating. On the other hand, my work performance severely suffered that semester and I got my first poor performance review.
Over the years, I've come to the conclusion that stimulant ADHD medication isn't for me. It worked well as a child, but as an adult it's just unpleasant and jittery. I took strattera for a couple years and it seemed to help, but we swapped it for wellbutrin to help with seasonal depression, and it just doesn't have the same efficacy.
In the end I may need to come to the conclusion that I'm not temperamentally cut out for academic success, and my math bachelor's does seem to have been a decent enough entry point to a career in software.
That may be true, or maybe you need to try some other things, including different medications and different pursuits.
Fwiw, I've been taking Concerta 27mg since being diagnosed. Haven't really felt much of a need to experiment with others, but full-on depression is a rarity for me, perhaps helped by investing heavily in my social and physical life. The only time I get jittery is when I accidentally drink as much coffee as I would on a non-medicated day, so I have to be a little careful with that. It's a very mellow, long-acting, subtle effect that is most noticeable when I'm trying to flow through a conversation or imagine things, which I think I'm better at on non-medicated days, but am okay with the temporary tradeoff. Overall, it's not magic, but it helps keep me on track. Higher doses have been slightly unpleasant and I've dropped back down.
I think what's become more clear to me over time is that I really shouldn't try to live like the stable careerists around me and on HN who have different kinds of parameters for success, yet have what I'd describe as immensely boring unhealthy or obsessive vanity-oriented lives. I'll never have a house, and I may never hold a job for 2 full years, but I can push myself to the top of a mountain, make friends and keep them in my thirties, and maintain a strong lean physique. The most difficult thing is figuring out how and where to apply myself when I have a blank slate professionally. I don't and will never speak like a manager, and yet my conduct with juniors in a recent role seemed to be welcomed and appreciated, before they threw me under the bus for some inane issue and fired me.
I say this mostly because although life is difficult, isolating, and ambiguous at times, to be comfortable in ones own skin means coming to terms with the things you do well, having humility, being open, ambitious, and authentically grateful for what that brings you (without depending on explicit praise or reciprocation, because it may never come from what you'd hope). You must be able to throw your own parade sometimes, be proud of the floats you can put together, and happy about whoever was able and willing to show up.
On this site there's constantly a vibe of "what should I be doing", but fuck that, do whatever you need to do and then let yourself do what you want to do; take some time, figure it out, let the nebulous sense of guilt subside, because it's not good for much.
Given you have some experience with this sort of medication would you say it could help with restoring any motivation? It's killing me slowly, but surely...
Welbutrin, while having some sort of stimulant effect, and often prescribed for ADHD, is not at all the same as real stimulant medications.
It often helps people with ADHD because they have been prescribed this almost-stimulant to anxiety or depression (often caused directly or indirectly by ADHD symptoms and life), and it makes them better, because it's finally treating an actual cause rather than a downstream effect.
But most people running into that situation are way better off just taking a real ADHD stimulant.
It looks like Strattera is similar. It claims to be about as effective as Concerta, but being someone who has tried welbutrin, there is just no comparison to what a moderate dose of a real stimulant does.
The continued refusal for society to just let ADHD people take a tested, proven, safe, effective medication because if you smoke an entire bottle of it at once it will get you high (something that is less useful to someone with ADHD! Lots of people found out they were ADHD when they tried cocaine for the first time, and instead of being high, were suddenly normal ) is infuriating.
One other note, my family for multiple generations has massively struggled with "seasonal" depression, or chronic depression, or constant "Fatigue" where working a full 8 hour day leaves you feeling like you just ran a marathon and your brain screams out to just go lay down and not function. My mother continues to suffer from this. I was starting to suffer from this immensely, and was worried I also had Fibromyalgia like my mom.
Right up until I took the first, minimum dose, of concerta. I haven't had that fatigue since. Because it was ADHD. It was always ADHD. I no longer get Seasonal Affective Disorder. I recently went through a life event that in the past would have left me crying in bed for an entire year. I am sad, actually I am gutted. I am depressed. But I can still do my job right now, because I can focus on what I want to focus on, and process my feelings when it's healthier to do so.
Did you know one of the side effects of Concerta is "elevated mood"? Literally a happy pill. You know what's really effective for an ADHD person who has spent their entire life spiraling in anxiety and suffering from depressive episodes? Being able to focus on the here and now, rather than whatever anxiety your brain was stuck on.
I'm not going to tell you to try those stimulants since you might have already, but so many people are sandbagged with their ADHD diagnosis by people giving them a shittier medication just because it won't involve paperwork with the DEA, or some moral panic bullshit.
I have tried a wide variety of stimulant ADHD medication over the years, but I developed bipolar disorder in my late teens and it just doesn't work the same ever since. I haven't made it more than a couple months on any stimulant med without discontinuing it since then. Let's just say that "elevated mood" is no longer a selling point.
Strattera really did work well for me but my doc won't let me take both Strattera and Wellbutrin, and the depression is a much more pressing concern than focus.
I'm also very internationally mobile at this point, and it's much easier to get a walk in GP in a foreign country to refill Wellbutrin/Zyban than Concerta.
Those are all "me" problems - I definitely suggest everybody who gets an ADHD diagnosis does full trials of some kind of extended release adderall variant and an extended release ritalin variant at some point.
In your opinion, how does extended release Adderall differ from the equiv Ritalin?
Also fell into this bucket for a short while.
In hindsight, I realized it was b/c I hadn't found subjects in high school that really resonated with me (although HS science was cool).
When I got to college I majored in computer science (academics) and discovered paintball (physical/social) and threw myself into both with abandon. I would do my CS homework as soon as it was assigned b/c I just loved solving the problems so much that I couldn't stop myself.
For paintball, it became an obsession that eventually turned into a job after college. Again, it was something I loved so much that it just seemed like a natural thing to work really hard running big tournaments. Why wouldn't I work hard on something that resonated with me so deeply.
This reminds me of a quote from Joe Rogan (who I know is somewhat controversial) that encapsulates this perfectly:
"In high school I thought I couldn't focus. I realized I can't focus on things I don't care about. I can focus for hours on things I'm into."
Sometimes, even controversial people are right. Not just the "broken clock is right twice a day" kind of right, but actually right. We should endeavor to separate the message from the messenger, and evaluate the message on its own merits.
> In hindsight, I realized it was b/c I hadn't found subjects in high school that really resonated with me
My most frustrating experience was barely lazing my way through calculus I could not care about only to be working on a personal project years later where I really wish I paid attention.
Sometimes accountability is not enough. Medication and therapy might help, as it can be the case with ADHD. Many people with it fit the pattern of “smart but lazy”
I have come to wonder if lazy actually exists as a thing in it's own right. I too had the 'smart but lazy' label, was diagnosed with ADHD past the age of 50.
One of the things I noticed was when people talk about "Sometimes you just have to knuckle down and do the thing you don't want to do". That was an ability that just came and went with me, the same task one day would be "Right I had better do that thing now" and I could do it, another day, even the idea of it seemed impossible. The fluctuations were clear enough to show that it wasn't a moral failing, or just me doing the things I wanted to do. The same thing in the same situation was just so radically different. I can see how people who have only experienced the easy side could fail to understand the difficulty, I don't think night and day would do it justice.
ADHD is quite highly correlated with depression, one of the main hypotheses of why is because people with ADHD have grown up being told that the thing that is intrinsically them is a bad thing to be. A hypothesis of why not everyone with a genetic predisposition for depression becomes depressed is because there might be a form of feedback loop that makes things that make you feel bad make you feel more bad. Being critical of ADHD behaviour is an easy on-ramp to that feedback loop.
I'm in a similar boat. I don't think "knuckle down and learn something" has ever worked for me. It's more like "set things up so the learning aligns with my interests" and then... woosh! I'm off and deep into the topic. That was something I had to teach myself (nobody at school said anything other than "pay attention"). And quite often I still miss and steam off in the wrong direction.
This explains so much about my experiences
I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was 7 and took medication for it until 9th grade when I went off it because I didn't like how it made me feel, and I have really disliked it when I've been back on it as an adult. Strattera was better, though now I'm on Wellbutrin instead. I did a lot of therapy over the years, and never found it helpful, though I never did it with an organization focused coach.
I do think a lot of it was the attitude I took towards school. I know a lot of other people with ADHD who were less arrogant and approached school in a better way because of that.
In education these kids are termed “twice-exceptional” because they test as gifted but have some kind of disability that makes some things challenging.
I think you might be misreading this person. If the point of homework is to learn the subject, while tests assess your understanding of the subject, why do the homework if you already have a strong grasp on it as soon as the teacher explains it? If the point of doing homework is to keep you busy, there are better things to do with one's childhood. Unless the disability you're referring to is that they never learned how to struggle (because no struggle was offered)...
It wasn't necessary to learn the material, but homework counted for 20% of the grade in a lot of my classes, and if I had done more of it, I would've had a higher GPA that would've given me more opportunities later on. And, I would've practiced that skill of sucking it up and doing stuff that you don't feel like you need to do.
On the other hand, I had so much free time as a child and I spend a lot of it reading or messing around with computers.
Yeah, I was labeled twice-exceptional and medicated for it, but there was also this general thing where I felt like I was special for not needing to study and that it was something to take pride in, which I don't think is inherent to ADHD. I have some friends who also have ADHD and are decently smart, but they have always taken pride in being hard workers, and have come out much more academically successful than I did.
I won't claim that I've ever suffered real ADHD, but after an experience I had years ago with phentermine, that stuff would have been magic when I was a teenager. Turned me into an unstoppable, focused machine. And phentermine isn't labeled for that effect, which makes me wonder what adderall would be like.
Yeah similar here. By the time I needed to really study (3rd year of undergrad) I faced the hard reality that I had never developed the necessary habits.
Given the amount of replies you are getting, I think you are not alone. In fact, I was the same kind of kid as well and really, what I regret more is not learning to study, which made me a college drop-out. But that's it. I'm pretty happy and satisfied with how life turned out to be for me, but I totally understand your position.
In my case I have a daughter that's showing already the same signs I had when I was her age and what I'm trying to do is to stay gently on top of her and create the habit of studying, because given the same brainpower, she will go farther if she learns to study well.
And coming back to you, I don't know you or your age but I think you can - maybe - still turn around the "miserable" part. What's miserable for you, now?
The miserable bit is more past tense. Back in college I desperately wanted to have the academic success that my friends were having but I had never built that groundwork of organizational habits and consistency. I remember not doing any of the homework for my measure theory course, and getting an uncurved 50% on the midterm. I went into the professor's office hours to ask if I needed to drop the course, and he told me I had actually gotten a B and I was above the class average. There was this deep sense that I could've been a star student if I could just get my shit together.
Nowadays I'm generally happy and living a great life in a New Zealand mountain town. But, whenever I talk to anybody back home who's more academically successful, I really have this jealousy and I tell myself that I could've done that if I'd just tried. It's this combo of ego and self hate that's really toxic.
I would even think that "smart" and "lazy" has a strong correlation ;-)
If you give a smart one a task, he will look for a way to do it with lowest effort. Probably most would do it but the smart ones will find way more the shortcuts, automations and exploits.
Edit: also smart people will more often ask "why" if a task makes no sense to them.
I think there's an overload of the meaning of 'lazy' that describes a person who measures twice and cuts once, basically thinks the problem through rather than just piling on it. And as you said, they might even conclude the task isn't worth doing.
Since thinking is not a visible effort, these people are taken to be believed to do less work, when the truth is anything but.
This is painfully familiar. Being able to coast through school can actually delay learning one of the most important skills school is supposed to teach: how to struggle with something for a while without interpreting the struggle as a verdict on your ability
It’s quite telling how most of us have had the same experience, proud of being able to ace without the effort, the smart but lazy comments, all ended up here on the same website.
I just don’t know what it is telling but it’s telling something.
I recognize this to some extent, but not to the same degree as some others in this thread. School and all other forms of obligations were just annoyances to avoid with minimal effort. Took me many years before I could find my own motivation to pretty much anything that wasn't immediately fun or engaging. And I was really picky with what I found fun to do.
Same exact issue.
And as other responses to you mentioned, the transition to college was thus absolutely brutal. I ended up having to take multiple leaves of absence from Cornell (the longest- 5 years, during which I enlisted for 4 years in the USAF in California- this actually helped me a lot), and despite entering in 1990 I only graduated in 2000. One of the shorter leaves left me so depressed that I think I was close to suicidal (the only way I can describe it is like wearing poop-shaded glasses that you cannot take off... I also noticed that I cared as little about other lives as I cared about my own, which is something I still think about whenever I hear about family annihilation/suicides, etc), but something kept me going and I pulled out of it.
On the bright side, I saw the potential of the Internet not only before my peers but before basically everyone (I was always a huge computer nerd), so that has aided my career.
For the action-RPG gamers out there, ADD is a hell of a rough minmax perk lol
Oh and I have a toddler son now- don't get me started on how much more difficult parenting seems to be
now, parents are supposed to say "good effort" not "you are smart"
Have you ever gotten an IQ test?
Yes, my mom has never told me the score, but it led to me being put in gifted classes. I took the SAT at 12 and did well enough to make JHU CTY's SET program.
So in terms of raw brainpower it's there, but I've never really been able to apply it consistently for whatever reason and have ended up very average. Still haven't really come to terms with that in my late 20s.
I've got a perfectly good life but I have this vague "what if" about if I had applied myself more.
This was me down to a tee. I took pride in not doing a single piece of homework during the last years of school yet getting top marks regardless.
When I got to uni it was a bit of a shock to realise everyone was suddenly at least as intelligent as me. But I remained lazy. I still got top marks because I was doing computer science and enough of it interested me that I wanted to do well.
It all changed during my PhD, though. It's not enough just to be intelligent. You've got to actually deliver. That means doing a lot of writing and corrections I didn't particularly want to do. I became deeply unhappy and came close to giving up. But I persevered (which seems to be a family trait).
Post-PhD I'm a different person. I pride myself not on being intelligent but on being useful and actually getting things done. I meet loads of "smart but lazy" types all the time. They start 100x more things than they ever finish. I can't comment on their happiness, but I know I'm much more happy being able to tick things off and make other people happy rather than trying to wow people with my so-called intelligence.
Would you have preferred another label? If so, which one?
Asking because...
Not really sure. The ADHD/"Gifted"/Twice Exceptional labels were even worse. I really wish my parents had made sure to always praise effort more than they praised me for the exam scores I got without studying. There was more focus from them on the final exam grade than on the process of showing my effort to the school system, and it created a sense of pride in how lazy I was.
I guess, don't praise your kids for lucky talents, praise them for the work they put in. I also wish that there had been more focus on participating in sports as a young child and less focus on therapy/psychiatry. As an adult I have found staying active is a much better treatment for my distractible/hyperactive tendencies than meds/therapy ever were. My mom didn't sign me up for sports because my brothers and I had so many shrink appointments, and looking back, I think she had it the wrong way around.
Wow the pride in laziness really resonates with me. I had exactly the same thing, and still suffer for it now I think. If someone scored better than me on the test - oh well, they studied for it and I didn't, so I'm still better than them really.
It ingrained a sense that trying hard and working on things to get a result is less valuable than being able to simply achieve the result without effort. The problem is, nothing in the real world is really achievable without consistent applied effort. I could dunk on my peers by focusing for 45 minutes on a test, and this taught me that was all that's required to outperform.
Obviously I've gained a bit more self awareness to be able to see this now, but it's still my gut reaction - to take pride in "intelligence" and dismiss "effort".
After uni in the real world it was a brutal reckoning. Sit me down in an office with a task that requires more than 45 minutes of concentrated output, I'm useless. I got an ADHD diagnosis and the amphetamines help for sure, but I still don't know if I really have a condition, or I just grew up conditioned to be lazy.
Thanks for sharing. Parenting is hard.
It sounds like you have found useful tools in adulthood.
[dead]
My dad once told me that being smart was a curse in some ways, but he framed it as having a World view that few others had.
I think however your take on it is closer: when you're smart, you're told you're smart (both as a positive and as a negative - I was bullied for it), it just becomes part of your self dialogue and identity and it gets in the way.
It's taken years of therapy for me to get to the point where I realised none of that really mattered as much as having great relationships with people I liked, and going for long walks in green spaces and not thinking about anything.
RE self dialogue: I think it is also self-reinforcing in a positive way. "I am competent and capable of this" is certainly less distracting internal dialogue than "maybe I'm not smart enough" to children. I believe most adults eventually get better at ignoring this type of thing altogether, since it isn't really useful or productive.
Parenting philosophy rooted in growth mindset advocates less for "I am smart and therefore I can do this" but rather "the hard work that it will take to do this is worth investing, and failures along the way are opportunities to learn rather than judgments of whether I'm good enough or should continue."
Having great conversations with Uber drivers, coworkers, and online folks (nothing can compare with real life interactions due to a few concussions), and walking a nature trail every so often has done many wonders for my mental health where I thought I was unrecoverable.
May I suggest crawlers? The RC kind. These things are so much fun!
[dead]
I think it's pretty frustrating being an outlier in any dimension. Your specific needs are always ignored. Being smart is no different. At least when I was in school they were always like "eh he'll do fine, let's concentrate on the borderline dunces".
When you leave school you can find your level a lot easier - go to a university and get a job where other people are at the same skill level. At least that's what made me happier after leaving school - I didn't have to mix with stupid arseholes.
It wasn't until I had kids and was suddenly thrown into a roughly random selection of 30 people that I remembered just how few of the general population I have anything remotely in common with. School sucks.
That's one of the only real downsides of apparent intelligence that I've seen: people in positions which exist to be supportive tend to assume you don't actually need their help.
Which, comparatively, might be true. But just because someone else needs more help doesn't mean it wouldn't be welcome.
Parents, teachers, advisors, supervisors, they just let you figure it out because they know you can, and they need to focus on those who can't. I had a career coach once tell me I didn't need to worry about finding a job, smart people always find work.
If you've never needed to ask for help before, this can really cause problems when you finally do.
> I didn't need to worry about finding a job, smart people always find work.
People don't like to hire people who are smarter than them. They want to hire people who are obedient and competent.
If you are too smart, the government will probably put you in prison, if you challenge the status quo and are not obedient.
Sure, McDonald's probably doesn't want a hyper-intelligent fry cook. But in almost any intellectual line of work, there is a high-impact, high-ceiling place for truly intelligent people - as long as they also have sufficient work ethic and social skills to back it up. (social skills optional if the other two are high enough). And they will never struggle to find a job.
I think there's a gap between "hyper-intelligent" people like you describe here and people who are just intelligent enough that nobody thought they needed help.
how did you make this transition?
i still, deep down, identify as being "smart". i don't like being wrong, and it's my go-to ego lick at work, "well bad thing x may have happened, but at least I'm still valued for being smart". it was my label in high school that i've never quite shed.
obviously now i have so many more facets - father, husband, leader, writer/reader. Smartness is just raw horsepower, it's what you do with it that matters. And there's lots of kinds of "smarts". As an example, my wife wasn't the traditional "book smart" but she's emotionally & street smart - knows how to get things done, how to think on her feet, etc.
but still despite that increased richness from life experience, I'm still "smart" and hold on to it
My process was a multi-year process of recognizing my vulnerabilities. A couple of things that come to mind.
Meeting and liking people who were really different from me, with mindsets completely different. The kind of people I would previously judge as "dumb" were suddenly teaching things that improved my life. For example, my beliefs are science-oriented, and I am very skeptical, but now I have close friends who are esotericists, and I really enjoy passing time with them.
The book "The Courage To Be Disliked" by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga. Help me a lot to understand myself and my insecurities.
i still, deep down, identify as being "smart".
Is it that you think you are smart, or smarter than the others? Is it about your deeper knowledge about a few specific subjects that interest you but not others?
I've been and am in this trap. I think I am not dim. I doubt it's genetic, because I have living relatives, so :) I am smart about USB-C accessories, nobody else cares. They are smart about living their lives to the fullest.
Good points. I often think about this and I've come to the conclusion that just because other people don't have deep or niche interests doesn't make them any less smart than me. I lived in a city during my "social learning" phase and then moved back to my village. I realized that people I might have mistakenly categorized as less smart than me are absolutely amazing at things I constantly struggle with. They're street-smart, practical and genuinely content. It blows my mind to see how resilient they are when dealing with personal suffering and natural calamities. They're the perfect example of what Marcus Aurelius calls "living according to nature" in his Meditations.
In what way are you smart? I started to think about the things I was good and bad at, and I realized I'm only good at certain types of problems and work due to practice and study. Try to be confident in your interests and pursuits where you know you have experience or you want to gain experience, but don't be overconfident and begin think you know about things that you barely scratched the surface of. A good start is to never assume you know how to solve a problem that has been unsolved for ages, in general. Often, the people who hang out here don't know that line because they think they're "smart".
For me, I realized how insufferable my smart friends were, and I looked at people who I admired and whose company I enjoyed, and I realized humility was a key trait among the people I liked best. I’m still insufferable, though, but hopefully less than before!
Like the whole meme of "Well actually...".
Sometimes you just need to let it go, choose peace over proving something. Occasionally I still get caught up in something but it is very rare nowadays.
For me it was a combination of being around people much smarter than me (I got lucky and worked at some crazy places) and realizing how disfunctional they are. There is some happy medium where you can be pretty smart and realize you are a normal person.
I've met people that are about my intelligence, who have been better educated than me, and they think they are fucking brilliant and it's just tiring as shit. They are insufferable to be around. Honestly I think a lot of silicon valely/tech bro people are a fucking chore to deal with because they have this "I'm so smart" attitude.
If you want to check your ego, try to prove yourself wrong, test theories, talk to people to get their perspective and actually try to understand them. At some point you realize how much you don't understand about the world, about other fields, and about other people's experience.
Love seing all the introspection in the comments. There is a general awareness on personal struggles much higher than before. I almost never heard my parents talking about this subjects.
It was Buddhism Monk Ajhan Brahm, before he started down that path he was going down the university path studying theoretical physics. The one thing that stood out to him was just how miserable so many of the smarter people where, and just how much they clung to their ego's and status. There was a moment when it dawned on him "I don't want to be anything like these people!".
Another great one was this by Gen Kelsang Sherab. In his final interview for his music studies they asked something like "How will you pursue this in future?", his response was "I will not, I choose to pursue happiness."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS_swacFLNU
> There was a moment when it dawned on him "I don't want to be anything like these people!".
Thanks for this great reminder that we can choose the kind of person we want to be.
i was humbled by peers smarter than me fairly early so i havent seen myself as the smart one since i was 13
now ive discovered i have a social issue where i assume everyone is on the same page and assume that if i spell out a logical conclusion than i would be patronizing a person who i assume would find my remark obvious and pedantic. its only in the past few months my therapist pointed out im still in the 9xth percentile or whatever based on standardized testing and education and most people are nonplussed by my expectations
in very simple, rude terms, im now treating others much more helpfully. but internally i feel like im treating adults like theyre children which feels gross and bad. people receive me MUCH better now so it seems to have solved my social issue, but now im noticeably a bit more depressed at the state of the world
I’m quite happy that my friends have labelled me as “an absolute idiot with anything but computers.” It’s much easier to relate to people at that level, adopt a happy-go-lucky attitude, and being wrong about 99% of things. being the smart one isn’t such a great label, and is (mostly) all in your head
> mental health and healthy relationships
One cannot think oneself into these states. These things grow like good things in a garden.
The world is full of unhappiness that only caring, compassion, and actual effort can fix.
thanks for sharin dnlosx thats very insightful actually.
I'd say it's more "ignorance is bliss". I spend far too much time thinking about various tradeoffs etc, whereas others just seem happy to stick a 'live, love, laugh' picture on the wall and get on without thinking about stuff.
Yes, I'm aware this is a gross oversimplification.
Easy to say for you. Relationships are largely based on status and being useful is one of the few ways to get it.
Ah yes, I’m not young enough to know everything.
[dead]
[flagged]
There is an excellent blog post from [0] a guy who, due to a circulatory issue, ended up temporarily dropping down in IQ.
In summary, he felt much happier b/c he wasn't constantly seeing broken systems everywhere and feeling frustrated that they needed to be fixed.
Great read and highly recommend.
0 - https://web.archive.org/web/20120508004058/http://garrysub.p...
Thank you! I've been searching for this for years, and haven't been able to find it.
Another great and somewhat sad read is Flowers for Algernon.
Im not smart (maybe average), but a lot of my unhappiness starts from just having access to information. And then more I process the information, the more unhappy I become. Smarter people than me probably have more information and are able to process it faster, uncovering effects that are not readily perceived by normal folks like myself.
I stopped viewing all news media companies five years ago. Real news will get to you pretty quickly by other means such as HN which I still frequent a couple of hours a week. Modern news is re-hashing even the trivial in the worst possible way and inviting the extreme idiots on both sides to fight it out in the comment section, I can honestly say I am missing nothing and still find myself informed and happier.
It is hard to abstain from news completely. The mainstream media is becoming increasingly like social media, feeding on shared sentiment and vague feelings of outrage.
If you watch the news, you'd think the sky is falling.
TOOL - Vicarious
"Eye on the TV, 'cause tragedy thrills me
Whatever flavor it happens to be like
Killed by the husband, drowned by the ocean
Shot by his own son, she used the poison in his tea
Then kissed him goodbye, that's my kind of story
It's no fun 'til someone dies
Don't look at me like I am a monster
Frown out your one face, but with the other
Stare like a junkie into the TV
Stare like a zombie while the mother holds her child
Watches him die, hands to the sky, crying
"Why, oh, why?"
'Cause I need to watch things die
From a distance
Vicariously, I live while the whole world dies"
Yes but very possible. I also did it during the latest once the latest election was decided.
Removed all news sites but also stopped looking at facebook, news on youtube, and the biggest one was reddit.
Reddit really affected me. It was so easy to read -> become angry -> engage.
I choose to be less informed to save my mental health, I know I'm way happier.
Maybe it's like a drug? I never read/watched news in my entire life and find it pretty easy. It's impossible to completely shield yourself from getting the news at all, which is a bit unfortunate. I feel I would lead a happier life if I didn't get to know who the president of the USA was, for example. It's completely meaningless knowledge anyway. But for some reason most people are really interested and will tell you, even if you never ask.
It really isn’t. I haven’t watched the news on tv in probably 20 years, I haven’t had any social media accounts ever, and at this point I use the internet as part of my day job, to do my job.
It is absolutely amazing to be so disconnected and I encourage everyone to try it. People at work tell me about interesting things happening in the world, and my role and my spouses role at her job have the (mis) fortune of keeping me informed about the goings on in the wider world. But there is no spin.
> It really isn’t. I haven’t watched the news on tv in probably 20 years
It's frequently beneficial to know what's happening in the world around you, even though possessing a sense of empathy can make knowing what's happening in the world around you unpleasant.
I hear this repeated often but I'm not actually sure how or why it's beneficial?
Okay I'll bite, in your opinion what are the benefits?
You're asking me to enumerate the benefits of knowing what's going on the world around you? It's probably not relevant or beneficial if it's something like miners being trapped in a cave on the other side of the planet, but when you get down to your local community you might want to know about things like:
- Road closures - Boil orders - Product recalls - Neighborhood breakins - Weather forecasts and alerts - Updated laws and court rulings that might impact you - Public safety notices - Health inspections - Public works projects - and a zillion other things that happen as a consequence of living in a complex society
Just visiting this site means you're inundated with a lot of news about AI or tech companies, and politics pertaining to those matters. It's hard to remove politics from issues. I think only the most niche of communities avoid politics completely.
The most niche of communities are flooded with their own internal politics. The less important the community, the more toxic the politics.
You're on HN, that's social media.
A web forum is not social media. Full stop.
Same, I've learned if something is important enough I'll hear about it anyway
The news is virtually never important enough. And my definition of “important enough” is “actionable”.
There’s a pervasive idea, mostly among more educated people, that keeping up with political news is civic minded and responsible. I’m not sure if I’m just cynical or small minded but I just don’t see the point. Getting a daily blast of topics to worry about that I have no control over doesn’t seem like a good use of this life journey.
"He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false."
–Thomas Jefferson
While my intelligence is ~ constant, my levels of happiness fluctuated during my life and now, at 48, I am maybe twice as happy as I was at 24. There is definitely an upward trend with me...
During the same period, I also absorbed a lot of information, including some ghastly one. And yet my overall feeling of well-being improved.
IDK what happened, I can at best describe it as if "someone slowly changed the lens I am using to view the world for a less cloudy one".
Maybe some sort of hormonal development. It seems to be outside my will, though. Just happened.
I think what you're describing is wisdom, as described in the Serenity Prayer:
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
Oh, that would be nice! Thank you.
I think a part of happiness is just knowing that you cannot win the game of life. Even if you could process a thousand times more information, would that make you any happier? If anything, your craving for information would only increase.
It's not the processing that is the problem but the craving.
That said, ignorance is bliss but the consequences are dyer. There is a nice middle ground.
pretty sure if you're commenting on here then you're way above average. It's not a compliment, its just that you're misunderstanding how low the bar is.
That seems like some gatekeeping egoistical hi-ground.
I refuse to believe the average person here is any more intelligent than the average person on the street.
I don't think it's egoistical. I understand it's often uncomfortable to compare people by their intelligence, but by many measures of 'smart', people here have it, more often than not.
Nah, people here often have knowledge in varied but very niche subjects, but because this is the place for niche subjects, you can always find a handful of people knowledgeable on any given subject.
Plus, it’s fairly common to see people saying the most amazingly simple things but with big words, fancy terms, heavy phrasing and all that just to sound that little bit smarter.
None of that tells me people here are more intelligent than the average Joe walking by living their life. Just that people here flock on posts with subjects they enjoy or know a bit about.
It’s very easy to sound intelligent, all you have to do is leave people confused with a bit of theatre and misdirection (oh, and a dash of arrogance!). True intelligence, though, is owning what you don’t know. True intelligence is not trying to make everyone around you feel dumber so you can be the clever clogs.
None of us took a test to be here.
There's zero filter that could cause this effect.
> I refuse to believe the average person here is any more intelligent than the average person on the street.
This is a website of words. The average person looks almost exclusively at moving pictures.
I'd suggest we're at least top 5% of some key things that make up intelligence: like curiosity and intellectual bravery.
I directionally agree, but i suspect your 95th-percentile anchoring is wildly optimistic.
Embarrassing admission: I'm probably much closer to the middle of the open-mindedness chart than i pretend. (I wish i was Bertrand Russell.)
Indictment: so are very many commenters here.
I don't think its wildly optimistic at all. Coming here, reading stuff and commenting is such a self-selecting process that it leaves you mostly with people who have extremely high cognitive function and intellectual curiosity and bravery. This is so far away from the fold and is an extremely aggressive filter.
The dread is that even this suggested "5%" contains many idiots (this idea of 5% also being rather idiotic). But if you think 5% is wildly optimistic then I fear you don't appreciate what the baseline is like. People are proper stupid and uninterested in thinking when it comes down to it.
To get a mild appreciation of the bar, at least in technical ability. My source is the OECD’s Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), specifically its assessment of “problem solving in technology-rich environments.”
Around 5% of the sample on average (116k) got to the top level. A top level task was as scary as being able to successfully reschedule a meeting in an email client with multiple participants. That's the sort of bar 5% can clear, which gives me the anchor. So think about that, well over 90% of people really struggle with that level of task, which I'd imagine all of us could clear (even our idiots). Sure its an annoying task, but its really not _that_ hard.
> It's not a compliment
Thanks, you had me feeling all smug and then you had to add that part.
Aw, sorry. I just wanted to sound sincere. Like you're underestimating yourself or well er.... others. Idk I'm sure you're smart. Stupid people think they're _really_ smart, imho being smart is mostly associated with having some level of self-doubt.
I've seen how low the bar is within my family, it can go lower than the bar I've personally seen, it scares me.
Humans simply didn't evolve to be connected to a constant firehose of random information. I firmly believe that even the smartest person will become an idiot if they just scroll X all day
Well, yeah, that's Musk's propaganda outlet. That's not synonymous with "news" though.
Potato, potahto.
X is the same as Instagram, that’s the same as reddit, that’s the same as HN.
The difference is in what flavour of propaganda are you most interest in and what type of bullshit are you willing to swallow.
Let’s not pretend X is bad because of Musk alone. HN can be just as terrible too.
> Let’s not pretend X is bad because of Musk alone. HN can be just as terrible too.
I am yet to see racial slurs, hateful speech, scams, porn (consensual and non consensual) or any of the endless things that are okay on X but not on HN. So no, HN can not and will not be just as terrible. The two platforms aren’t even close in terms of the health of the discourse.
I think being smart universally trumps being less smart - but the definition of smart needs to be more encompassing.
For example take the stereotype of a brilliant man or woman who neglected family for career, and are forever single and childless forever -- while someone less brilliant just "ends up" with a family and ultimately more fulfilled in life.
Superficially this is an example of an average person being happier than the really smart one but I don't agree with this. I look at this as the non-brilliant person being smarter in the areas that matter. Or vice versa the "brilliant" person neglected a really important area of life - which isn't that smart.
With this expanded definition - where smart isn't just a measurement of raw processing power or a spike in one area, but rather the product of "smart about what's important" * "smart about how to go about it" - that kind of person I think is consistently happier than anyone else.
One dimension of this is the (in)ability to stick with tradition and culture rather than "smartly" invent everything yourself. In the scenario above, the average person maybe ended up with a family because they were more able to follow family patterns and advice while the "brilliant" person tries to figure out everything from scratch, not able to benefit from the "well troden paths" that are available.
As a single and childless person, I don't like the implication that those are marks of a less fulfilling life. I know some people married with kids who seem very happy and fulfilled, and some profoundly miserable and trapped. I may be missing out on some good things, but I'm also avoiding some extreme misery, and generally do feel content and fulfilled.
The thing about having children is that you absolutely cannot know what it's like until you actually have them. And then, of course, it's too late.
I'm convinced that I would have been happy without children. I would have lived a wonderful life, maybe with a spouse, maybe alone, traveling the world, working on my interests, and generally doing whatever I wanted to do. You don't miss what you never had.
But now that I have two kids, that life seems so hollow. Kids make you feel things that you've never felt before. It's like suddenly discovering a new rainbow of colors, or like listening to a piece of music that makes you simultaneously giddy with joy and wistfully sad and you can't explain why.
You can't compare the joy of having kids with any other pleasure you've experienced. It's like trying to compare having sex with having a great meal. It's not even the same scale.
Of course, everyone's different. Some people absolutely regret having kids (and that's sad for everyone). But if you have even a slight feeling like maybe you want to have kids, I would absolutely do it. My only regret is that I waited so long.
It was nice reading this, thanks for sharing
10/10, no notes.
> you absolutely cannot know what it's like until you actually
Is probably true for all life changing event. Extreme poverty, wealth, loss of a parent, etc. There's nothing special in that regard about having children.
> if you have even a slight feeling like maybe you want to have kids, I would absolutely do it
Nah, that's just being egocentric. Have children if you're pretty sure you can raise them in the best conditions possible for them to end up being happy, if not, better keep on hesitating.
> you absolutely cannot know what it's like until you actually have them
While it's less common now, I don't think anyone who grew up in a bigger family under one roof could agree with that. Nothing divine is gatekeeping this experience. It's the socioeconomic climate we've created doing that.
It makes perfect sense that you value your family so deeply, but you might want to reconsider where you anchor your pride. It's a lot of responsibility. Unexpected things can happen.
I'm extremely grateful to have examined all stages of life on a daily basis before even going to college, but I think having kids is a heavy choice. It's perhaps the heaviest choice of all. Since there's no mystery in it for me, I'm still enjoying being unchained.
My wife is one of seven. Her five older brothers nearly scared her off of ever wanting a son. Our kids are not like her siblings' nor their kids.
You might have an idea that there is no mystery. You've only seen a glimpse yet, even if you were changing your siblings' diapers. There is much more of that mystery iceberg.
I grew up in a large family of 5 kids and I think it’d be very ignorant to suggest that experience is at all comparable to having children of my own.
I promise you that you do not know what having children is like and that the mystery remains alive, should you ever choose to take that journey. One is reminded of Plato’s cave.
> […] I don't think anyone who grew up in a bigger family under one roof could agree with that.
I do. I grew up with 5 siblings, and having brothers and sisters is very, very different from having your own children. My relation with and my emotions towards my children is very different from my relation with and my emotions towards my siblings, both now and when I was still living with them in the same house.
Off-topic: I have absolutely no idea why my comment got downvoted. I shared a personal anecdote that's directly relevant to the discussion at hand and which counters the claim of the comment I replied to. Does someone think I'm lying? Was my comment too controversial? I don't get it. What is wrong with this site?
For what it's worth, I think that happens to everyone now because of all the bots and toxic astroturfing.
Since comments are sorted by points, it's more of an indication how touchy or dogmatic a subject is. I expect to lose points when I'm not the only reply. I've seen discussions where hours later a brigade of green accounts skyrocket to the top out of nowhere simply because they reinforce a more convenient idea. All of the original more interesting comments get downvoted.
With this one though, I don't know since all your replies are basically the same and you've all been here a while.
I actually expected my comment to get more downvotes since I was describing a tougher upbringing in a multi-generational household, but it got buried in noise. HN generally doesn't know how to handle more down-to-earth topics and defaults to thinking in stereotypes.
If there is a difference between the replies, the top one was made after yours and elaborates on being "tough" while still disagreeing, so maybe that's more convincing to some people?
> you absolutely cannot know what it's like until you actually have them
Part of being smart is being able to diagnose certain ideas as dogmatic, which is far more than can be expected from most.
"Most people would die sooner than think—in fact, they do so" — Bertrand Russell
Thanks for sharing that. Obviously respect your choices on the individual level.
The contrast you provided between those who are happy with family and those two seem miserable is in line with what I am saying: it's both 'be smart about what you persue' and 'be smart about how you persue it.' So likely the first group was 'smarter' about who they chose as a spouse and how they set up the life with them than the second group.
So maybe we can score the miserable group as a -1, the happy group as a +1 and your avoidance strategy as in-between: 0.
So you can look at your strategy as good because it avoids the extreme misery but it also denies a shot at extreme happiness. And then if one were to go that potentially high risk/high reward path, their actual outcome (are they happy or miserable) is a function of how smartly they persue that endeavor.
Many people, including myself, just know that we don't want to have children. Our outcomes won't have the same distribution as those of people who always wanted to have children, no matter how "smart" we are about it.
Another factor is that when you have children and regret it you can suffer a lot more than just "-1" of misery - I'd say the scale is more like -10 to +1 (centered around 0). Furthermore if you end up regretting it you will also inflict some part of that misery onto your children.
I've never met anyone who was sorry they had children, but I've met a lot of people who missed the opportunity (to be fair, I've never met the parents of a violent criminal).
Kids can be hard, especially if you're not a natural, and especially when they're young, but-- it's impossible to describe the fulsome love I have for my kids. I'm not a sentimental person, and probably wouldn't have had them without my wife (which is a funny thing to say). Even when they're a pain and a disappointment, even with the ever present guilt, my kids give me some baseline purpose for free. And the wins are great--"all joy and no fun" as I heard once. The conversations as they become real people. It's impossible to describe and totally worth it.
I don't really expect anyone to casually admit that they regret having children to anyone but their closest confidants, perhaps not even themselves, the social stigma and shame would be unbearable.
I don't know how much research there is on this but anecdotally there are many emotionally absent and neglectful parents out there. They might be able to cope with the way their life is but that doesn't mean that they're good parents (or that they wouldn't do things differently if they got to start over again).
There's also a chance that your child is born with disabilities that demand intensive life-long support. I know that I couldn't cope with that, so even if my general outlook on having children changed some day I could never get past this, for my own good and out of responsibility for my hypothetical child.
Of course there are bad parents. I'm unlikely to encounter them, and even if I did I would probably not associate with them. But I suspect that you and anyone else on this thread offering thoughtful responses, are not the kind of person who would fall into that category.
I only offer my own experience, because I had the same fears as you. One datapoint, but parenting changed me in so many good ways, and the hardships fade from memory.
"I've never met anyone who was sorry they had children" I've met my parents for 18 years before I moved away.
I'm sorry for you. Genuinely. I've only read of cases like yours (I think Neko Case has a hard story).
Username checks out.
Strongly agreed, and it's also worth it for those who think too narrowly along those lines that those aren't even the same axis. I used to be single and childless, and my happiness fluctuated a lot, but now I'm married and much more consistently happier. Neither my wife or I want kids, so if we had them, suddenly we'd be back to being less happy again. There are also plenty of single parents, and I'm sure many of them are happy and fulfilled without needing a partner.
Plus, kids who grow up with parents who are unhappy and would prefer to be childless are probably a lot more likely to grow up into unhappy adults.
Important to define what is happy and what were problems to begin with. I'm 39, no kids, and my parents weren't happy with me, but were happy otherwise. How does this factor how I'm unhappy?
Happiness should be the end goal. Contentment is part of it. Compromise. Quality over quantity and the quality doesn't have to always be great, just no regrets according to modern death bed speeches. Being happy can mean chasing one thing and not the other, which would lead to some unspoken regret, loud enough in our head.
I said "more likely", not "guaranteed". I feel like the whole point I'm trying to make by building onto the parent comment is that there's not a one-size-fits-all template to being happy and fulfilled, and that not everyone will fit expected trends. At no point did I try to prescribe anything to someone as the way to avoid being unhappy, nor did I attempt to categorize the world into buckets of who would be happy or unhappy. That's literally the opposite of what I was trying to say, which is that trying to force expectations of what one person thinks would make someone happy onto someone else is not a good thing.
Your second paragraph seems to be mostly quibbling of my use of the term that already was being used throughout this thread (and in the article itself). I don't understand why you chose my comment in particular to litigate the definition when it's not something I've introduced to the discussion.
I think you are reaching for the word "wisdom" (I heard about smart vs. wise a bunch of times) and are tending to define it in a... narrow way. I'd damn prefer to live the live of Plato, Roger Bacon or Isaac Newton: experience the universe in novel, rich ways, contribute a lot to humanity, give up offspring, than be "below average" smart (whatever it would mean) with 7 children.
Of course, by statistics no one of us is Plato or Roger Bacon. I'd agree that a problem with the modern world is an ideology of (objectively) crappy career or climbing some fake institutional hierarchy being a worthy substitute for family. I myself do believe that a family is one of relatively easiest (but still hard and demanding) ways to being happy [1].
I also see a lot of people here overcorrecting and arriving at some strange worldviews.
Some people are childless because of objective circumstances: what are they, damned by God via predestination to unhappiness? In the Catholic world, they have been, esp. in the olden days, a lot of childless priests, monks, nuns. If you want to at the same time value tradition and not reinventing (quoting parent) and "evolutionary DNA survival", you either have to somehow condemn Catholicism and Orthodoxy [2], or start adding some epicycles to your philosophy.
Oh, and on topic: I believe being happy requires working for it. Maybe for "smarter" people their allotted amount of work is higher. Don't know if it's nice to hear, but sounds true to me.
[1] Maybe one lure of career is that people are culturally accepting of life at work being terrible in many ways, while a poorly constructed family (one or more immature people etc.) scares people off pretty fast. Maybe because it's a more total institution and harder to escape.
[2] Which would be the OG Protestant way.
Right, there is a problem with even defining "smart", a decent number of mathematicians I have known would not call themselves smart, but persistent. I have known a lot of physicists too, some of whom forget simple integrals all the time, but publish like a monster, and some very smart physicists who know almost any fact you could want off the top of their head who don't publish almost at all. One group is more successful than the other.
A lot of culture is basically accumulated trial and error
The issue here is that if the smart brilliant man decides that he will prioritize his family and friends, creating happy community around him ... you will just say he was not brilliant. Because he earns less money.
As in, your example assumes that if you are brilliant you will neglect family, if you care about family you are not brilliant.
You do indeed need to change the definition of "smart" to not be just "earns a lot of money".
I think you missed the point of my post. It's not either or but the totality of persuit and outcome.
Neglecting family for work is not smart. Neglecting work for family is also not smart (hurts the family)
Striking the right balance and achieving enough of each is the smart thing that's hard to pull off but is the prize.
> they were more able to follow family patterns and advice while the "brilliant" person tries to figure out everything from scratch, not able to benefit from the "well trodden paths" that are available
You know, sometimes the well-trodden paths are chains worth breaking man. Most families aren't exactly The Brady Bunch.
I think we agree that it takes all kinds of people, but you are mischaracterizing what it means to spend a little more time alone before committing to a family. That time will pay dividends when/if they go for it.
I gotta invoke Hanlon's Razor on this one and refrain from elaborating on what I think your comment sounds like. It's a sign of the times we live in that even this can become a hot political issue.
I am genuinely curious as to what you think my comment "sounds like"
But I don't disagree with your first paragraph. Some well troden paths maybe bad - the trick is to know which ones. Because if you make that fall wrong you end up in a bad state which is what I was talking about.
Almost every reply to your comment points out your example "being smart" with a tired one of family vs work. What people in many other comments here point out that for many familie is just one of many areas in life and can have nothing to do with smarts or happiness.
Is the man abandoning his wife and child to find a better life happier for it, he can be. Has nothing to do with if he used his smarts to arrive at that solution to his unhappiness or resolution.
How many people choose their family based on some calculation where there is a right or wrong answer?
Like an comic said, most people choose their life partner while drunk in a bar (obv local example) but no way you would ever choose which toaster to buy while drunk! The toast have to be just right, doesn't it?
not that wage is any indicator of inherent goodness but yea electrical engineers get paid average wage in my country while miners earn many multiples of said wage, who's the dumb one now ???
Presumably miners get a high wage to offset the negatives of the job and attract people. So to an extent you have a choice which way to go and you try to make a smart one.
Personally I wouldn't have a highly hazardous job if it paid any multiple of what I make now and that feels smart to my situation. But for someone else that might be a different calculus.
> Presumably miners get a high wage to offset the negatives of the job and attract people.
A common thread I see when these types of topics come up too is that the high pay in many of these jobs (trades, policing, nursing, etc.) is dependent on working large amounts of overtime.
You reduce massively this complex topic into having kids = more happiness. Divorce rates, marriage counseling intensity and just looking around paints a very different and much more realistic picture. Most marriages either fail or keep it up in semi-miserable fashion (for kids, money, insecurity and so on but never due to actual strength of the bond or any love remaining).
That comes from married father of two - the idea that having kids somehow magically makes life better and everybody happier is what got society into pushing everybody into marriages for decades long after pressure from religions waned. Suffice to say it didn't work very well. Works great for some, is a proper mistake for others.
We are having a conversation about smart outcomes here.
The divorce rate is not a random thing. My odds of being happily married or miserable are heavily influenced by how I have worked on myself and who I chose to marry.
So part of being "smart" is navigating that situation to achieve the right outcome. The outcome itself is not guaranteed but to cite the rate without acknowledging the factors that are in your control misses the point here. Someone's terrible marriage is of no relevance to your situation.
In fact, the data points into the opposite direction: Children and money problems are by far the most destructive things for a happy marriage.
Marriages where the couple had children together are considerably less likely to end than marriages without children. A recent Canadian poll showed an effect size of ~60%. [1] Table 1 covers this nicely.
I’d be curious what data you’re citing to suggest children are by far the most destructive thing for a happy marriage. It seems like the kind of redditism most popular with people for whom it doesn’t apply :)
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2024001...
Ugh. This analysis starts off a little interesting with its observation that "intelligence", as analyzed historically, tends to be about solving bounded-context problems (with a known right answer) rather than open-ended problems (D&D called this "wisdom", right?)
But it is lacking so, so, so much in explaining why smart people aren't happier or evaluating the premises of the question.
If my teenager gave me this analysis and question, I'd give them 8 more avenues to explore, none of which the article addresses:
1) Is intelligence Kahneman's "type 1 thinking" or "type 2"? Do people (including you) act on their thinking or their emotions? (Can/do you think smart + act dumb and end up happy?)
2) What does being happy have to do with having autonomy and control and purpose? (Existentialism)
3) What does happiness have to do with contentment and the scope of what one wants to control, ie ambition? Attachment? (Buddhism)
4) What does happiness have to do with one's overall outlook of being pessimistic or optimistic?
5) Is there some deeper insight why a widespread religious tradition such as the Judeo-Christian one has a creation story where where "knowledge of good and evil" is inherently problematic?
6) What does happiness have to do with dopamine and the timing or frequency of solving problems of small vs large size? What degree of problems need to be present for an intelligent problem-solver to be happy vs, say, bored, (example: Marvin the "brain the size of a planet" android in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, bored and depressed?)
7) What is the connection between happiness and benevolence, giving vs receiving? Relationships? Why?
8) Why does a socio-economic system based on money-maxxing intended to obtain happiness lead to oversupply which leads to demand-generation/creation/marketing which leads to unhappiness? And similarly leads to conflict and resulting unhappiness? Is there an inherent ying/yang dynamic to intelligence and happiness on a personal or socioeconomic systems level?
I do agree with the author that it's a question worth re-evaluating in an age of "Artificial Intelligence" promises.
Very thought provoking list. The kind of thing I am glad to find on HN!
It's a blog post. Unless you're reading Gwern or something, you shouldn't expect a really deep comprehensive take on an issue this ill-defined. I mean what does happiness mean? Its hard enough to get people to agree on that.
The point is that not all blog posts are worth reading.
This one mixes up enough truths and ideas that it doesn’t go anywhere interesting.
Well, I found it both interesting and worth reading, sorry that you didn't.
Great list!
Horrors beyond your comprehension are mild compared to the horrors you can understand but cannot fix.
When you look into the void, the void looks back into you. When you start empirically testing the void, the void says "Hey, what are you doing, stop touching me there".
And then the void wraps a cold clammy tentacle around your leg, just to show you that two can play that game.
Joke's on you (or on the void?), I'm into that.
And so we dance in a spiral until my skin falls off, my flesh gives up and my brain turns into a liquid.
You don't need to see the light in the void anyway.
I'm not very smart, but I've read so much history.
I've also got a pretty strong pattern matching engine.
Since the age of 8 my family traveled across the world interacting and working with thousands of folks of all walks of life. I still travel a lot and love to talk to people and ask them their stories. I've worked many different jobs, to this day some of my jobs are minimum wage, some are extremely high earning.
The pattern matching engine has a lot input to match on and it reminds me a few dozen times a day that today my current country is fractionally less safe than it was yesterday. There's nothing I can do to fight against a high tech propaganda media campaign that's morphed into a mass cult that craves genocide.
No amount of prepping or homesteading or storing away gold will help when the food riots come.
CBT and journaling and meditating have helped me come to the realization that while I'll almost certainly die from violence, I will be present and enjoy every second until that happens. I form deep connections with my neighbors and build a big community of people I love. I share joy with all I can, and I comfort those who are sad. The only thing in life that matters are people and how I treat them, so I try to embrace them all and meet them where they are with kindness and love.
A brilliant thru-hiking documentary says it best: "It's The People".
I do think an important part that we leave out when we analyze datapoints like "people who test well in one subject tend to test well in other subjects" is that "test taking" is itself a skill that people can be good or bad at.
I was always an expert test taker from a very young age. I loved standardized tests, and excelled every time.
I remember thinking many times how I was pretty sure I could do pretty well on a test on any subject, even if I didn't know the subject itself.
I had a chance to test (hah) that theory when I took a summer job at a college testing center when I was a college student myself. I would give out these tests in a number of different subjects, but I had time to kill while the students were taking the tests. I decided to try taking some for subjects I had never studied.
I scored well above the average scores on these subjects I knew nothing about, I just knew how tests were written. I could pick up context clues in the wording of questions, use my experience on how test questions usually go, and use clues from other parts of the test to figure out how to answer a different question.
That doesn't mean I was any good at those subjects, I just was good at that form of test.
There may be such a thing as pure test-taking skill, but I think it boils down to two things: General knowledge/literacy, and knowing the specific format of the test. A well-written test should not have question context for one thing that informs the answer to another question, or have logical inconsistencies/redundancies/ambiguity that can be exploited. Questions should also not build off of each other in a way that causes cascading failure if you can't answer one. These things may happen in low-stakes classroom exams but they certainly shouldn't in a standardized test.
Practically everyone goes to school in our society, so they have very similar opportunity to learn how to take a test. Some of them never get good at it after many years. Maybe that is a sign that they also wouldn't be good at any academic subjects. You wouldn't have a reliable way to measure that, because test-taking is out. I guess they could try to practice test-taking by taking a ton of random tests and grading themselves, but then they might accidentally become experts in some subjects!
Because we're depressed at being surrounded by stupidity.
Or at least I am; I won't speak for everyone else.
Right there with you.
There's different flavors of stupidity. There's the "oh damn, why didn't I think of that first" and there's the smug "I did my own research and your evidence doesn't match by beliefs".
And it doesn't help that we are getting deeper in the idiocracy timeline everyday.
Stupidity in the sense of doing nothing good for themselves or anyone else, yeah. People are mostly a collection of local context clues about overly emotional nonsense.
Can’t have Hacker News without the hubris! Love it
100% agree with you
> Because we're depressed at being surrounded by stupidity
And then we visit websites like HN, filled with people who think they are smart.
I don't mind a stupid person who knows they are stupid, but I despise the so-called 'expert' who is wrong, but society considers that person to be the authority
I've learned that the more intelligent you are the more models you know and the more trust you place in them being actual reality vs just being models. This leads to overconfidence in things being a certain way so when life calls for flexibility, your rigidity will make you suffer. Cynicism develops from this rigidity.
Additionally, the more intelligent you are the more skilled you become at thinking about things logically. An intelligent person can convince themselves of anything using logic without realizing that all logic depends on unproven axioms and assumptions. Combined with cynicism, logic leads to a negative outlook on life that is hard to shake off.
An intelligent person can convince themselves of anything
Not to mention via shortcuts, reductionism, and other (ironically) lazy thinking. After all, they're too smart to take a shortcuts that lead them to the wrong answer, so if they took a shortcut it saved them effort and was also right!
> _An intelligent person can convince themselves of anything_
I think it might be just the opposite: convincing yourself of things relies on exploiting limits for which very intelligent people have much higher threshold they might as well not have them. When it comes to happiness, it’s kind of a superpower which I think very intelligent people just don’t have because it fights against their intelligence by definition. It’s also something that I think happens unconsciously.
It’s ironic, as you yourself provided a perfect example: a logic argument depending on unproven assumptions, if it lands in “convincing” yourself, exploits a limitation in accounting for the validity of the assumptions themselves (meaning: you believe it anyway). Assuming one could pick and choose the arguments (i.e., what to believe in) wouldn’t that trivially unlock happiness?
People choose to believe what they desire and all desire eventually leads to disappointment and dissatisfaction. So, no, even if you could choose to convince yourself of whatever you want you're still not going to be happy. Also, people tend to pick the worst case scenario as a defense mechanism in most cases.
If you really want to be happy you need to let go of your preferences; your desires and aversions.
The buddha figured that part out 7000 years ago but people just don't want to hear it for some reason
Sounds unintelligent to me. What's your definition of intelligent?
Right? Lots of people all over this page to be describing autism rather than intelligence which I find slightly weird.
I find it interesting that there's an expectation that smart people would be happier.
Being smart is essentially "having a strong brain". Would we expect people with a strong back or legs to be happier? I wouldn't expect someone good a maths or puzzles to be any happier than someone good at carrying heavy things.
There's a difference between smart and wise. Some smart people become wise people, and I find them to be happy.
I kinda would expect a person with a strong back or legs to be happier. I think there's a strong correlation between health and fitness and happiness.
> I think there's a strong correlation between health and fitness and happiness
Most depressed people don't have the energy to exercise, and people with executive function disorders have problems with procrastination and often can't form the routine needed for increases in fitness.
Yup! Depression can cause psychomotor retardation, which can make even basic physical activities like sitting or walking painful because it feels physically heavy to carry all that weight.
Smart people are more likely to be able to choose the work they do (on the basis of what makes them happy).
Can the reasoning not be:
1) Our brains are evolved prediction engines
2) It is more beneficial and urgent to predict danger (e.g. approaching predator) than benefit (e.g. approaching prey)
3) There are always more negative outcomes than positive ones (entropy)
4) (1), (2), (3) => the more powerful the prediction engine, the more negative scenarios it will consider
Or: The world could truly be a fundamentally awful place, and smarter people are just closer to comprehending the true nature of reality.
Yes, but awful relative to... our brain's presets, which are an artifact of the world it evolved in. So in my view, there's nothing fundamental about it. Kant would say that the true nature of reality (noumena) are unknowable because our only connection to the real world is our sensory inputs, organized into perceptions within our brain (phenomena).
My partner describes me as a professional problem solver. Since I was a child, I have fixed things that most people throw away, taught myself many skills because I'd rather know how to do things before handing things to others to do for me, read many books on a huge variety of subjects, and everyone thinks I am extremely lucky.
I don't see problems, I see opportunities.
I work hard every day, whether it's writing code, digging ditches, clearing scrub, making firewood, planting trees, tending a large growing space, running my business, preparing and canning food for the the next year...and on it goes.
Lots of setbacks along the way, such as the leak I fixed isn't fixed, almost all of my tomatoes failed, 100% of my winter onions failed, the stator on my ATV needs to be replaced, I need to deer proof a field, scrub clearance is a massive and backbreaking job that sucks energy...and on it goes.
I am deleriously happy.
No idea if I am "smart", but life takes work, and mostly it's what you make of it.
Perception is the biggest enemy, and it can be changed.
> Perception is the biggest enemy, and it can be changed.
This needs to be formally inscribed above every school entrance.
Dude you're not normal and I envy your grit.
Related. Others?
Why aren't smart people happier? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45824864 - Nov 2025 (622 comments)
Why aren't smart people happier? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32409811 - Aug 2022 (494 comments)
(I left out some small threads that were neither smart nor happy)
As the old adage goes
Ignorance is bliss.
Drawing from my own life experiences, the more I learn the more things I worry about that could go wrong. This worry creeps into all aspects of life and becomes the norm. This creates a sense of dissatisfaction which can be a form of unhappiness.
Smart folks get aware of environment/challenges etc much sooner than others and maybe that creates the pathway to erosion of happiness.
You can easily flip this perspective on its head and postulate that being smarter helps you come up with more complex and logical rationalizations for your unhappiness in a way that totally orthogonal to its source. You could view excessive worry about things outside of your control as a pathological case of a certain kind of intelligence.
A lot of very intelligent philosophers written about how to lead a good/happy life over the centuries and none of them to my knowledge encourage a focus on problems outside of your control.
It is possible for many people to learn how to be happier, but this skill doesn't automatically emerge just because one is smart. Being smart doesn't automatically give you the skill of riding a bike, either. It doesn't automatically give you the skill of being charming in social situations. It doesn't automatically give you the skill of knowing how to box. You can learn all those skills, but they have to be learned. Same with being happier.
There are all kinds of effective approaches for becoming happier, ranging from things like changing one's circumstances, to cognitive-behavioral therapy, to Eckhart Tolle style present-moment awareness beyond mental narratives, to what some pick-up artists call "getting in state", and many other approaches as well.
Being smart does potentially make it easier to learn, because it makes it easier to understand the concepts that other people use to describe skills and to apply them to one's own situation. Being smart also makes it easier to originate one's own ideas for how to become happier. And on the other hand, being smart can also cause problems if it makes one hyper-aware of problems, and so on. Emotional intelligence does not automatically increase just because verbal or mathematical types of intelligence increase. It's its own kind of intelligence. I have no idea whether it is correlated positively with the other kinds of intelligence, but certainly there are many people who have high emotional intelligence and low intellectual intelligence, and people who have low emotional intelligence and high intellectual intelligence.
Ambition is antithetical to contentment, not intelligence.
This is the drunkard's search principle [0]. If you go looking for intelligence, it is easiest to find among perpetual strivers, either because they will sit for any test and take it seriously or because they have already distinguished themselves as an elite competitor in chess, physics, whatever.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect
Interesting. Agree. Ambition seems to be more the issue. How are ambition and intelligence related?
This gets posted here often even though its a complete fantasy. The actual relationship between happiness and intelligence is well known to be the opposite. IQ correlates significantly with happiness.
https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/b...
Well, if you look at the comments, there's clearly a ton of users who want to bash intelligence. No wonder a title like this also gets a lot of posts.
IME a lot of smart people aim at optimizing for whatever system they find themselves in, rather than questioning that system and asking themselves if it’s actually the life they want.
And so you get an army of very bright people all jumping through the same hoops to achieve the same goals, and half of them are miserable.
As someone who spends far too much time questioning the system, I often assume the hoop-jumpers are somehow happier. I wonder if life would be easier if I stopped worrying about the big picture.
I got to this point somewhat recently, I stopped worrying, I kind of broke. I still think about the big picture a few hundred times a day, but went from worrying about it and thinking it was something I could do anything about, and really am just kind of a nihilist now. I was a nihilist for a time as a teenager, saw the world, grew to want a better world, got mad (still am pretty mad) that we don't live in a better world (good job greed), and now I am just idk, participating in the circus for what it is.
A whole combination of things lead to that last year, I had to fire a bunch of people, quit my job, trump, family stuff, living situation stuff, dog passing, etc. But ya, not fun to go through, but I would say life is a little easier if you stop worrying about the big picture, you don't have to stop thinking about it or paying attention, but just recognize there's basically fuck all you can do by just worrying about it.
Bering "dumb" for a day just to know if I could be happier... I feel you.
My way to her happier was too stop following global news, even regional news. People around me well tell me the important things anyway. Don't use the so called "social media"!
With so much free energy and attention, I now care about the areas that I can positively influence: me, close family, neighbors, friends, work, remote family.
That is much more rewarding and makes me happy!
Sounds pretty mid.
As others have noted being smart will enable you to comprehend more of the World around you. This will in turn increase the amount of negativity you can be exposed to. But in my opinion this ultimately comes down to your thinking patterns. Those must be practiced and learned. If you do not make an effort to adopt positive thinking patterns about the information you perceive you will become unhappy, as the negative patterns appear to be the default. What you become aware of, how you process it and form a conclusion, is your subjective experience.
Most people agree that exercise is healthy for your body. But if your form is lacking you can injure yourself quite severely.
In my experience, low self esteem and harboring negative emotions can be the cause of a "bad thinking form".
I strongly agree. I am not bragging (it's not even really impressive) when I say I have an IQ of around 125-130, depending on the test. We often get professional psychometric tests here in Denmark while we're interviewing for cognitively demanding jobs.
As a child I was profoundly depressed. I absorbed everything around me, and the negative stimuli affected me to a far greater degree. I'm not sure if that's innate or if my surroundings were in fact unfortunately negative. It wasn't until the age of 25 (which is itself an interesting age for the prefrontal cortex) that I was better able to control my thinking patterns. I used cognitive behavioural therapy methods in combination with lifestyle improvements (including exercise, sleep, alcohol, drugs, career, friends, money, country, and living arrangements). I figured out how to not hate living. I'm grateful I was stubborn enough to persevere that long. There were dark times.
I had friends who were not bright. They didn't absorb as much as I did. They weren't phased by the negative things around them to the degree I was. I envied them immensely.
I'm glad it worked for you. Lifestyle interventions had a positive impact on me as well but depression can be much more complex/stubborn and it affects everyone differently.
It's not just maladaptive thought patterns or beliefs that make it harder to feel happy or function normally. Chronic depression can shape the trajectory of your life in ways that are difficult to undo. So even treatments that increase flexibility(like SSRIs or ketamine) can't necessarily convince you to put on rose-tinted glasses and see the world differently.
In my personal experience, escaping depression also seems to get harder the longer you've had it. It can create catch22 situations and strong path dependencies that severely limit your ability to change the circumstances that are helping keep you depressed in the first place.
I agree, and my experiences acho yours. I was put onto SSRIs at age six, which is highly unusual - especially at the time. It was not an easy hole to climb out of.
I like this but find the dismissal of multiple intelligences pretty unconvincing. I'm amenable to the idea that IQ (and associated tests) measures some underlying `well-defined` problem solving ability (with each problem having other factors), but the 'poorly-defined' problems sure seem like multiple intelligences by another name.
In my experience, different poorly-defined problems have different shapes and how much skill a person can make progress on them depends on a lot of things. For example, it seems like problem of finding ways to make poorly-defined problems fit into a well-defined space ("engineering") and the poorly-defined problems of organizing groups of people into coalitions ("politics") draw on different sorts of intelligence. The author claims that this is often not tested (which is probably true) but the basic observation that unstructured problems are related to each other and different people solve different areas with consistent skill seems true to me.
Given that the purpose of a measure is to make predictions: IQ can be used to improve predictions of academic outcomes, whereas the multiple intelligences models are worse at this.
Whether or not there are multiple intelligences or not is an implementation detail unless knowledge of this has measurably lead to some better prediction.
There's no actual IQ test. Any data you've ever seen using "IQ" to predict academic outcomes is actually just using prior academic scores bent into the shape of a symmetric normal distribution.
"academic outcomes predict academic outcomes" would be wholly uninteresting if "academic outcomes" was one thing, but it isn't.
Because we see how things fail, and why. And it's usually intentional incompetence and/or greed.
Both are fixable, but both require the person or system wants to fix it. So, it's usually not fixed.
Things like death "fixes" things. So does leaving the position in simpler ways. Technology can force the issue and force removing incompetence, or equalizing greed.
But yeah, it's seeing "intentional incompetence and/or greed" causes stagnation or worse is very disheartening and sorrowful. We could do so much better.
> This large, nationally-representative study from the UK finds that people who score the lowest on an intelligence test are a little less happy than everyone else, but that’s pretty much it
There’s a rational explanation here: IQ is not an absolute or proportional scale, and the happiness data actually is reflecting the true absolute difference in intelligence, which is smaller than the authors and many people assume.
IQ is a ranking measure, not a proportional measure of intelligence. A high IQ does not imply high intelligence on an absolute scale. The IQ scale is just standard deviations. If we measured height in standard deviations, this becomes clear, but somehow people don’t understand what IQ is, and it has become essentially a popular misconception.
Let’s measure height using HQ, where the mean is 100 and 1 stddev is 15 HQ. Then a 30 year old male who’s 5’9” has an HQ of 100. A 30 year old male who’s 6 feet tall has an HQ of over 115. That’s a 15% increase in HQ score for a 4% increase in height. Someone who’s 7 feet tall would have an HQ of 175 - a score some people label as supergenius, or in the “profoundly gifted range” on the IQ scale - yet they’re only 20% taller than the average male. (IQ doesn’t even work reliably above 160 anyway). And the HQ distribution stops at 8’11” (HQ of ~195, tallest person to ever live, ~50% taller than average), humans don’t ever grow taller than that.
There are good reasons to assume IQ works the same way - score ratios exaggerate intelligence differences, and the highest IQs are only moderately more intelligent than the median. This fully explains the result above - higher IQ does make someone happier, but only in proportion to actual intelligence, not in proportion to IQ.
> There are good reasons to assume IQ works the same way
What are these reasons? For most abilities not tied to physical limits of the body (reading speed, musical skills, memory, bow/gun shooting, bowling, bull riding, knitting), the top 1% are at least several times better than an average person, and the bottom 1% are several times worse. Why would intelligence be constrained to +/-20% range unlike all those other things?
Because intelligence is a physical attribute, and everything you listed is not a physical attribute and depends almost entirely on learned skill. None of those are physical limits of the body, and they change dramatically with practice. Most (all?) human physical attributes have relatively narrow ranges of distribution, which is why we should assume physical intelligence capacity does too, until proven otherwise. Assuming that an IQ of 160 is way way more intelligent than an IQ of 130 is a unsupported and incorrect assumption, that is simply not what IQ measures.
> Because intelligence is a physical attribute
I question this assumption. Especially considering you can train intelligence.
You can’t train human intelligence. It seems like you’re unaware of the goals and history of IQ. The whole point is to try to factor out learnable skills and measure pure cognitive capacity.
And yet, people who do IQ tests a lot score better. Sure, you can claim IQ test solving skill is not the same as intelligence - but then why are you measuring intelligence with IQ tests?
I’m not measuring with IQ tests nor defending the use of IQ tests, the authors of the article implicitly accepted them as a valid measure or proxy for intelligence, and implicitly assumed that happiness surveys should reflect proportional IQ scores. That is a bad assumption given that IQ scores do not measure absolute intelligence and they have an unknown scale factor at a minimum.
Well, you made the arguably far less substantiated claim that intelligence is a physical attribute and thus bounded to +/-20% range for most of the population... And that it can't be trained, despite all the evidence to contrary. If you're no longer interested defending that position, that's okay.
Speaking of unsubstantiated claims… what evidence is there that intelligence can be trained? You’re confusing intelligence with IQ tests. I made no such claim that intelligence is bounded to 20%, you seem to have misunderstood. I pointed out the fact that IQ tests are by design not tied to nor proportional to actual intellectual capacity. If you disagree, maybe you can provide some relevant information? So far your objections have been either irrelevant or factually incorrect.
Okay, let's step back a little. When you said "there are good reasons to assume IQ works the same way [as the hypothetical HQ]" - what exactly did you mean by that? Did you mean to imply the ratio between intelligence of someone with IQ 100 and IQ 180 is smaller than a factor of 1.8, or did you mean something else?
The evidence that intelligence can be trained is that every metric of intelligence ever invented is consistently going up when the subjects spend time to prepare themselves before being measured. IQ tests, school grades, chess performance, math olympiads, you name it. Sure, you can always claim that all of those are skills separate from intelligence and that's why becoming better is possible - but then how do you explain that being better at one of these automatically makes you better at all the others, if the overall intelligence stays the same?
Also, I said the range is +/-20% already in my very first reply. Why didn't you correct me back then? Why did you wait until now?
> what exactly did you mean by that?
Great question. My primary point was that the IQ scale and absolute intelligence aren’t the same things, and people often assume they are (this article’s premise, for example), or even worse many people assume that absolute intelligence goes up exponentially along with the rarity of the IQ ranking. Height was simply an example of how there’s an obvious discrepancy between standard deviations and the underlying absolute metric; the rarity of one person’s height says literally nothing about how tall they are, and yet people assume without any justification whatsoever that the rarity of someone’s IQ score does say something about how smart they are. All human physical characteristics have a relatively narrow range, and they don’t increase exponentially. Running is another example - Usain Bolt can run faster than 99.9999% of people, and yet he’s only 10% faster than the average competitive sprinter and maybe ~50% faster than the average person not trained in running. You’ll see similar distributions with weight lifting. The number of brain cells doesn’t grow without bound - we all have similar amounts. The construction of the brain cells and the structure of the brain isn’t wildly different from person to person. Most skulls are approximately the same size. Most eyeballs and ears and arms and legs all vary by about the same amount height and head size varies. So, there really is good reason to start with the hypothesis that raw biological cognitive capacity and speed don’t vary by a lot more than height does, and - importantly - that they all top out at the upper end of the distribution.
> Did you mean to imply the ratio between intelligence of someone with IQ of 100 and IQ 180 is smaller than a factor of 1.8, or did you mean something else?
I meant that from the start, assuming the factor is 1.8 is a very bad assumption. That’s simply not how standard deviations work. Yes, please consider the possibility that the cognitive capacity of IQ 180 is less than 1.8 times more than that of IQ 100. If intelligence has a similar distribution to other physical characteristics, then difference between the mean and the first standard deviations is much larger than the difference between the first and second standard deviations. Translation: the jump from 130 to 160 is probably much smaller than the jump from 100 to 130. And going from 160 to 190 IQ, there is likely a negligible, unmeasurable difference in absolute intelligence. This is the opposite of the popular conceptions of IQ, right?
> The evidence that intelligence can be trained is that every metric of intelligence ever invented is consistently going up
Again, you are confusing raw intelligence with psychometric tests. Yes you can train for an IQ test. No, you cannot train intelligence. ‘Intelligence’ in this context, the kind we are discussing, is defined as the biological component of cognitive capacity that cannot be trained. Intelligence and skill are two different things, go ahead and google that question. The fact that IQ tests are not currently able to differentiate between intelligence and skill is a well known shortcoming of IQ tests, and that relates directly to my initial point: IQ is not a great measure and assuming that IQ score and happiness would have a correlation anywhere near 1 is a very bad assumption.
> Sure, you can always claim that all of those are skills separate from intelligence
Yes, yes I can, since it’s true. Therefore, given that fact, the question you asked is one for you to ponder and answer. What is the source of the claim that being better at one “automatically makes you better at all the others”? Does taking IQ tests give you more brain cells or increase your cognitive speed? You’re hand-waving this training argument and ignoring the fact that people who train for IQ tests still top out and hit a wall regardless of the amount of practice, they don’t increase their scores indefinitely. If intelligence could be trained, why isn’t everyone a so-called high IQ genius?
> Why didn’t you correct me back then?
Hehe I don’t need to argue every wrong thing you say, and doing so doesn’t make for good conversation. Your assumptions only reflect on you, not me. I assumed you’d eventually re-read the comment you replied to and figure out that using 20% in your argument was straw man given that I actually gave an example of a 50% variance in height in that same comment, and that I only used height as an analogy, not a claim about intelligence. When people seem to misunderstand my comments, whether it’s a mistake or intentional, I prefer to try to clarify my broader intent and not nitpick every word. Rebutting every single thing tends to escalate arguments and send the impression that you’re reflexively arguing rather than thinking, and seeking disagreement rather than agreement. I try to follow the HN guidelines, and I’m by no means always perfect, but they are pretty good guidelines, right?
> Hehe I don’t need to argue every wrong thing you say
No you don't. But if it's a central point of my argument, and ESPECIALLY when you throw it in my face later on that I based my argument around it - it feels like I wasted a lot of time and effort for nothing, and makes me wonder how much else of what I'm saying is a similar waste of time because you refrained from telling me I'm wrong about something else similarly important. Makes me hesitant to put too much effort into this conversation.
> I meant that from the start, assuming the factor is 1.8 is a very bad assumption.
I agree with the literal words - exactly 1.8 is almost certainly the wrong answer. But where we differ is that you believe it's less than 1.8, and I believe it's more than 100. A person with IQ 180 is likely two orders of magnitude more intelligent in absolute terms than someone with IQ 100. On the other hand, someone with IQ 60 is only marginally less intelligent than someone with IQ 100. It's because intelligence is not a physical attribute, but closer to a skill.
Usain Bolt is only a little faster than a typical adult because speed is capped by the physical limits of the human body. Intelligence is not, because it's not a physical attribute.
And if you want to continue insisting it is a physical attribute, I'd like to ask you for some evidence that it's actually the case, rather than assuming it a priori. As far as I know, neither brain size nor the number of neurons nor synapses is correlated with IQ.
> it feels like I wasted a lot of time […] Makes me hesitant to put too much effort into this conversation
Hahaha, buddy, this is very funny. Lack of effort is what caused your problem in the first place. I’m super surprised you’re digging in your heels on this. If it was me, I’d drop it, since it’s not a good look, but suit yourself. You got something wrong. So what? Own it. Fix it. It isn’t my responsibility to correct you, it’s yours. You did indeed waste a tiny little bit of time by arguing and jumping to conclusions before reading carefully. ;) And that’s okay, which is why I ignored it. I’ve wasted time making mistakes too. There’s nothing wrong with making mistakes. How you deal with mistakes is revealing though, and blaming others for your mistakes isn’t typically very productive here, even if some politicians seem to get away with it. :P I do honestly appreciate that your previous comment tried to de-escalate a bit. Asking what I meant was a positive step, and asking that earlier would have saved you some time. Always assuming good faith and making sure you read carefully and understood everything is a good thing to learn to do on HN, that’s what the guidelines are trying to hint at. I have learned this lesson myself the hard way, multiple times, FWIW.
> Intelligence is not, because it’s not a physical attribute
Well okay this is our core problem. We have been talking about different things. And, I need to concede on this point that you are right. If I google “is intelligence a physical trait” the results I get say: no. In my defense, I thought I was careful to qualify that what I was talking about earlier as the biological component of intelligence, but I’m okay admitting I’ve made some mistakes here.
It is worth noting that “Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits” and that “studies have consistently shown that genetic influence on individual differences in intelligence is substantial”. https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2014105
> A person with IQ 180 is likely two orders of magnitude more intelligent in absolute terms than someone with IQ 100.
There is zero scientific basis for that claim. This is exactly what I was talking about from the top. This popular interpretation of extremely high IQ scores substantially overstates what can legitimately be inferred from the numerical scores. That’s why I call it a misconception. IQ only directly measures how unusual someone’s intelligence is, not how good it is. IQ is at best only moderately good at predicting cognitive performance on some tasks, and whether it predicts anything is highly dependent on the type of task. And after reading about it more, I’m going to correct myself and agree that IQ does not predict cognitive brain capacity, and we don’t yet have anything that does. But scientists are looking for that.
Anyway, this belief you have that 180 IQ vs 100 IQ is 100x more intelligent - whatever more intelligent actually means - is extremely extreme!! Why do you believe this, and what evidence is there of your claim? You’re absolutely right that I disagree with you there. But I will read and consider any supporting links or data you can provide, and I am open to changing my mind if the data is compelling. There’s a reason that IQ is considered outdated now, that scientists do not accept that intelligence is 1-dimensional, and that cognitive scientists now talk about multiple intelligences, and use g instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
> As far as I know, neither brain size nor the number of neurons nor synapses is correlated with IQ.
Human brain size does correlate with IQ somewhat. Now you know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size#Intelligence
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7440690/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-m...
I think the essay has the implicit assumption that if you're 'better' at doing things, you'll end up happier. Since intelligent people aren't happier, the conclusion becomes that intelligence is mostly only relevant to a subset of well-defined abstract problems that don't represent the real messy problems of life.
I think the reality of human happiness is that being in better material circumstances, or being better at solving problems practical or not, doesn't necessarily improve long term happiness.
Adaption to circumstances, the 'hedonic treadmill', means most people aren't going to obtain some very high level of happiness and sustain it indefinitely, regardless of station.
Because we are depressed by the realization of how stupid we are.
We aren't optimized for smart, for happy, or for truth - we are optimized for getting our genes into the next generation.
“Look at the happy moron, he doesn’t give a damn. I wish I was a moron - my God, perhaps I am!”
Obviously a lot of depression is genetic or due to some unfortunate life circumstance. It's got nothing to do with intelligence.
But what I've also noticed is that a lot of people with unbalanced lifestyles end up becoming depressed.
For example, they might have a habit of going to bed at weird inconsistent times, wake up late, eat junk food, not regularly exercise or go to the gym, etc.
Someone with that lifestyle is much more likely to become depressed compared to someone who sleeps 8 hours a night, wakes up at a reasonable time every morning (i.e. 5am - 8am), has a stable job, and exercises regularly.
Humans are built for routine. Drifting away from that is unnatural.
Have you thought about whether this is kind of backward? It is possible that having a certain genetic predisposition makes it easy or difficult to stick to a good routine.
I see this in myself: No matter what I do I find it very difficult to stick to one routine day after day after day. I just kind of get extremely bored with it quickly. I know my life would probably me noticeably better with more routine, but I'm just not wired that way.
I do have a lot of creativity and a strong analytical mind, so maybe that's the price I have to pay for that.
Long story short: people are wired very differently from each other.
> But what I've also noticed is that a lot of people with unbalanced lifestyles end up becoming depressed.
This may be backwards in many cases from what you are thinking.
> For example, they might have a habit of going to bed at weird inconsistent times, wake up late, eat junk food, not regularly exercise or go to the gym, etc.
People with executive disfunction disorders (ADHD, Bipolar, etc) are going to have massive problems with procrastination which causes stress. The stress causes them to worry. The worry and procrastination prevent them from going to sleep. The lack of sleep causes their body to search out junk food (also because it's quick and easy). The regular exercise part is another routing thing.
And depression can cause reduced energy levels and procrastination that leads them to missing the gym and then the shame cycle.
Smarter to realize how the world actually works. Smart enough to reason through the “why,” solve problems, and stick with them instead of just letting them go. But thinking too much can also make it easy to overthink.
I am considered smart and yes I am unhappy from very young age. Mostly due to my family situation too but still: I don't see many kids realized unfair the world is at 6.
Speaking only for myself: you can't be tortured by thoughts you're not having, and I, sadly, am having thoughts.
Or to put it differently: some people can easily ignore things others can not.
More like some people simply don't notice. Or don't care to.
I sometimes wonder what would happen if the population's average IQ was (the current equivalent of) 130 instead of 100.
Would things be better? Worse in more complex ways? Both?
Well. Life needs diversity.
Higher IQ may give you more freedoms but also take some away. You can see what others can not, do things others can not, but at the same time you can get depression over something that won't affect someone else.
Not to mention we need people who's okay with doing simple hard jobs just as much as we need writers, doctors etc.
A nice quote from The Big Bang Theory:
Penny: Leonard, you are so great. Why can't all guys be like you?
Leonard: Because if all guys were like me, the human race couldn't survive.
Likewise.
There's truth to the saying, "ignorance is bliss."
This article is so mid. The author clearly feels how mid he is and is desperate to justify that mid people are also smart, maybe even smarter in that superior nebulous way on ambiguous, ill-defined problems than those squares that can only solve those boring textbook well-defined problems.
I think being smart and attentive means noticing a lot of poor craftsmanship (broadest sense, in a lot of areas from politics to whatever) and understanding why that can be sort of a stable situation with little chance of changing, so need to control attention which is not so easy.
i’m sure everyone replying to this thread has a level headed and unbiased assessment of themselves
That's what makes us so smart!
When people talk about being happy (or not), I always wonder -- why does it matter? I don't expect to be happy, and I don't strive towards it. I DO strive towards making my life better in terms of engaging in enriching and rewarding experiences, spending time around people I care about, perhaps trying to ensure future stability to the degree I can, and generally growing as a person. Never do I consider the pursuit of "happiness". Interestingly this seems to kind of correlate with the premise of the post, where a lot of commonly-accepted definitions of "intelligence" often recognize only narrowly-defined scopes of intelligence, but not broad/overall multi-tiered general intelligence that translates to "having a good life".
It sounds like you're always in the pursuit of happiness, you just don't frame it that way. You are always trying to make your life better than it is, which either leads to less misery or more happiness. 2 sides of the same coin.
Yeah, maybe! I def don't frame it as "happiness", because I don't expect to be especially happy, but hopefully content or accepting of what my life "is". I actually have worked throughout my life to accept bad/difficult things, and just "work with what I have", because there are always some pretty bad things in life, and I know the badness level will probably increase as I get older (already had numerous friends pass away, family members, etc.)
I think your objection may be to a narrower definition of happiness than what was used in the article. The article's measure is a global life evaluation that would be the product of the activities that you "DO strive towards".
Oh yeah, my initial objection is/was indeed to the seemingly-more-common definition of happiness that people often use, and then I did see that the author uses a broader scope which I agree with a lot more (insert thumbs-up emoji here) :)
You understand that everything which you value about yourself is not what other people value you for. Also, what you value in others also probably isn't an accurate reflection of who they are either. Everything feels hollow, performative, lacking in substance.
Worst of all, your understanding of reality works against you because it's demotivating. It's harder to perform your role when you don't carry any illusions about its true purpose.
It's difficult to be happy when you believe that everything good which happens to you is at someone else's expense and can see a lot of the tricks.
All these studies suggest loneliness makes you unhappy, however I feel happiest most when lonely and doing my thing and not with people. With people I just feel frustrated or weird, because I think so different than the others.
Being alone does not equal loneliness.
And merely being with people is not an antidote to loneliness.
Being alone and being lonely are distinct concepts.
Possibly you are conflating being alone to loneliness?
solitude =/= loneliness
Scientists Have a Fascinating Hypothesis About Why Smart People Should Spend Less Time With Friends
https://www.rathbiotaclan.com/scientists-have-a-fascinating-...
I don't believe the evidence that this is based on, but if it is true I have a theory that sometimes applies to me. Your sweet, dumb friends have so many dumb problems that are fairly easy to solve that you run yourself ragged trying to solve all of them, and your success attracts more requests. Friends can start to seem like unpaid work unless you're playing dumb.
Maybe happy smart people know better than to spend all their time taking IQ tests and participating in psychological studies?
There are people who think they're very smart who have never taken an IQ test. Maybe if they had, they'd be a bit more humble.
Maybe it's a generational thing but in my country we were given (real) IQ tests during grade school. Wanting to take an IQ test as an adult is questionable...
Interesting article. But here's my situation: I'm not smart, and I'm also not happy. So where does that leave me?
You can be angry all the time. I do this and it works out great since I don't have to explain myself anymore, everyone can totally just fuck off.
Staying angry all the time can trap you in a state of anxiety, which can then manifest as physical symptoms — like panic attacks. So, don't get angry.
Now you sound like aligned AI — I get it
I am not AI, In fact, I suffer from anxiety myself.
My salutations, Lord Nermal! ;)
Recognizing the gaps in your wisdom is a sign of wisdom :D
I call that refined stupidity.
This video hit me really hard - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N6qPEA_dGc
As far as what approaches to life are enabled by high intelligence at "low level", but which simply do not work as "high level".
He talks about dealing with 100 problems not by prioritizing them and taking the first step on the first one, but by rotating them and recombining them until there are only 90 problems, and this becoming a terrible habit as the scale & complexity of the problems makes it less productive.
He talks about intelligent people simply noticing more things about the world that are working poorly and understanding what has gone wrong, but not having any commensurate capability to fix them.
Depression is a beast that demands to be fed and the Internet is a buffet. The smarter you are, the more you can put away.
My observation is that people who are smart (or think they are) tend to express themselves via trying to be overly correct - on everything. And that gets exhausting.
People who try to be too precise and accurate, pay it with their happiness and peace. There is no better therapy than bullshitting with friends, just rolling with it instead of trying to make it all 100% perfectly accurate.
Likely related, what psychologists call "counterfactual thinking", and why a silver medal stings more than bronze for many Olympic medalists.
https://theconversation.com/for-many-olympic-medalists-silve...
Technically, the article isn't about the title. It's about the limits of LLMs/AI.
It posits that smart people aren't happier because "living a good life" is a poorly defined problem and smart people aren't any better at figuring out poorly defined problems than anyone else.
And that may be fair. And I guess my conjecture is a bit in line with that.
Just because you know how the system works, does not mean you would be good at working the system. For instance, let's pretend that the easiest way to live a good life, it required you to do things that you felt were morally repugnant. Well, I'd have an unhappy life, because I won't do those things.
Or, let's say that you found out that in order to live a good life, you had to meet some physical requirement. Like, if you wanted to live a good life as a man, you had to be at least 6'0". I'd be fucked. And nothing I could do could fix it.
And in all honesty, there are a lot of factors that go into things like success and leading a good life. And while intelligence does help, it's not a guarantee. And I would think that intelligent people would also figure that out. And it's frustrating knowing that even if you do everything right, you could still fail through no fault of your own.
> Over the last generation, we have solved tons of well-defined problems. We eradicated smallpox and polio. We landed on the moon. We built better cars, refrigerators, and televisions. We even got ~15 IQ points smarter! And how did our incredible success make us feel?
One big outcome of this is being alive more, that doesn't really make you any happier. Also consider stuff like a growing global economy that helps with things like, well, not starting as many global-scale wars that decimate whole cities.
I also think there is a word for someone who is good at poorly defined problems. "Artist." If you define that very broadly and maybe throw in some religious type roles, community leaders, etc in there too, you have a whole group of people who are dedicating their whole life to this problem. But these are super ancient professions and it's not really surprising that we haven't got amazingly better at them recently. I mean, art from centuries ago is still incredible!
I don't think smart people ever ask this question.
It's an invalid question attempting to correlate unrelated dimensions. One would hope that's even the point the article goes on to make, I didn't read it.
The value of being smart, similar to the value of knowing the truth, is not in how happy it makes you.
There might be a coincidental inverse correlation that makes the two things seem related, but the two things are never the less, unrelated in any way that matters.
Your unhappiness isn't caused by your capacity to percieve or understand some bad thing, it's caused by the bad thing, and ignorance is no way to resolve it to get happiness.
The question isn't even interesting to ponder like some mystery, except for a few minutes one time one day as a young person.
Intelligence is a slippery term, as plenty of smart folks have made dumb decisions. That said, I’ve noticed that many people who don’t understand why their choices are subpar tend to blame others, i.e. life happens to them. Someone more aware might internalize their failures. Plenty of mutations of this mechanism.
Along this particular axis I prefer to think of intelligence is to wise as smart is to knowledgeable. It may be simply wordsmithing but it provokes empathy.
Bertrand Russell wrote a text which touches on this exact subject, The Conquest of Happiness [1].
Ignore the hyperbole of the "who should read it". In my opinion, it is his thoughts on happiness from his own life. Some of it is dated, but I found it a relaxing and rational take on the topic.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Conquest-Happiness-Bertrand-Russell/d...
Emotional intelligence and rational intelligence are different things. If you believe in IQ, this is rational intelligence. If you believe in the measure of emotional intelligence, it is considered EQ. They are not the same, the ability to solve problems, is different than social skills.
Theory: There are more smart, happy people than it seems. It’s just, that particular combination tends to come with a reduced inclination to question their feelings and to engage in discourse about feelings.
Why should being smart make you happy?
A high IQ allows for a higher quality of life both superficially and meaningfully. This experience is usually weighted down by bullies and vindictive dysfunctional people. Envy is an intense oppressive force.
Lots of reasons, I suspect.
Smart people are smarter than stupid people, but not that much smarter. They are subject to thinking they’ve got it all figured out, when really they don’t. Warren Buffett spoke several times about this, saying that he’d much rather deal with a person of middling IQ and some humility rather than a person with very high IQ but not as smart as they think.
Then there are other attributes like discipline. A very smart person with little discipline could easily end up in a worse state than someone with good discipline and less intelligence. Sort of the Forest Gump model, if you like.
Superior intelligence is absolutely a gift. But not the only kind of gift, and not necessarily the best one. Ask someone like Stephen Hawking.
I don't think Warren Buffet is the last word on this.
The top of the IQ stratosphere is functionally unusual.
Set a room full of 130s on a hard problem. When they get stuck, adding more 130s won't help.
Throw a >160 into the room and see what happens.
>160s don't necessarily think they have it all figured out. But as long as they're functional - not always easy - their raw ability at certain tasks is qualitatively different to those closer the norm.
I've occasionally had dealings with these people. They really do understand things phenomenally quickly, and some of them can turn their insights into gold.
It’s funny you picked 160.
Buffett famously said “You don’t need to be a rocket scientist. Investing is not a game where the guy with the 160 IQ beats the guy with a 130 IQ. Rationality is essential”
Buffett said it in the book, “Warren Buffett Speaks.”
He also said if you do have an IQ of 160, you might as well give away 30 points, they’re not going to help you be a better investor.
Maybe he’s wrong, but at this time he’s regarded as one of the most successful investors ever, if not the very best.
>It’s funny you picked 160.
no, it's not anything like a coincidence or a quote of Buffet.
People always say "160" as the example number because the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler series IQ tests are among the most commonly used and they have a maximum score of 160.
That alone is not enough, you also need to know the std dev is 15 or 16. Therefore, 160 is 4 sd's above the mean which, regardless of the thing you are measuring, is very difficult to measure without massive numbers of sample points because the population density becomes very sparse.
there are other intelligence tests, some top out at 200, but you have to know the SD for that to be useful.
Interesting.
Per Google, the current world’s highest IQ belongs to Younghun Kim, with 276. That’s disputed, of course.
Next up is Terence Tao with 230.
I guess there isn’t a single standard.
Warren Buffett spoke several times about this, saying that he’d much rather deal with a person of middling IQ and some humility rather than a person with very high IQ but not as smart as they think.
I'm pretty sure he never said that. He has become like Einstein, where people have projected their beliefs onto him.
Here’s one his quotes.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/12/heres-the-iq-score-warren-bu...
> Smart people are smarter than stupid people, but not that much smarter.
This is patently untrue. My middle school kid finished Calculus 1/2 last year and got a 5 on AP without breaking a sweat. He’s taking college calculus this year and we need to figure out what math he’s going to do next year already. He has friends who are younger and even more advanced.
There are genius level kids that are at another plane of intellectual existence. It’s quite something to see.
> There are genius level kids that are at another plane of intellectual existence. It’s quite something to see.
It does not require genius level intelligence to do Calculus. It takes a genius to discover Calculus in the first place. Genius refers more to curiosity in my opinion, and not being able to do something at a young age.
What about this: Happy people try less hard (because why would you? things are going great!), thus getting challenged less, thus appearing not as smart/proving themselves less.
Good question. For me the problem is complex. It is not only about self feelings, the educational system and our society is a part of it...kids are growing up with "facts" that good results and adults high income make happiness...and often the essential is forgotten!
If monkey know how to open coconut and monkey like coconut, then eating coconut is what make monkey happy, not knowing how to open coconut or reflecting on its ability to do so…
The premise of the title is wrong. Being Smart and Happiness is not related. There is no cause and effect.
Whenever I see title like this, I wonder why do you make the connection of thoes two unrelated concepts?
Baity Title.
In my experience who live and work with smart people, and make smart decisions about their personal lives and families are pretty happy .
You can have a high IQ and make really stupid personal decisions.
Albert Einstein was notorious for this . He made catastrophic personal decisions that destroyed his families. His various wives and numerous mistresses ended up despising him and his son ended up in an asylum .
I think it’s a combination of:
1. “Smart” people tend to constantly see patterns others are missing. So they’re fretting about problems others are blissfully unaware about. Sometimes these “problems” matter and somethings they don’t.
2. Contrary to popular belief, the smartest people in the room typically despise being the smartest person in the room. They typically are starving for someone to challenge them, to debate them, for them to learn something from others. That lack of stimulation is typically depressing to a “smart” person.
I think these things are true for some people, but I think there's also a sampling bias when it comes to generalizing these things for the broader population of smart people.
IMHO even just the phrase "smartest person in the room" already frames the conversation in terms of stack ranking and some form of implicit value judgement on being smart, and this in turn opens to the door to all kinds of squishy emotional bias and self-identity issues that go well beyond any objective measure of smartness. In short, I think someone who even thinks in terms of "being the smartest person in the room" is likely to have their ego tied up in the self-perception of being smart, and thus more likely to feel the lack of intellectual stimulation you describe. Whereas I hypothesize there are many equally smart people who do NOT have their ego tied up in being smart, don't see the world this way, and simply don't show up in the data for smart people and their relative level of unhappiness.
> In short, I think someone who even thinks in terms of "being the smartest person in the room" is likely to have their ego tied up in the self-perception of being smart, and thus more likely to feel the lack of intellectual stimulation you describe.
Nah. I wouldn't even admit to being smart until I was nearly 40 (no matter what people said, or what I accomplished), and that's only because after taking an IQ test I decided that it was obnoxious and often insulting to other people to deny it. I still don't emotionally accept it, and I think a faithful watcher of "The 1% Club" since it came on would have probably raised their tested IQ a standard deviation. I'm always confused and lost in this world, struggling to understand, and screwing things up, and that's not my mental image of how intelligence should feel.
But when you get something, the rest of the people in the room don't, and you say that you're just an idiot, how do you think it makes them feel? I've been told how it makes people feel, in no uncertain terms.
It's better just to accept reality, and also not to let people make you feel guilty about your needs. I don't know if that's what you mean to be doing, but you're obviously trying to cast the need for intelligent people to have stimulation as some sort of morally-dubious personality flaw. It's unfair.
Because you realize everything is a scam.
Covid taught me just how stupid society is
Because you can be smart about 1 thing, but have all the wrong assumptions in life. I.e. just must deeply believe that it is your right to seek hapiness, not that you must adhere to what people generally believe is the optimal way to exist in your culture.
Such realizations require experience, wisdom, contemplation. Not whatever leads to a high IQ.
If you're interested in this topic, I love pg's Why Nerds are Unpopular. It was the first place where I started to realize things like being popular, being happy and others require their own sort of intelligence and effort.
https://paulgraham.com/nerds.html
I live by "everything is grey". I am interestingly smart in some niche domains that I have a hard time communicating exists. I also insist on not fitting any template. Pretty dumb, right?
Are you expecting some kind of positive reinforcement by saying this or were you just hoping to humble brags and leave it at that? Some applause maybe?
The first comment on the blog has it.
Subjectively, personally, we can all decide for ourselves what purpose we live for, but the purpose of life as a phenomenon in the world is not to enjoy itself. It's to perpetuate itself. Stay alive long enough and win a competition for scarce resources needed to reproduce. Being largely freed from the tyranny of constant threats and true scarcity, humans can aspire for more, but we're still living creatures. When bears come down from the mountains to fight to the death for winner take all access to the pool of twelve available mates, they're not happy when they win. They mate and get back to it, rest a few months, then fatten up again and prepare for another year of fighting to the death, until they finally get old and lose to a younger, stronger competitor. That's the tale of thousands of generations of ancestors spilled into all of us, humanity included.
Even just look at specific highly successful humans. Take famously miserable, no friends Michael Jordan. Win every year, enjoy it for twenty seconds, then immediately get back to work, 14 hours in the gym every day, alienating everyone you ever meet, having no friends, only to win again and feel just as hollow. Why? Because genes and behaviors that make an animal that driven, to succeed at any and all cost, including their own wellbeing, is the basis of success at the only thing that actually matters to life itself, as opposed to any individual thinking creature.
He may or may not want to be that way. I'm a reasonably smart guy, nowhere near as driven or successful as Michael Jordan, but I still often wish I was less smart and less driven than I am. The logic of life dictates that we always want more. Nothing is ever good enough. It's why we're collectively miserable no matter how much abundance and wealth we collectively create, even among those who have more than 99% of the world. We can tell each other all the stories we want about the fairness of the distribution, convince yourself your misery is especially justified because you believe you'll be the first generation of humans ever to pay more for housing than your parents. It isn't that. You're not special. None of us are. Dissatisfaction and always wanting more are core to what makes life life.
Being smart probably makes you better at life, but being better at life is barely correlated with enjoying it, if at all.
This is exactly the question considered in Voltaire's short story "The Good Brahmin"[0]
0: https://www.online-literature.com/voltaire/4411/
Because it's hard to be "happy" when you know how shitty this world is for the majority of life on it, even if your own life was perfect
To address this question, apply a mathematical trick, and convert it to the equivalent "Why aren't happy people smarter?". This new question admits a range of straightforward solutions, depending on how kind you are to the handicapped.
> Why aren't smart people happier?
I think any discussion on this topic should begin with answering "Why would one expect smart people to be happier?"
I think the essay does a really good job of examining that question, and concludes that you shouldn't. It does, however, start off by explaining why people tend to think that it should.
It’s even worse, the opposite is actually true (but it’s a slight effect).
Wisdom is where happiness comes from, not intelligence.
It's practically a disorder. I remember the book, Too Smart to Be Happy by Jeanne Siaud-Facchin. (French)
Gifted people often are top-down thinkers, which has a lot to do with creating connections, so we can gain insight as we keep the bigger picture in mind.
Other people call me smart. I think I'm just hard working.
I read enough books to spot liars, and when people you built Idealistic trust with break it, you never leave your guard down.
No psychologist or psychology book can break it. They are just idiots. Or maybe they believe Plato's Noble lie is good for society. But once you see, you can't unsee.
Now everything in my life has ~0 trust but all supervision.
From politics to food safety to personal relationships, don't trust. Verify.
Simple, many-times-repeated fact: smartness -> high expectations but low yield -> disappointment. The imbalance between expected and returned may or not be the person's responsibility.
Every smart person should invest time to learn the dexterities to manage their talent.
I am not the smarter, but I believe that I am smart enough. My problem is that my mind overthinks all the possible scenarios that could happen. For example, now with AI, what happens if the AI replaces all jobs, are we going to all live happy lives doing nothing? or are we going to be all super poor with the top 1% living in closed cities?
Likewise, rich people don't seem to be happier - sampling the few thousand people I have spoken to in my life.
I would rather know who is happy, what is meant by happy and why those cohorts are more happy. Smart may or may not be the primary thing. E.g. if parenthood makes one "happy" (defn. needed) and being smart makes you forgo that for ambition that would be interesting to know.
Pride. Regardless of intelligence the most miserable people I know are the ones who can't get over themselves trying to survive in a world that is not about them.
There's nothing clever about being "smart".
And being smart on its own really should not be seen as any kind of good thing.
Being smart _can_, however, be an enabler to achieving certain positive qualities (helping people, being considerate, being kind). But being smart can also enable negative qualities (exploiting people, being manipulative etc).
I used to think of myself as "smart" (top marks in high school, Oxbridge degree, PhD), but actually now I think I'm probably fairly average in objective intelligence, but I just try and think hard, and work hard.
I'm now surrounded by people that I think are smarter than me, but that doesn't mean I just give up thinking. Sure, it might take me longer to think of something, but that doesn't mean I still can't contribute.
Happiness is subjective, so that is the first obvious problem. Thee are probably a lot of smart people are are not as successful as they feel entitled to despite qualifications, and maybe this leads to feeling of inadequacy or resentment.
We know that intelligence tests and tests in general can be impacted by motivation and potential monetary gains (the article brushes on that). Maybe they can also be impacted by the happiness and other emotional states of the test taker.
Decades ago Gerry Weinberg (and maybe Gauss--i can't recall) went down a similar path and used the word "puzzles" for the ones the author calls "well-defined".
Knowing a problem is a puzzle helps a lot to replicate a solution.
Ever since I read "Flowers for Algernon" twenty years ago, I have known that being foolish does not necessarily mean being unhappy, nor does being intelligent guarantee happiness.
I first came upon this phrase from the movie 'Liberal Arts' (quoting some religious text):
For in much wisdom is much grief. And he that increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow.
This is from Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament, and is a book worth reading even if you’re not a Christian or religious at all. (Some of the other books in the Bible are not in that category.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastes
have you met most people? I can't really recommend it.
And you think yourself different from “most people”?
Everyone is “most people” to someone. The arrogance in your comment alone makes me put you into the “most people” category.
I think saying the reason we are unhappy is because the biggest questions are poorly defined misses that happiness was never the goal for why consciousness is here.It's pretty clear to me that consciousness exists for the biology and not the other way around (I submit as evidence how much suffering your biological portion will let you experience before it dies, it's way more than your consciousness would ever authorize if it were in control). As long as your unhappiness isn't to the point of materially affecting your reproductive success, it's a non issue for your biology so has never been optimized for. Smart people are unhappy because they experience the irrelevance of their happiness more fully than dumber people. The dumbest people are slightly more unhappy because they have a way crappier experience on average and they are not dumb enough on average to not notice this.
[dead]
People could be smart on something and be foolish on something else. The two founders of Apple could be a good example for this.
Mensa means “dumb” in Spanish. That’s evidence of how the smart can have so little common sense.
Knowing the retention time of CO2 in the atmosphere makes you BOTH smarter AND more worried.
Understanding the problems in society and the solutions but also the barriers that are impossible to overcome.
Generally I believe a person's baseline happiness is determined at birth.
Some people are just born happier than others.
I'm reading all these accounts of people who were considered "smart but lazy", who were bright but not disciplined or driven to participate in things that gets grades. As a kid I had a near perfect memory and limitless curiosity. I would sit with all the textbooks before the academic year started, flip through them and feel excited. I also loved doing my own experiments, sometimes with near-perilous outcomes too. I was way ahead of the curve and did great academically too until high school.
Over time I lost my golden memory and started finding it hard to remember exact details and even vocabulary as easily as normal people do. The slowness and the academic rut also stifled my natural growth. I forced myself through a bachelor's in computer science. I loved every topic and went diving deep into many of them and I could explain them better than my professors, but I had no desire to pass silly exams and prove myself. I passed with a CGPA 8.4/10 and entered a workforce that followed the same rut. Silly, irrelevant interviews that force you to "prepare" for months for them. I did it early on to get my first job but never indulged in it since.
I have had a fulfilling career so far, working on interesting problems with real outcomes. I switched to data science. I dabbled on both sides of the industry; the research papers obsessed R&D and the whatever-shit-sticks side of software development and found mediocrity and sleaze on both sides. I never climbed the corporate ladder and never got close to getting loaded.
I think for smart people happiness comes from chasing exciting and meaningful goals, but the realities of life keep them chasing other more mediocre things and that takes a toll.
Personally, I have stopped looking to my work for intellectual satisfaction or growth or safety or camaraderie. It's a purely transactional relationship. I work sincerely and I get paid. I give them inputs on what can be improved and what makes more sense, but I don't go overboard and make any efforts beyond my paycheck.
I let my true self run amok in exploring things I do on my own, in applying the scientific and analytical mindset to everything from gardening to sewing to building better learning environments. If some of it brings a windfall someday, I'll be marginally happier.
I suspect it's because they can see through all the bullshit but can't do much about it because being smart is not enough and actually makes you feel helpless and inconsequential.
Yeah - came to say the same. I've had the good fortune to grow up with several geniuses. But we've lost a few of them to suicide.
Smart doesn’t mean they are necessarily emotionally intelligent or mature. Emotionally intelligent people know how to regulate their emotions and not to lose sleep over factors that are out of their control. Everything happening in and around the world is not your problem or concern most people are just unhappy because they focus on negativity
99% of the replies here speak from the point of view that they are of the intelligent group. Hmmm, either hacker news is some sort of naturally forming mensa community or there's a lot of ego being put on display here.
When someone tells me they are smart in person the first thing I check is how healthy/fit they are and their social capabilities. Most nerds aren't smart.
Wouldn't this only check their social and health related abilities?
Which can both be optimized if the person is smart enough. The feedback loop even helps with learning.
We spend 24h/day in our own body and interacting with people.
I’m interested in a different question: are powerful people happier?
Any references?
Can happiness even be measured? Do we have a unit for happiness? I think that's a big "no" to both questions, so the entire topic is a bit strange. Might as well ask which type of people are luckier.
I feel like happiness is not an absolute nor permanent state. It's ephemeral and relative. You go to a deli shop and your favorite sandwich maker makes your meatball sub just the way you like it. You eat that sub and relish every bite. You're happy and ... reasonably happy .... like Huell. Then later at night you get dumped by your g/f. Now you're sad and you experienced both on the same day.
I think the same way about sadness and depression. Not an absolute nor permanent state. You have your moments when you are sad and/or depressed and then you bounce back.
I think most people normally experience all these emotions on a cyclical basis.
Couldn't you say the very same about luck, too? I'd say luck and happiness are mostly an attitude thing. If life gives you lemons, make lemonade and all that.
The way this article defines happiness, as a general success at ill defined problems, would make powerful people happy by definition imo.
Gotta love all the “I don’t consider myself intelligent but…”.
HN is one bad UX decision away from becoming the new LinkedIn. Humble brags galore!
Smart people aren’t lazy. They often speak less because their attention is focused on productivity, achieving their goals, and earning more money.
The idea that stupid people are happier comes from the effects of lead poisoning, which turned you into a happy, inane person.
Because they can see the consequences.
> "Müller-Lyer illusion, the two lines that look like they’re different lengths but aren't"
I hate that the author gave a picture in which the two lines actually are of different lengths, as you can see from trying to pick a rectangular screenshot.
I'd quantify the exact feature in the line that I'm using for reference (which would be by itself ironic considering the discussion on well-defined relations between entities attached to that picture), but it's unnecessary - none of them match!
They are the same length.
Look at the points of the arrows and crooks of the branches.
Nope, still different.
If you save the image as png, the tip of the leftmost arrow is at 68 pixels and the one of the rightmost one is at 393, while the crooks are 73 and 388.
Truncate the tips of the arrows. The lines are filled rectangles.
Maybe because they are not that smart? :)
"Ignorance is bliss" - Cypher
Not if you’re ignorant to what DDT is doing to you.
All thought is born of failure.
Because junk food and soda tastes good but we are smart an know it will make us fat and dead so we drink water and eat carrots.
because they are not using their smartness to make themselves happier
"The bigger they are, the harder they fall."
If you're smart you probably have bigger, more challenging goals, so chances of success aren't higher. Deliberately setting goals lower might not help. Having a mindset which decouples happiness from goals would help, but people are generally not wired for that, evolution wanted us to push harder.
Because being smart doesn't mean being wise. Lack of wisdom can fuck up your life far, far worse than lack of intelligence... and I for one am not wise when it comes to people.
Pressure, from inside and out, concisely.
> people score higher on IQ tests when you pay them for performance, so what looks like a test of intelligence may in part be a test of how hard you’re willing to try.
I remember when I took the WAIS-IV for diagnostic purposes. I do not think I have ever taken a more boring testing in my entire life. Not to mention, the test felt like it was never going to end.
I eventually got so bored that I started intentionally giving incorrect to questions to just to see if the psychologist would say anything. That was until I got in an actual argument with the psychologist during the symbol matching section.
I do not think there is enough money that one could pay me to take one of those tests ever again. I seriously rather put toothpicks under my toenails and proceed to kick a brick wall. I already held much of the field of psychology in great contempt. After my test, I proceeded to do more reading of research on the topic of IQ, and I must say, I think it only furthered my contempt for psychology.
Honestly, I think the entire notion of IQ is disgusting and dehumanizing. If you need an IQ test to figure out if someone is "intelligent" then you might be incompetent or an imbecile.
As a Smart Person with at least 2 sigma IQ, never studied in school, college was not a wake up call it was also easy, yes it was a good college, blah blah...:
Knowing what is worth doing or what would make me happy is the hard part. Achieving the goal isn't the hard part, it's setting one. Knowing what will make me happy is something philophers smarter than me have been wondering about for thousands of years.
No think, no worry.
Lots of moving parts on this discussion and wise / smart people have probably all weighed in without solving the problem necessarily
I'll suggest that maybe "biologically" speaking, intelligence makes smart people seek out knowledge which makes them "unhappier"; this would explain why they can't simply use their knowledge to become happier, as "ignorance is bliss" and their native intelligence naturally has them seek "knowledge which isn't bliss".
Along with this, I've experimentally noticed that what we focus on seems to influence our sense of happiness, so then you could hypothetically just try to focus on things that make you happier; with the intelligent, though, they may tend to focus on things that do not make them happier, even though they may trade happiness for a greater sense of meaning and purpose. For example, it's been said that parents are less happy but have a greater sense of purpose in life (according to some studies). Likewise, the intelligent person may try to contend with difficult and troubling intellectual issues, or may become aware of thoughts which have a greater emotional impact on them than a less intelligent person. So again, intelligent people "just happen" to likely make themselves unhappy, by virtue of being intelligent (?).
There is some fuzziness about what it means to be intelligent or happy, and yet at the same time we seem to have an understanding of what those things mean. If it is clear what makes us happy, then the smart person can just do those things. But, basically happiness can be subjective - some people derive a lot of happiness from inflicting a lot of pain on themselves (like a smart person trying to tackle progressively more painful intellectual problems). So... it's also kind of unclear if we know what makes us happy (it might vary per person), and also if happiness is even the goal in life (versus living a meaningful life, although happiness and meaning are often thought to go hand in hand).
The article notes that positive psychology cannot be used to increase happiness; I'm kind of skeptical of this view, but sympathetic to the view as well. What I did was ask AI what makes people happy and to try to do likewise, and the conclusion was kind of like going fishing, like you can go out on the water and show up, but the fish still decide if they bite or not. Happiness is like the fish - still a little outside our control, but we can possibly create some conditions where it might be likely to "bite" us.
Also there may be "multiple happinesses" - kind of again getting at the question of what it means to be happy. I've seen Christian saints describe a kind of internal sense of joy, even when externally they might be in lots of physical or emotional pains. Or by contrast there may be a sense of "inner peace" which a person could have, while their life physically or otherwise is chaotic and might be associated with "unhappiness". A clean conscience can be important and overlap with some of these things.
Anyway, just a quick comment reflection after reading the article and mulling it over a bit - surely more is to be said on such an enduring topic.
Ignorance is bliss.
At the risk of sounding arrogant, I will out myself as being incredibly smart and also incredibly unhappy in a general sense (although content with my life). The answer is very simple and mundane: I observe and understand problems that have simple solutions that will never be applied because the mass of people cannot understand the problem and solution or are unwilling for social reasons from implementing the solution. This creates a sense of powerlessness and futility, and if you aren't careful can cause you to spiral into nihilism.
Finding stoic philosophy was a major turning point in my life, because it helped me gain the perspective to understand that I should invest my mental efforts on things that are within my control. That's helped me be happier in my 40s than I was in my 20s.
Because they're smart, but not as smart as they think they are.
Some of them put knowledge ahead of wisdom, but certainly intelligence also allows you to see the faults of the world and can create a pessimistic outlook.
To see, and to know, is to suffer.
The world is largely a horrible place and ignorance is bliss.
Also the smarter you are the more prone you are to mental illness, which may be related to the above or maybe like why you're more likely to crash a fast car.
Yeh what even is smart really? There’s a bit of objectiveness here I think. For me, if you’re not using your smarts to be happy (or content with life) that’s not very smart.
A few observations. I consider myself smart, but far from smartest.
tldr: intelligence lets you control some variables for happiness, but it is not the entire happiness function.
1. We're social and emotional beings beings. Emotions are more powerful than intelligence. We gladly choose something that we enjoy over something that will make us happier long term. All humans do this, mental fortitude is in short supply.
2. Life, and society move the definition of happiness constantly. Either through manipulation, new discoveries, new laws, new constraints. So even smart people need to adapt. If yo were happy last year, maybe today you have to pay higher taxes, or your country gets into a war, or you get a new president, or you're just competing with other smart people in an endless game of chess.
3. We move our own goalposts. Think the rich who thought wealth was the source of happiness, then they get there are are miserable. Or simply spend their time looking for new challenges, infinite growth, etc.
4. Living in a society means your happiness is always, always dependent on the state of that society, and therefore the happiness of others. It's like fluids. You can't be the one drop of water in a bottle that is red. It will dilute, and vice-versa. Maintaining a state of happiness in an unhappy society means building barriers and constantly fighting "them".
5. I have a theory that live is like a wave of ups and downs. The sum of all your highs will equal the sum of your your lows by the time you die. You have some control of when, how much and for how long to be happy/unhappy (unhappiness also means hardship, work, selling time for money, etc, the things we use to pay for happiness), and that controls how the quotas get distributed throughout your life. I have absolutely not tested this, I am still experimenting with my life. Counter examples may exist, I have a sample size of 1.
What does being smart even mean?
It’s just a title for deeply arrogant people try and elevate themselves above what they consider to be “the dumb ones”.
I see a lot of top comments here about how smart people will be disappointed by the world. They see everything broken about it because they are so smart.
I don’t really buy it. There is a sizeable minority here with high enough wealth and income that also (because of their place in society) think that a lot of things are more benign, neutral, or good than they really are. I’ve seen enough threads here demonstrating that. They think that this thing is just a mistake. That other thing can just be fixed by getting smarter people in charge. We just need good and capable people in charge of this other thing and it will be alright. And so on.[1] They watch the news and think that the presenters and people they interview are on their side—and they often are, relatively speaking at least.[2]
This is basically “Mistake Theory” that that Alexander psychologist wrote about. Out of what I have read from him that was the most true thing I’ve read. (But those high IQ + higher income bracket + gadfly interest people just dress it up in let’s say less academic and more improvised theories.)
Independent of intelligence, people with less authority and wealth have more input in their life that gives them reason to doubt and fret.[1]
PD: People lamenting their smartness: 355 comments and counting. Predictably catnip subject.
PDD: It is weird that for an IQ fetishist community where intelligence can solve most things, the only thing it cannot solve is your own contentment, as in it actively sabotages you. But why not? I’m not convinced.
[1] This is basically my vulgar understanding of standpoint epistemology.
[2] But note: sizeable minority. It’s not like I have numbers or anything, but I think there are plenty of people here who are cynical and pessimistic. Not as in, they are wrong. But due to intelligence or background they have reasons to doubt the great order of things. And this place has gotten more realistic/cynical (I say both) over the years. Still, this still is a hub for well paid US West Coast programmers.
This is one of those topics that everyone likes to have an opinion on, especially smart people :)
Folks that are smart also have a common set of medical conditions. This ranges from everyday annoying like insomnia, NCAH, EDS, IBS, and more to more life long ADHD, ASD, and Alzheimer's. I spent years researching the underlying genetics and how they are connected while working with a doctor to be able to take care of this group better. Being able to help so many fundamentally improve their life has given my life impact in a way that many things haven't. Often small things, but more than we as a society would like to admit, fundamentally changing their life for the better and in the long run helping to dramatically reduce their Alzheimer's risk.
Genetics is a compression system and re-uses stuff. Serotonin in the brain and the gut for example. The fact that we see overlap is both expected, but also a great way to decode what is going on. The fact that I can see their whole genome for under a grand is amazing. Combined with lab work and symptoms treatment has never been easier.
Intelligence can be broken down into a few different things. Starting with raw brain "stuff". Literally needing more brain stuff, faster brain stuff, etc. When I have given talks and walked through all of those mutations I can quickly draw your attention to the common pattern of what they are compensating and I can walk back through human dna several hundred thousand years talking about that, but that simply sets up the hardware. (A big AI model that is barely trained isn't great)
The other half is to keep trying, but trying something different and learn from what it tries. To do this the hormones result in someone who is more on edge, more sensitive to any change, etc. aka they are less happy.
While you can see this individually smart folks seek out each other, have kids and so you see this all together is a bit of a cop out. Long term evolution doesn't care about that. There is a fundamental basic biological systems problem that all of these are compensating for which brings up the how did humans even climb this ladder to begin with.
This heavily overlaps with AI models and at this point I have tools to rapidly convert from the brain and genetics related to intelligence to AI models You want bigger and better brains (more weights, etc) and you want to expose them to more data and you want to fine tune them etc.
A personal favorite topic is white boarding out why brains have ~4.7bit weights and why brains didn't go down to 2bits. I can show this both at the biological level, but quickly go to the information theory math on this.
There is also Williams syndrome aka "happy syndrome". Like anything you want to be able to articulate not just why some folks are sad, but why some are really happy.
This is a deep rabbit hole, didn't even touch on dreaming and many other topics that all influence this in their own way.
So why are smart people not happy? Sure there is always the outliers of bad environment and other causes, but more often than not the story can be found right in their genes and not one gene. Like everything it is more complex than anyone saying it is X.
This is a topic I have fallen into which heavily overlaps with AI for the obvious reasons. If any AI labs want a more detailed Friday afternoon talk on it feel free to reach out.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
Because we’re social animals and 84% of the population can’t do calculus or understand any meaningful statistics. It makes honest discussion and cooperation with the average person nearly impossible.
My secretary is absolutely clueless about maths and yet every interaction with her improves my mood, she is a lovely motherly 50something person who cheers you up every day.
Her being my colleague definitely makes me happier.
For me it's the lack of curiosity that makes me resentful of people. I can understand completely people are clueless about maths. But having no curiosity about anything seems to be so common in this country right now.
Can everyone afford to be curious though? I think being innately curious like cats is a double-edged sword. I think most people aren't privileged enough to explore their curiosities fully. Curiosity often costs much more than time when we take opportunity costs into account.
For example, I used to be much more curious about a lot of things but now that I'm stressed about my life, my priorities shifted.
It is true that K. is an open and inquisitive person.
Math is a thing of interest and time investment to better understand the world but it’s also got a IQ entry fee.
It happens everywhere.
She’s your secretary, she’s paid to be pleasant.
She is equally pleasant to everyone, including her kids, her friends and her neighbors. We have known each other for 10 years as amateur singers before I even employed her.
Your cynical view of reality is also extremely narrow and misleading. The world is more varied and colorful than you think.
She would have laughed you heartily for suggesting that she could simply wear different personalities to her work like clothes. This is precisely what highly emotional people struggle to achieve. On the rare occasion when she feels dejected or depressed (the kids, twins, are 16 and sometimes a handful), everyone around will definitely know.
It’s not cynical, you’re just over simplifying. Many of my family members are very bright and funny. I’m generally considered a funny person. It’s not an either/or. I mean, you’re kind of illustrating my point.