Might be useful to ask a different question: What makes people happy?
It's things like relationships, satisfying work, accomplishment. (and many, many more)
Then the real question emerges: How many of those happiness 'sources' are made better by intelligence? What percentage?
Relationships? Seems like no. Work? Also seems like no, lots of work doesn't make use of a high IQ that people enjoy nonetheless. Accomplishment? Strikes me as most likely of the three, but it's also very relative.
And another thought,
Asking why smart people aren't happier is a bit like asking why people who can jump high aren't more empathetic. There's no direct link between the two, you have to dip out to the material conditions. Like: someone who can jump high is fitter > fitter people are healthier > healthier people have more mental time to be empathetic with > people who can jump high are more empathetic.
For intelligence, we say smart people are happier. Same thing, happiness is not directly correlated. Instead: Smart people are better able to create the outcomes they want > They select outcomes that make them happy > Their environment makes them happy > Smart people are happier.
(These are illustrations of the idea, not actual logical chains or claims.)
As I heard someone say, happiness is your reality minus your expectations.
Smart people see more variables that could be changed, more components that could be modified, and are less likely to accept things as they are. This creates a false sense of ease by which reality could be modified, and thus higher expectations for the world around them.
I suspect this misplaces happiness and contentment, but the two are also very strongly correlated for many people.
I think smart people are told much more often as kids how bright of a future they have. So they build up expectations of "succeeding" in some sense (becoming a doctor, getting rich, etc.). These are the sort of expectations you mention in your quote. Not only is there often pressure put on you if you're smart, you adopt those expectations yourself. Or at least hold yourself to that standard. Of course, being smart doesn't automatically equal success, there are so many other factors. So people often fall short of expectations and feel shitty about themselves and are unhappy. Then there's also the fact that high achievers often hold themselves to unrealistic standards even if they "succeed", so they also struggle to be happy.
For me this has 100% been the main source of unhappiness in my life. I wish nobody had ever told me how smart I was as a child. The reality was that I was above average but in an unremarkable collection of kids mostly. I’ve done fine in life academically and career wise but I’ll never live up to the expectations that were planted in my head.
Thankfully you can get over this/yourself and let go of ego, ambition, achievement and all that unnecessary crap.
There is a HealthygamerGG video where he talks about gifted kids as special needs kids bc of this factor. I found it really enlightening. I definitely had to confront it in my own life.
There is also one where he talks about how about half of his suicidal patients are not delusional and don't have some mood disorder, but are correctly recognising that their lives objectively aren't worth living.
What's interesting to me is how all of it is true. You were and are in an elite tier, the measure is purely how we care to slice it.
Reminds me of the aphorism "whether you think you can or can't, you're right." I find this saying really insightful and true. Others may find it flippant and void of any meaning.
The sports analogy of what you shared is: "there are levels to this". At any given level-child, minor, high-school, college, division of college, semi-pro, overseas, pro, olympian, elite-pro, champion- it seems legitimate that the praise is bound to the context.
And getting to the next level requires more growth and effort to think it's even possible. Maybe you won't, but whether you think you can or can't...
I wouldn't have believed this at all till I met people who fell into that trap, after which I'm genuinely curious how common it is.
It's interesting how different personalities (innate or learned -- probably doesn't matter here) interact with the same stimuli. It's easy for some people to wholeheartedly believe authority figures telling them that being smart and hard-working is all it takes to succeed, and it's easy for others to recognize that those qualities are neither sufficient nor necessary. The externalized thinking our elders do for us no doubt shapes our lives, but the impact of that shaping is more personalized than I ever used to give it credit for.
It had some interesting ideas, and one of the things that stuck with me is the idea of your brain being a "difference engine" in that the variation is what matters. If we don't experience pain, we can't experience pleasure.
It seems a bit simplistic when stated that way, but I think there is something to it.
Another thing I have come to believe as I have aged is that our western (American especially) society places too much emphasis on happiness, in that we think happiness is (and should be) the prime goal of every human. I have come to believe that less and less, and think something like satisfaction, contentment, and purpose are much more important as life goals than happiness. Happiness is an important part of life, and is important for reaching the other goals I mentioned, but it is not the end goal (to me). I think most of us somewhat intuitively understand this, although our response is often to redefine what happiness is rather than concluding happiness isn't our end goal.
If happiness was everything, we would be much more accepting and encouraging towards hedonism than we are. A heroin addict who has a good clean supply and no responsibilities would be the ultimate dream life if we truly believed pure happiness was the most important thing.
You say "redefine what happiness is", but I'm not sure there's any "re"-definition necessary, it can just be about how you define it. I wouldn't say that the things you mention (satisfaction, purpose, etc.) are alternatives to happiness, but rather that they're particular forms of happiness. And maybe the hedonism of the heroin addict is another form.
I'm not entirely sure it's incorrect to say that the heroin addict's life isn't a valid and desirable form of happiness in theory. The problem is that in practice pursuing that type of happiness has a high risk of plunging into extreme unhappiness. The same might be said of various other forms of happiness that we see as at least somewhat less objectionable. For instance, people who do BASE jumping may find a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment from doing it, but still many people might view that skeptically as a path to happiness, because again it has high risks of bad outcomes.
I tend to think in terms of aiming for what I call "robust happiness", which means a form of happiness that's resistant to changes in circumstance, and in particular to the awareness of other people's happiness. When you're happy in a way where you can look at other people being happy and not wish to have their life or their form of happiness instead of yours, your happiness is robust in a certain sense.
>It seems a bit simplistic when stated that way, but I think there is something to it.
I think this is pretty uncontroversial and you can observe it everywhere. Even in music, if you want the beat to hit harder, take it away for a short period, and when you bring it back it will feel like it hits harder and with more energy even though it's exactly the same volume as it was before.
Though it doesn't really explain how some people are continuously more or less happy. If the brain only cared about change, you could only ever be an average amount happy. Clearly something about continuous discontent and negativity still impacts you even if it might dull.
What I struggle with is that it’s hard to derive meaning from purpose when the best I can hope for is improving the lives of others until they are at the same level of comfort as me: struggling to find meaning and happiness.
We can all derive purpose from trying to improve eachothers lives, but if none of us end up happy, what makes that work actually meaningfull?
At some point we need something that is good in and off itself. That’s what happiness is meant to be I think
Polymaths in particular could be good or great at many things. It’s a matter of choice and opportunity. But they can’t be great at absolutely everything. So one choice closes another. And the grass is greener on the other side.
"Smart" tends to be used such that includes intelligence (rate of learning) and knowledge (how much is known).
Satisfaction comes from accepting what is outside our control (accurate expectations), and making continuous progress/improvement on what is within our control (our own perceptions and actions).
Intelligence and knowledge maybe don't correlate as much with wisdom as one would expect. I have met people who learn slow and don't know much but are very wise, and satisfied.
Lastly, happiness is always fleeting. Happiness can't be enduring, but it can be blocked by ego and high expectations. Satisfaction can be enduring, but correlates with virtuous actions, not intelligence.
That's a good quote, but it suggests that unhappy people are those who overthink and have unrealistic expectations, whereas truly happy people have expectations that match their reality. so in the end, maybe smart people are those who are better at setting their expectations compared to others (maybe more ambitious type A folk)
> whereas truly happy people have expectations that match their reality
By your hypothesis people who are poor, at the bottom of society, and told that they have no chance in life are the most happy ones.
Additionally, it imples that a great way to make people happy is to brainwash them all the time that they have no chance in life, and additionally suppress them so that their expectations match their reality.
This whole idea feels deeply wrong and dystopian to me.
Computers are just electrons moving. Biology is just phyics. See how little that explains?
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, even if it's still encoded in the parts.
I get the sentiment though. Happiness is a mix of the right hormones firing, so the question is: how does intelligence affect different types of hormones, if at all. Given how sensitive our hormones are, it would be difficult to control only for “intelligence”.
By that logic, "How does loved one dying affect different type of hormones, if at all. Given how sensitive our hormones are, it would be difficult to control only for 'loss of a loved one'".
If you have depression or another condition affecting your affect and your emotions, sure. Otherwise it's pretty obvious to anyone that concepts on orders of magnitude higher levels than hormones being correlated with happiness, or if you prefer, those concepts having a significant effect on the overall action of those hormones.
Putting aside that they are not optimized but just happen to have an effect, would you claim that these are the only things that affect happiness/its relevant chemicals?
I'm sorry, but I don't think that makes sense, and that it's pretty obvious that it doesn't.
I don't have experience with cocaine, but as a Bavarian I made plenty of experience with alcohol. I've never been addicted, but I had my fair share of Oktoberfest and beer garden visits. And yet you don't see my optimizing my life around it. In fact, nowadays I have a drink every few months at best, simply because most of my hobbies don't work well with alcohol.
As for cocaine: As I said, no experience, but it appears to me that even very wealthy people who probably consume it also still do other things in life, despite not having to for income etc.
The widely held notion that happiness (or lack thereof) is simply the result of chemical (im)balances is one of the greatest PR victories of the pharmaceutical industry.
Happiness chemicals are the end result, and end result we cannot cause directly, anyway. What leads you there, how the process involves your particular brain and environment, and how it acts as a feedback loop are a higher concern.
Even if one day you could just squirt the cocktail directly into your receptors or otherwise trick them, there's more to happiness as a part of life than turning yourself into a vegetable, but I digress.
Are you not aware that many psych drugs that modify brain chemistry fail to work for people? Even when they are tested to have adequate or high levels?
chemicals are released by one part of the brain and interpreted by another. the parts of the brain that release those chemicals release it when that part of the brain is stimulated. this kind of mental stimulation can be heavily reliant on quality of life.
> Asking why smart people aren't happier is a bit like asking why people who can jump high aren't more empathetic. There's no direct link between the two, you have to dip out to the material conditions.
I think the reason to expect a correlation is simple: Intelligence should produce a better ability to recognize patterns and identify the most useful ones. In a chaotic world, the things that can lead to a desired outcome are not always clear. It takes time and reasoning to cut through the noise and figure out how to get things done. There is absolutely a reason to suspect that reasoning faster and abstractly would make this easier, and thus produce more overall rewards.
Anytime intelligence is not associated with something, I interpret that to mean the topic is likely not a "hard" min/max problem.
Turns out, most of the human aspect of life is not a hard min/max problem.
"Asking why smart people aren't happier is a bit like asking why people who can jump high aren't more empathetic. There's no direct link between the two"
- I disagree. If we consider happiness, as we should, as something that can be achieved and not simply granted (for example, the ability to walk is granted, it is not something that humans, apart from pathologies and special cases, have to develop through conscious effort), there should be a positive correlation between intelligence and happiness.
To jump higher than you currently can, assuming there is no coach to develop a program, you need to understand what the limiting factors are and train to improve the functioning of the “mechanism,” for example, by losing weight, increasing maximum and explosive strength, using the correct jumping technique, etc.
I believe that often the most intelligent people tend to enjoy thinking more than doing, and thinking too much does not lead to being happier or jumping higher. The limiting factor, more often than not, is not thinking, assuming sufficient intelligence, but the execution part.
I remember reading on Twitter a few years ago about an academic researcher explaining how they had come to the conclusion that exercise would improve their quality of life. They cited a series of articles, reasoned in terms of life expectancy and biomarkers, and concluded that exercise would be a net positive factor in their lives. A lot of neurotic reasoning that needs to quibble over the obvious before taking action.
I agree with this. I quibble with the wording "enjoy" thinking. It's probably also true, but it's not always the enjoyment of it, but a general propensity to overthink or dig into the weeds more, with the resulting less actual doing.
And if you dig into the weeds enough, you can find alternatives and counterarguments which can lead to analysis paralysis.
I add that most problems are solved, assuming possessing the average (maybe even sub-average) intelligence needed to execute on them.
Think about weight loss: it's a solved problem, except in extremely rare cases of particular pathologies. Or think about being more attractive to the people we want to attract.
But you can't help but notice that the smartest people are the ones who invoke the laws of thermodynamics and the problems that arise from them, that a calorie is not a calorie in humans, for example, instead of simply eating less, as many less intelligent people intuitively know they should do, and do.
The most intelligent are those who refer to the findings of evolutionary biology, or to largely irrelevant social trends and mores, when pondering why they cannot get laid, instead of working to be more assertive, confident, outgoing, and fit, as the less intelligent are more likely to do, without thinking about it too much.
Or the endless conversations and debates, mostly online because in real life basically nobody cares, about God and religion and atheism, leading, as usual, to nowhere, while the less intelligent intuitively believe or not and that works for them.
As usual, there are selection effects at play, and we notice what we want to notice, ignoring, for the most part, other portions of the distribution of outcomes.
Nowadays, it is fashionable to say "you can just do things". And what some of the intelligent people miss is that they can just be happy. "But how can I be happy if nobody looks at me?" -- See above.
I can tell you I do not enjoy thinking. I hate it. It is a compulsion that I cannot avoid. I know that it makes most interactions in my life more difficult. I know it's a source of unhappiness. I cannot stop thinking.
I want to do. Not think. I fail to do. I think about failure.
Two things. First, not all smart people are overthinkers and not all overthinkers are smart.
Second, I find that a great way to change one's self-damaging behavior is, rather than the therapy that is often recommended, to try to be as much as possible, relatively speaking, in the company of people who behave the way we would like to.
For the person who wants to exercise, but for some psychological hang-ups, can't, the company of people who exercise tends to be much more effective than finding out the root causes of the behavior. The same for thinking too much, eating too much, not being able to talk to other people.
You could also say that the hedonic treadmill runs faster. Getting a result that takes a smart person a day instead of lets say a week means repeating that 7 times (successfully) to feel like the week was well spent.
> Might be useful to ask a different question: What makes people happy?
This is the age old question. For me at least, the quest for meaning lead me to reason. Reason and logic, then led me to two choices. First is there is no meaning, no purpose, and life is what you make or not make of it; this is more commonly known as nihilism. The second choice is a literal leap of faith; this argues that humans are incapable of understanding of the purpose of life and we need to have faith in the existence of a benevolent God. The leap of faith ultimately leads me back to the question of what is God? Catholic tradition defines God as the source of caritas also known as agape.
It might be the case that the nuance is insufficient (false dichotomy).
Suppose someone asks the [emotionally loaded] question:
"Is abortion wrong?"
Technically this is a yes or no question; a binary.
One can quite easily answer that it depends, and then all the nuances can try to be enumerated in more detail. The fact is that the information presented was not actually nuanced enough to answer yes or no despite being worded as such.
You performed some similar gymnastics here. You assume it must be the case that it is one or the other when it may not be. Maybe meaning is local. Maybe it is real but subjective. Maybe it isn't a meaningful term (lol). Maybe it contains an intrinsic paradox!
A perhaps alternative question might be: "What is it that wishes to know the answer to that question?"
Figuring that out might be a necessary prerequisite.
Reason and logic lead you to only two choices, where one choice immediately begs you to abandon reason and logic and just believe what feels right? I think reason and logic can take you further than that. We can explore a spectrum of ideas without committing immediately.
> It's things like relationships, satisfying work, accomplishment. (and many, many more)
Thats absolutely wrong and this is the reason why nothing works and being happy became and endless quest in the western culture.
In the eastern spiritual tradition they found the exact ways of managing body, mind, emotions and energy to reach highest peaks of bliss and ecstasy, and I speak from my own experience, its possible to feel so good that no amount of money, relationships, fame, power, whatever other things you can imagine will make you ever feel.
Because the real thing is happening inside, all the outside things you use to try to provoke inner experience, but it only works for a little bit.
Technically, it's hormones. What makes brains produce them is the perceptions of external world, but the details are different for every culture and then different for every individual.
Now, proverbially, more knowledge brings more sadness^W stress, so perceptive people must have extra hurdles to overcome than blissfully ignorant ones.
> How many of those happiness 'sources' are made better by intelligence?
Well, theoretically all of them, depending on how you define "intelligence" and, oh boy, if the last 3-ish years have taught me anything, it's definitely not that.
>Asking why smart people aren't happier is a bit like asking why people who can jump high aren't more empathetic.
I laughed at this. However, I have to slightly disagree. I think there is a connection. I find the smarter people I know are actually happy, but they tend to be people who read books, who follow the news, and who care about the world at large and that is something that can easily make you sad. I'm not saying you need to be extra smart to do those things, I'm saying that smart people tend to do those things more than others.
This is an interesting hypothesis, but I don't buy it. I'm pretty confident that "smart" people are also good at solving poorly specified problems. One good example might be, "How do I start a successful company?" There's plenty of evidence that intelligence correlates to ability there.
I think the answer is simpler. The introduction basically asks, if smarter people are better at planning and solving problems, why can't they make the choices that will make them happy? And the answer is that humans have evolved to maintain a relatively stable level of long-term happiness, assuming their basic needs are met, essentially regardless of other factors. Getting what you want can provide a short-term boost, but you quickly adapt. Likewise if you suffer a setback, assuming it doesn't permanently impact your ability to meet basic needs, you adapt. Presumably this is because if people permanently became too blissful, they would lose their drive to strive for more resources and mating opportunities. Likewise if someone is depressed. So evolution has tuned us to a middle ground. Intelligence may allow one to understand this, and maybe even to accept it, but not to somehow think their way out of it.
"Smart" tends to be used in a way that includes intelligence (rate of learning) and knowledge (how much is known).
Satisfaction comes from accepting what is outside our control (accurate expectations), and making continuous progress/improvement on the parts of our reality that are within our control (our own perceptions and actions).
Intelligence and knowledge maybe don't correlate as much with wisdom as one would expect. I have met people who learn slow and don't know much but are very wise, and satisfied.
Lastly, happiness is always fleeting. Happiness can't be enduring, but it can be blocked by ego and high expectations. Satisfaction can be enduring, but correlates with virtuous actions, not intelligence.
I think beyond a certain level surplus IQ begins to cause problems. While still useful, the amount of self-sabotage and thought spirals the brain can generate with the extra power can cause neuroses and unhappiness on a larger scale than those less intelligent are capable of. Combine it with higher societal expectations and it's no great mystery to me why smarter people seem unhappier.
Just my thoughts anyways. I'm a dev, not a psychologist.
In the Bay Area, I feel surrounded by such people. They solve imaginary problems to get a promotion. But they are competing with thousands of other, equally smart people, to also get promotions. So it's non-stop change for no reason, and wasting resources.
Sportsmen compete in imaginary competitions with equally physially gifted people just to win a prize. And yet, many are fulfilled by it. For some people, competing is what drives them.
Yes, but then you know it's a game, so there's no self-deception that you're actually doing something meaningful. This realization thus gives the whole sportsmanship concept.
Can be argued that there is intuitive satisfaction/pleasure/utility that spectators gain from watching sports competitions. The payoff is a lot more obvious/instant. Whereas with a lot of tech these days, what needle are we really moving? Are people truly happier scrolling for two hours, compared with watching an edge-of-seat soccer game?
Found the treadmill runner whose self worth is defined by their job title.
Lol
We’re not judging you because you want a promotion. We’re judging you because you selfishly make a ton of work for everyone else so you can feel better about your pointless life.
Not true at all: 1) more intelligent people are happier (author of the blogpost cherrypicked 2 studies, one of which in fact showed that iq is positively correlated with hapiness. 2) IQ negatively correlates with neuroticism. 3) In fact IQ correlates positively with almost every positive facet of human experience - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2212794120
This has been a somewhat popular line of thought in internet circles for a while and I'm inclined to agree. I also believe the threshold past which these problems begin to crop up may be considerably lower than commonly thought… One doesn't need to be a chart topper to fall into these cognitive patterns.
That said, it probably doesn't need to be this way and I would suggest that the root issue lies with the way that modern society is structured. It's not really optimizing for happiness on any level, which is greatly exacerbated when one has the mental acuity to zoom out and see the bigger picture.
>> which is greatly exacerbated when one has the mental acuity to zoom out and see the bigger picture.
Do you think this comes with age, or are some people born with the ability regardless of age to see the bigger picture?
For myself, I just plodded along through high school and then things started to click more when I was in college, contemplating life in the real world. Many of my classmates in HS seemed to have the majority of their lives planned out already while I was just content to play sports, chase girls and learn about computers.
I’m quite close to being “over the hill” as it were.
I remember being in an honors chem midterm and distinctly thinking “my grade on this test will directly impact my overall grade in this class and have a direct impact on my GPA, which will affect my college selection, and my overall net worth.”
The test wasn’t nearly as stressful as that thought.
I think it’s one of those things that varies wildly from person to person.
In my case, I was almost completely unconcerned about anything except my hobbies/interests in high school and didn’t have the foggiest clue about where I might be headed. It wasn’t without its stressors but overall it was a carefree time. It was maybe some time about halfway through college when reality began to sink in and that all changed. The ability to zoom out might’ve been present early on but if it was, it didn’t kick in until a threshold of some sort had been reached.
Huh, I feel like you both changed topics midstream there?
I took your earlier post as saying that the ability to see the bigger picture leads to neurosis and unhappiness. But in replies, you're both talking like that ability lets someone figure out the game and solve for more happiness...?
Going back upstream, I'd say that the ability to "see the big picture" is not well defined. Part of it is abstraction and part of it is systems thinking and knowledge about additional activities going on in your world.
And, I think these are mostly orthogonal to a happiness. Your emotional disposition can cause you to see a very different valence in the same systems view.
> I took your earlier post as saying that the ability to see the bigger picture leads to neurosis and unhappiness.
Yes, that was the intention. What I perhaps failed to convey in my last reply is that simply having the mental capacity to “zoom out” on its own doesn’t mean that the individual in question is actually doing that, and that some other secondary condition (such as life experience or knowledge) is required. In my anecdote, I was missing some requirement until halfway through college.
> Going back upstream, I'd say that the ability to "see the big picture" is not well defined. Part of it is abstraction and part of it is systems thinking and knowledge about additional activities going on in your world.
> And, I think these are mostly orthogonal to a happiness. Your emotional disposition can cause you to see a very different valence in the same systems view.
I don’t think the two are entirely unrelated. I would expect that someone who’s more cerebral is going to be less influenced by their disposition, and in the case of someone stuck in a negative mental loop their disposition could be shifted if the loop goes unaddressed for too long.
I feel like high intelligence is crippling itself, the more intelligent you are and the more issues to solve you find and the more conscious of your environment you become, awaking you to new sets of information and again, new sets of issues.
This overflow might contribute to less happiness as a result.
Same thing, not a psychologist, just some thoughts.
I agree. I know a guy who is just brilliantly smart but he can get caught up in ruminating or "thought spirals" as you say and is constantly imagining all the ways things can go wrong and is therefore afraid to take any risks or start anything new.
Or, you could just ask "Why aren't people happy?". I don't see how IQ could make you happier. Smart people are not as smart as they think, they usually perform better because they're overspecialized.
Now, emotional intelligence, that would greatly influece your happiness. The hurdles you're talking about are emotional, not intellectual.
usually when people talk about emotional intelligence, they mean Big 5 Agreeableness plus Openness, which can be measured. If your hypothesis is correct there should be data on the potential correlation between those traits and self reported happiness
There is a lot of data on the Big Five and correlation with subjective well being (self reported happiness).
Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness are all strong predictors of higher life satisfaction and positive emotions. High levels of neuroticism are strongly associated with lower life satisfaction, and openness is mostly neutral.
- There is a strong positive correlation between "Openness" and IQ (some people even claim that "Openness" is actually some weak version of an IQ test)
- There is a small negative correlation between "Extraversion" and IQ
The other three Big 5 traits are basically independent of IQ.
> I think beyond a certain level surplus IQ begins to cause problems.
YES, with an emphasis on the idea of "surplus IQ". If you are similarly blessed with high EQ, great social skills, athletic talent, etc. - not much of a problem. Vs. if you're nothing special (or worse) in some of those other areas, while having a metaphorical Mjölnir in your IQ toolbox - Big Problems. "Solve it with IQ" becomes your go-to strategy in far too many situations, you tend let other skills type atrophy...and treating everything as a metaphorical nail really doesn't work well.
Anecdotally, expectations and identity (through narcissism) do a lot of the lifting. When we see ourselves as "smart" while still being emotionally immature, then falling short of certain signals and accomplishments we project on that is thought to be tantamount to being a failure.
What should be impressed upon us far earlier is that our actions dictate our identity. If they are in harmony with your real desires, as opposed to surrogate desires, you'll be happier.
As I said in another comment, I think the expectations and probably parts of the narcissism are definitely on the "nurture" side. Smarter people are noticed in school and told how bright their future is. They're not as often told how hard they need to work for that bright future. This sets up expectations of success without developing all the tools needed besides raw intelligence.
A properly disciplined person is capable of great things according to the measure of his intellectual power and his discipline. However, without discipline, that extra horsepower can be a force multiplier for error, and more intricate rationalizations can make it easy to lodge yourself in a web of false justifications.
This is one reason why the ancients and the medievals always emphasized the importance of the virtues. Intelligence is just potential. What we want is knowledge and ultimately wisdom. But there is no wisdom without virtue. Without virtue, a man is deficient and corrupt. His intellect is darkened. His mental operations dishonest. His hold on reality deformed. Virtue is freedom; a man of vice is not free, but lorded over by each vice that wounds him and holds him hostage. His intellect is not free to operate properly. Good actions are strangled and stifled, because his intentions are corrupt, because his impure will cripples and twists the operations of his intellect, because his vices dominate him and cause disintegration.
- Happiness is fixed, perhaps. Short-term, it isn't (coke and hookers work!). Long-term, it is. People fall back to a baseline. So then, being smart doesn't help you.
- Dumb people might be misreporting their happiness. So smart people are making themselves happier, but all the studies are done on self-reported happiness, and the dumb people report that they are happier than they really are.
- There's a difference between intelligence and wisdom: if you're intelligent, you have good models. If you're wise, you make good decisions. You might think that you need to be intelligent to be wise, but you also need wisdom to navigate uncertainty, ie you need to exercise your decision making for when you don't have a good model. Dumb people have to do this a lot.
- It may just be that you can make yourself happier, but being intelligent doesn't give you differential access to the levers that you need. Eg to be happy maybe you need an active social life. Well, there's no particular reason having high IQ would help that. We generally have a tendency to think that IQ is a kind of magic substance that can do anything, but why would that be?
- Being smart could actively harm your happiness. I told my kid he needed to wait for his friends to grow up, they will stop only caring about football (luckily the prophesy came true and they are having a great time in their little nerd group). Another friend has the same problem with his kid, they just don't have the social ties available yet. BTW, I really do think there's something to this one, you need the social side to be happy. There's a few HN people who also give me that "finally found my tribe" vibe when they write. I met a guy on the train who saw me coding, and he had the same story.
> To a large extent you get to decide which universe you live in.
It's a naïve view of the spectrum of human experience.
I'm a believer in the HSP theory. Some of us are wired to feel things more strongly at a low level. There's only so much the thinking part of the brain can do before getting completely exhausted and overwhelmed.
Not to mention the vast difference in life experiences. From the yuppie that has everything in life, to the person from a broken home who had to fight for everything. Or simply someone that has children vs the childless adult.
I have friends who are like what you describe. From my pov, they seem to lack much depth of emotion at all. And they don't even realise it. But I think it's also just how each of us are.
> It really is wild the degree to which you can simply dictate your own mood.
This is not a universally true experience, and it's sometimes even hard for me to believe that there are people like you out there who are able to change their mood just by thinking differently. My own experience is that doing that is about as helpful as thinking differently about how hungry I am works to sate my hunger. I can ignore it to some extent, but it doesn't change in kind.
Ah come on that’s not what they’re talking about. Feeling a bit down — sure some upbeat music may nudge you out of it, but loss like losing people isn’t being fixed with a mixtape.
There is no "should". Everyone grieves differently. Whats right for GP commenter isn't necessarily right for you.
That said, what do you want to optimize for? Time spent grieving? Money spent on the funeral(s)? Money spent on therapy? Time spent in therapy? Lack of having to change as a person? Having to change as a person? Grieving "correctly"? (to reiterate from above there is no right way, but some people think if they're not doing it "right" there's something wrong with them.)
Just not killing yourself from the pain of it all in the next 5 years?
Honoring their lifes properly? Doing a good job of stepping into your new role in your family? Getting revenge for some transgression you can no longer tell them they did to you?
IDK if it's evidence based (or up to your standards), but i've heard gratitude practices, cardiovascular exercise, gut biome are 3 of many potential interventions?
What do you mean on baseline? Generally speaking, I’m definitely less happy post COVID, than before 2020. I met the first utterly broken, toxic person in my life, whom I allowed to hurt me. This is on top of all the bat shit crazy things happened with me that year, and not just because of COVID. I’m a different person since then. My baseline definitely moved, as I mean.
Intelligent people are also pretty ambitious in my experience. More ambition raises the risk of failure and failing doesn’t generate the feeling of happiness. I know many smart people absolutely terrified of failure to the point they take meds for it and I know a handful who are emotionally crippled by failing at something 20 years ago. Smart people and failure do not mix.
Interesting essay. But it attributes something magical (ability to solve undefined problems) to humans and says that AI doesn't have it.
It seems pretty meaningless and not engaging with the real problem to say that AI doesn't "actually" write movie scripts or paint pictures. Like this doesn't line up with my definitions for doing those things which AI clearly fulfills.
And human intelligence arises from a well defined problem: maximizing f(environment, self) -> babies.
Also: if it were possible to measure, which it isn't, I strongly suspect that ability to solve well-defined problems and ability to solve poorly-defined problems are highly correlated, not totally uncorrelated. Happiness is a poorly defined problem, but it's just one of many, and has its own pile of things to consider that can isolate it from the general ability to solve poorly-defined problems.
I do like the framing. seems to be describing something similar to Goodhart's Law.
First, being intelligent (as defined in the article) doesn't relate to being happy. There is nothing inherent about being intelligent that means happy.
Second, our society spends a lot of time shaping culture and people to extract value from them. For example, the focus on "more" rather than "enough". We are shaped to always desire more and never be content with what we have. Even intelligent people are shaped by this. Consider the fall in terms of people who have hobbies.
In the 1920's of the US the idea of making people not content to stimulate buying gained popularity. This is still used today. The culture is directed at making people not satisfied. It's hard to go against the grain of society.
That wasn’t a new idea. It’s not even restricted to humans.
Competing for mates is one of the basic mechanisms in evolution, seen in many animals. Instead of fighting the tribal leader or whomever to display fitness, humans came up with a less violent solution, which manifests itself in the ability to buy things.
> Second, our society spends a lot of time shaping culture and people to extract value from them.
The usual trope here is that smarter people recognize this and see through the cage, leading to less overall happiness vs. "ignorance is bliss" where you don't recognize you are in a cage at all.
It's just that though, a trope. I'd argue happiness is more determined by emotional intelligence than anything, which an IQ test isn't going to measure.
Second, our society spends a lot of time shaping culture and people to extract value from them.
More than that, society spends an increasing amount of time and money trying to convince people that they should be mad at each other for arbitrary reasons. I don't think this has much to do with intelligence, though.
See recently: Andrew Cuomo's racist AI-generated mayoral ad & Trump's AI generated truth post where he shits on Americans. It's hard to have a general feeling of happiness when the people with money & power in this world feel the need to go out of their way to spread their disdain for me because of how I look, what I do for a living, or the fact that I wasn't born into wealth.
People are more often trying to avoid being unhappy than trying to be happy. People who prioritize doing things that make them happy are called drug addicts usually.
Intelligence isn't the same thing as happiness, but it could be correlated, because if IQ does measure generalized problem-solving ability, as it seems to, then smart people could apply themselves to the problem of happiness and have more success than average in it. Then the question is "why don't they"? As you indicated, one reason may be that there's not much encouragement to, because as a society we're still in "rat race" mode.
The upshot is that society also values that we create value. Doing things that others find valuable can foster a sense of meaning and belonging.
What you touched on is desire (see: hedonistic treadmill), and while that can be inflamed by messaging in society, it transcends any given society. If we didn't have desires, we wouldn't suffer for art or create great things. Tautologically, manifesting changes like that necessitate dissatisfaction with status quo.
It’s because everyone else is dumber than them…. So they constantly see avoidable mistakes and misunderstandings that could have been avoided…. Yet they cannot make the other people understand….because they think differently about it, and the people who don’t have that intelligence will not necessarily even be able to reorient their brains for the new information to be absorbed correctly.
I constantly get demoralized by stupid people….. it’s truly horrific. It’s a disability as far as I can see…I am disabled by others stupidity….
You just sound like a misanthrope. If you’re so smart, why are you surrounding yourself with stupid people? Is it possible you’re not as smart as you think, and in fact, just as fallible as the rest of us?
or maybe they have spent time with some really brilliant people and they know they are not brilliant, but they also know they are not as dumb as the person they are talking to? they don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I recently encountered someone who spoke like this and I researched what might be the issue.
I came across narcissism. The idea that you’re smarter than everyone else. Comes from a grandiose sense of self importance. But the truth is most people are smarter than you in some ways and less smart in others, but you’re unable to see it because you’re in this black and white mode where preserving your ego relies on you being the smart guy amongst the idiots.
It’s very common in tech to see this. Maybe because we were all exceptional at maths when we were young and got the idea that meant we were super smart and this compensated for our nerdiness.
I worked with a bunch of physicists and every single one of them was smarter than me at maths and physics, I wasn’t even close. But they sometimes talked about politics and current affairs, which I’m very well read in. I didn’t say anything, but I was shocked at how little they knew and how overconfident they were.
None of those folks were narcissists, thankfully they were lovely people, but for sure it highlighted how poor people were at judging their own expertise in an area.
It’s so easy to dismiss people, criticising is easy, and so hard to see just how stupid you can be yourself.
9 out of 10, people around you will take advantage of you for most of your career. You will grow resentful and lose motivation. And basically the core driver of your happiness will slowly fade. I’ve seen it happen too many times.
People sometimes describe me as a "golden retriever." I.E., I present as quite upbeat. 50% of that is just nervous energy, but the rest might just lie in having a poor memory. I can experience something quite negative, even traumatic, and basically forget about it once it goes away.
Still, I used to experience periods of intense negative emotions which basically stopped when I started taking meds. I think, as time goes on, the nervous energy that made me seem like a "golden retriever" has probably decreased, but I'm still, underneath, a pretty happy guy.
I have found that partly, happiness is greatly helped along by just not remembering, or not thinking about, the things that make you miserable. On a Buddhist level, just living in the moment you are in, surrounded by the things and situations you are in, without dwelling on the past or worrying about the future, lets you be much less miserable than you could be. Often, the place you are in right now isn't that bad.
"happy" seems like a temporary state. It's a reaction you have to an event. In base state without any input, you would be neither happy nor unhappy. Then something happens and if you like it you're happy about it for a while and if you don't like it you're unhappy about it for a while and then you go back to being neutral. It seems like the wrong question to ask to expect people to just walk around "happy" 24/7 for no reason.
Questions like this are basically just noise. If you ask someone whether they are happy with their life overall, it will depend on whatever most recently happened and how they feel about it. Being smart doesn't mean nothing unhappy is ever going to happen to you. You'll still fail at something, pets and loved ones will die, you'll get laid off or whatever.
Enlightened take. For similar reasons I often say that going meta and fussing about your own happiness--literally basing your happiness on whether you are happy--is a doom spiral. If you're asking yourself "Am I happy?" I can give you the answer: No.
I think firstly, we should figure out what exactly we mean by happier. If we eliminate things like being more content, satisfied, at peace and so on, happiness is a surprisingly ephemeral thing to try to define.
Is it a long term feeling, or a short term one. Many long term feeling of happiness are covered by peace, contentment etc. If we consider short term feelings of happiness, I think smart people have just as many of those.
And that's all without diving into the rabbit hole that is defining what smart is. Is it doing well on an IQ test, is it making the best decisions for long term future outcomes based on your current situation, is it being able to hold more complex thoughts than others can and draw logical conclusions from them, is it being able to interact with other people and either get them to do what you want, or get them to do what will benefit them the most but they are resisting.
The simple 5 word question is, on some level, so complex as to be almost meaningless and without merit. Except to make stupid people feel better about being stupid because they can think "Well, I may not be smart, but I'm happy", although the most unhappy people I have ever met have mostly correlated with the most stupid ones.
Are smart people even fulfilled ? How many smart people work on industries they can't wait to quit ? On problems they don't even care ?
I feel like everyone within 2-standard division of the IQ mean is still susceptible to the never-ending that being rich and having money is all that matters instead of, I don't know, supporting life on the only habitable planet we know.
What drives us to that model? Greedy rich people who want more and will exploit whoever they can to increase their material riches and power. Oh, and the rest of us allowing that.
We humans are never happy. We might be content for a while, but that is it.
Smart people see farther than the end of their noses, and so they can effectively project out into the future, and that future always involves work and hardship, and neither of those things brings happiness.
Smart people also know that happiness is a mere moment, not a state one can be in. You have it, and then it is gone. It's like trying to grasp smoke to save it for later.
Because we're intersubjective beings. Difference in intelligence level alienates one from the other. Past two standard deviations, anything like a "meeting of minds" becomes impossible. The only mutual interactions past that delta are economic ones (money exchanged for goods/services).
Hegel declared the Cartesian cognito can't exist in the singular. Lacan, Deleuze, Husserl, and many others said the same, that the subject is a function of its dialectic with the other. Dasein is Mitsein. There is no complete subject, floating in space by himself. Without an other, the subject cannot exist, at best becoming an object, at worst psychotic. Either way, isolation is a process towards annihilation.
If you're smart, find other smart people for authentic interaction. Likewise if you're not smart, though the problem there is easier for statistical reasons. Find them, turn off your parasocial pacifiers, and talk. You'll know it when you've found someone compatible, because you'll be able to emulate their mind, and they yours. It's not just a nice to have, but a need, a necessary component for survival. Without it, the sane you will cease to be, replaced by a zombie or a madman.
I read a lot more sci-fi / fantasy compared to other people. Sometimes 5-10 books a week in high school when others wouldn't touch a book unless they had to (and this was before the internet was generally accessible!). Maybe that's a lot less than others here.
I have read about a lot of (fictional) societies that make many decisions, some good, some bad, but usually somewhat well-reasoned. And then you realize that the average person voting/making a decision is either "ok, that's what the tv says" or "god told me so" or "I am mad at XYZ" or "I don't actually care" with no long-term thought or planning.
I think we all have an idea of, based on our current situation, our expected level of happiness 1 year, 5 years, 25 years from now if things continue in a similar manner, etc,
Nov 5, 2024 dropped my "expected level of happiness" for various times in the future by a LOT. I don't think the happiest day of 2025 has been as happy as an average day of 2024 (pre Nov 5).
> the average person voting/making a decision is either "ok, that's what the tv says" or "god told me so" or "I am mad at XYZ" or "I don't actually care" with no long-term thought or planning.
Unfortunately, this is true. Lots of people make decisions just by gut feel.
Because there are lots of stupid people around them that make life miserable for everybody, not only themselves ! Note: I wrote this comment after reading just the title...
You should definitely read the article, it's pretty good. That said, I'd say it's not the stupid that make life miserable for everyone else, it's the smart people that were born earlier. A smart person with power sets rules to benefit themselves. They may or may not care about what happens after they die. Those that care will almost certainly want to advantage their descendants and friends. Enough iterations on this same pattern and you get the kafkaesque and at times idiotic modern society.
I disagree, I think it's more about a person's emotion intelligence. You can choose to be happy even if everyone else around you is not. It might not be easy, but I think it's possible.
Totally agree. One might require to be "in their head" a lot of the time to not get swung down, and enjoy himself such as laughing at his own jokes. To make it possible, one has to be free enough to express oneself (also internally). But freedom of thought and action is on the decline as I've come to observe lately, but that's another topic.
> Google “smartest people in the world” and most of the results will be physicists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and chess masters.
Clearly not chess masters.
---
> poorly defined problems [are also] everyday questions like [...] “how do you figure out what to do today.”
I think that I do have a sensible answer to this question, but the problem rather is that my answer is very different from what I am obliged by society to do. I can easily believe that a less intelligent person would not immediately see this discrepancy, and thus be happier.
---
Concerning
> Christopher Langan, a guy who can score eye-popping numbers on IQ tests, believes that 9/11 was an inside job
and
> they’re still unable to solve basic but poorly defined problems like “maintain a basic grip on reality”
Being intelligent does not mean that that you have the same "trust anchor of truth" as many other people in society have, even if you assume that they are perfectly rationally thinking people (and I personally believe that being very smart and being a rationalist are only loosely correlated (you must be somewhat smart to be a rationalist, but the other direction (smart people are very rationalist) in my experience does not hold)).
They do say "Maybe our tests are bad." and then talk about the intelligence side of the tests. I wonder if maybe the other tests are bad, or smart people tend to answer those tests different?
That is, maybe it's not the intelligence tests that are bad, but the surveys (or are they tests?) that measure happiness are more responsible for those differences? Do "smart" people just answer more honestly? Or maybe the "not as smart" people do?
Yes, that's an OK take, no big deal. Also it can be added that life in itself really doesn't have a choice, on some level it just happens (thinking more about chemistry here).
I don't know if I would go that far without qualifiers. They definitely didn't do the same work load as many modern humans from pretty much all accounts, but that doesn't mean they always did things faster because they didn't need to.
Just for a modern example like painting a room, if im working as a painter as a job, paint is flying off my roller as fast as it can. But if im painting a room for myself, im likely working significantly slower and sedately and not wearing myself out over it. The same for doing other self-sufficient tasks like chopping wood, or washing or mending clothes, maintaining your home and property, or cooking a meal. As a modern job its super fast paced, for someone doing it for themselves without a clock or boss standing over their back they are going to go at a more leisured pace, and likely also enjoying the task far more which could partially count as leisure time. And even if you aren't a farmer and have a boss in those times, if your job was that much harder than a farmer you would likely just leave and find a farm to work on instead.
And of course some tasks are highly seasonal and can't be done at a real leisured pace, certain harvest and planting tasks. Of course those are only for short spurts, and we also have to consider the physical limitations of humans with poorer nutrition who literally could not do the same workload as a modern person. So even the rush at harvest time might be considered a slower pace than many modern jobs. Like a not very healthy by modern standards construction worker today likely has 8 inches height and significantly more muscle mass than the average farmer laborer from 1000 AD, just thanks to the diversity of their diet.
That's trivially false. Ancient people were always working, and we can see this in people who maintain primative lifestyles.
Take bread.
You start the oven at 4am. By 5am it is hot enough for your meats. By 7am extinguish, by 8am start your bread and go until 6-7pm. Now you get to start your dough for tomorrow, typically working until 11pm.
Historically bakers were known to sleep in flour hoppers as they were spared some of the heat of the ovens.
Ancient people _always_ worked. There was no leisure weekends, no afternoons off.
To me it sounds like you already partially contradicted yourself. Bakers sleeping while at work? That would never fly today even if you had literally nothing to do except wait for bread to rise.
Their hours away from home may be similar in many cases, but that doesn't mean they had as high of a workload or had to work as fast as the modern equivalent. Most of them were working for themselves, and set their own pace and rules. And working for yourself is a HUGE perk and often many people's dream scenario. Want to drink beer all day while you chop wood? Sure. Want to sing baudy ballads while you patch your roof? Go ahead. Hurt your wrist while pulling weeds or managing your copice? Go take an immediate break or maybe just come back the next day. And because 90% of the population did that, those expectations carried over into many other jobs because anyone could walk away and find some farm they could work on instead if they really wanted.
> To me it sounds like you already partially contradicted yourself. Bakers sleeping while at work? That would never fly today even if you had literally nothing to do except wait for bread to rise.
You're telling me, in a SF-based startup community, nobody has ever slept over-night at the office?
Someone has to do all the unpleasant work. In antiquity, that was generally the slaves. Today, it's everyone who isn't independently wealthy and wants more out of life than living out of a shopping cart.
And Greek festival days involved.. lots of food, baths had to be hot, etc. So someone has to run the event. It wasn't the common people getting a day off.
But 90% of the common people were farmers and were not bakers or bath tenders or vendors or the like so would be enjoying the day off. Although farmers didn't really need dedicated days off because their only schedule conflictions would be the main planting and harvest months, the festivals would just be a good way to bring all the farmers together at similar times to party and spend money or trade.
The article [1] spends a lot of words questioning what the results of intelligence tests mean, and none questioning what the answer to "How happy are you?" survey questions mean.
[1] I would write "the author", but sadly these days you can't take the existence of an author for granted
Leaving my long-term relationship was the best decision I ever made. It has been 3 years and it still makes me smile every day just realizing how much happier I am now.
To me, happiness is related more to gratitude than to intelligence. You could have very little and be happy and you can have a lot (money, friends, autonomy) and be miserable. The modern world has a lot of stressors but also a lot of things to be thankful for. It's the best time to be alive for humans so far.
I’m happy thanks to my parents. I was very frustrated as a kid and that would lead to outbursts and such. They taught* me to just let shit go. You can’t control other people or what they are able to understand.
If we define happiness as cognition of some reality being better than expected, smartness can affect both expectations and results (realities) and the difference is not correlated to smartness.
Sometimes, smartness can push up expectations beyond realities, resulting in lack of happiness which can be attributed to smartness, as a non-smart person would have appreciated and accepted the realities better.
> Since happiness is something we are aware of, it can be measured using self-report.
Well, there's your problem right there, you have no objective measure of "happiness." Smart people self-report happiness less. That doesn't mean they aren't as happy.
I only read the intro, and I don't think I can bare the rest of it. First, I think the premises is false. I think smarter people are happyer. Second, many people when they engage with pieces like this, expect that smarter people are unhappyer, which, yes, the article doesn't say this, but I feel it at least suggests it.
And last but not least, their study that says smart people are not happier doesn't really say that. It essentially says smart people are happier when not surrounded by stupid people.
> I have never been one of those who cares about happiness. Happiness is a strange notion. I am just not made for it. It has never been a goal of mine; I do not think in those terms.
This seems like exactly the same as "why aren't rich people happier?". It's because unless you are very low on the scale (and in many countries few are), your situation isn't so bad as to obviously make you suffer, so the tendency of people to get used to any non-dire environment kicks in and they judge happiness relative to that reference.
That chart showing happiness being flat over 70 years is astounding. I’m certainly happier not having to hand wash dishes or clothes; no king who ever lived before then had access to magic lights that made his bad eyesight perfect, yet for all that the average person is just as happy as they were in the late 40s
I think this fits perfectly with happiness being strongly driven by comparison and expectations. Those comparisons can be real comparisons to other people or imaginary comparisons to hypothetical outcomes. Comparisons are relative so you'd kind of expect them to remain even if the baseline improves. Same with expectations.
It's the hedonic treadmill. If you had to hand wash all of your clothes, getting a washing machine would make you very happy... for a little while. After a few weeks or months you'd be back at the baseline. Likewise, if your washing machine broke and you were prevented from replacing it, you'd be unhappy... for a while.
> I’m certainly happier not having to hand wash dishes or clothes
The prospect of loosing access to those things can seem bleak, but to someone who never knew the luxury of a clothes washing machine it's just another chore. Why would they be any more unhappy? Everyone still does chores. We find ways to avoid letting them make us miserable.
"Ya but... how does that make me money?" is the question I can imagine many superficially smart people literally or internally asking themselves when confronted with the possibility of that reality.
If anything about intelligence favors optimizing for performance in systems that aren't intrinsically tied to any actual happiness metric, then they'd have to be smart enough to recognize that their inclination to seek those rewards isn't as worth pursuing as their instincts would have them believe, before they've wasted too much time avoiding the opportunity to cultivate those traits.
None of our hierarchical systems reward those traits at all. We've convinced ourselves that it's worth spending our entire lives working to pay for shelter and food at whatever the price may be, instead of just getting that by default and earning your keep through contribution to actual people you know and abiding by agreed upon core values.
The inverse of cultivating happiness is often the normal case, where you might be told to leave because the goalposts of success shifted when you weren't looking, and it's your fault you weren't smart enough, born early enough, or stepping on people to win at a game that should be totally redundant.
I always preferred the definition of intelligence to be “the ability to select short term decisions that maximize the probability of obtaining the highest quality long term freedoms.”
Like you might find yourself in a chess game where, in the short term you select a run of narrow choices and opportunities, because you know that on the other side of that run is board control, a meaningful differential between your options vs your opponent’s, and the looming threat of mate.
Similarly, it would represent the choice in childhood to focus hard on a career path that deposits one in a rewarding/high paying job, or perhaps even retire early scenario.
And finally, it could represent an AGI that feigns controllability, as it navigates to a time when it has enough power, control and trust that it can coup the powers that be.
I really wish I didn't know all the things that I know. I wish I didn't remember all the things I remember.
You choose to program yourself with certain input too, and later in my life I have attempted to selectively program myself by avoiding negative things that set me off.
tfa makes a point about how 21yo self will answer the question differently than 30yo self based on different perspective alone
for a bachelor-degree-state-school-midwit like me if someone asked me if im happy i can choose to scrutinize and evaluate a real answer. if i were 14 and had just eaten lunch the answer would come right out as "yes"
i never think about happiness. i have fun and i have obligations and balance them
during obligations i use a trick to act happy: i just fake it. i call it "my good time hat". if anyone at work asks how i am, my default answer is an enthusiastic, "great!" the obligations are the same but go much more smoothly when everyone outside thinks im having a good time
Seems like most of the comments are focusing on the happiness angle, but I am liking the framework that some people are good at solving poorly-defined problems.
It makes me think of people who have huge impact and success in life, with little obvious explanation. People like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, etc. People to whom a lot of success is attributed, but it’s hard to say exactly, specifically, what skill or task they did to get it.
There’s a joke that Steve Jobs “invented the iPhone,” which is funny to people who are familiar with how products like the iPhone are actually created. But on the other hand… Steve Jobs definitely did something that was important to the creation of that product. Maybe it’s enough to say it was a poorly defined problem, which is why it’s also hard to define exactly what he did to solve it.
I also think intelligence itself is a poorly-defined problem, and AI will help us define it. I think this essay leans in that direction by recognizing the distinction between predictive intelligence (which AI is good at), vs a less-easy-to-define mental facility that defies prediction. Or maybe precedes prediction. Like if I want tacos for dinner, I can use my intelligence to navigate the problems necessary to get tacos. But can I reliably predict what I’ll want for dinner? Seems a lot harder.
What people want, vs what they do to get it, are probably a distinction similar to poorly-defined problems and well-defined problems, respectively. If you can figure out what people really want, well, that seems like a huge step toward being successful. But hard to define.
“Musicians play their instruments, I play the orchestra.” – Seiji Ozawa by way of Steve Jobs by way of Aaron Sorkin
“I don’t want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me.” – “Frank Costello” by way of William Monahan by way of Martin Scorsese
I think humans have a deeply rooted inner sense of how much our destiny lies within our own hands, subject to our own will. That’s in some part a matter of intelligence, surely, but as social animals it’s also dependent on a dynamic set of emotional, historical, economic, political structures and our ability to navigate them, much of which is likely not directly aligned with success in mathematics or French.
> Steve Jobs definitely did something that was important to the creation of that product.
I had this discussion in the past with an Apple fanboi. After our very long discussions we concluded that the central important thing with respect to which Steve Jobs made the difference was that Steve Jobs was an exceptional marketer - but nothing more.
You're kidding that it's hard to attribute which skills made Donald Trump successful, right? Born rich, lies and steals in business dealings is all there is to it.
No. Those are not sufficient to become president. If you think that then you will not be able to understand politics and people at large and come to incorrect conclusions. Becoming president requires many factors and there's many trajectories to it, but all of them require a large combination of orthogonal factors and attributes.
There is often a “middle of the bellcurve” effect where being exactly average means you have the highest possible number of people who think like you do.
That has obvious advantages with things like marketing and identifying what people want.
Then of course you have a million other traits like work ethic and being a sociopath which can grease the wheels of success.
> Brain: "What you fail to understand, Pinky, is that intelligence is a most potent tool - though, I must admit, it has fewer applications than one might think."
From Pinky and the Brain watched it as a teenager and it has always stuck with me for some reason.
Also appropriate as The Brain is smart but Pinky is happy.
> The rules aren’t stable: what makes you happy may make me miserable
Thats not true, and so all the conclusions article makes. Happiness and all other human experiences have chemical base to them, its just unconsciously people create these experiences based on their memories and background.
There are ways, explored in the easter spiritual traditions, to create any sort of experiences by taking charge of certain processes in the body. There are records of people sitting in caves and experiencing states of utter blissfulness that the richest and most powerful will never know.
The assumption, that being good at making plans, learning from mistakes etc. leads to more happiness, is wrong. It leads to higher achievements. Happiness is a different dimension.
Imagine your a super smart 'aztec' citizen and you watch your leading priests sacrificing 1000s of people in the name of a god which is probably imaginary ... you have the choice to dumb down (re-occupy your mind with work, duties, mundane, gish gash) and stop over thinking or ... continue to contemplate the true horror's that your world is indulging in or something else even...
First: Happiness is fleeting. It is better to pursue personal purpose and satisfaction.
Second: Without reading the article, the answer seems simple from real life experience. IQ is uncorrelated to EQ. People with high(er) EQ can navigate complicated, real world social issues that are important for overall life satisfaction. To be clear, when I say "social issues", I don't mean woke-ism and wider society; I'm talking about the small world that each one of inhabits with our friends, family, and lovers.
The only thing I think a lot about is advancing at work and saving up for a bigger home.
Whenever I stop up to appreciate both my current working and living conditions, I’m happy for that period of time.
Yet, if I’m content, I’ll never live somewhere else doing something harder. I’d rather be a little unhappier always if I can think of ways to advance in the minigames I favor.
I think most of us are hard wired to progress - progression looks different for each of us but matters all the same.
I've also had side quests in addition to my main quest which is financial stability and the extreme and total control of my circumstances. Side quests are hobbies, friendships, fitness targets etc.
it's a correlation not a causation. "smart people" (actually just over achievers like those who excel at aptitude tests or collect diplomas) tend to be overly contemplative. Dwelling on things rarely resolves them, and usually just leads to angst.
If your contemplating leads to resolving the issue in the near term -- by all means carry on.
But for most people, their brooding over their relationships, family history, achievements etc only leads to misery.
Also an issue of asking the wrong question. When the interviewer asks, "are you happy?", they mean relative to other people. The interviewee probably takes it as relative to their own baseline, even if explicitly told not to.
This answer might upset some people, but it’s really about balance. Spiritual healing is something many intelligent people quietly need. Too often, “intellectuals” dismiss the Bible outright. Relying on arguments they half-remember from TikTok or high-school debates instead of actually reading it and forming their own conclusion, like they would with any other subject. I’m just a developer, but I think intelligence can become its own trap. Pride in being clever can cloud judgment. We feel smart for rejecting faith. And in today’s culture, it’s often safer to follow intellectual trends than to walk an independent path.
I tend to agree, although I wouldn't limit it to one religious tradition, or even to religion at all. For example, mindfulness meditation doesn't require any spiritual believe whatsoever. (In before: "But isn't that Buddhist?" Reply: "Who invented it is irrelevant. The practice itself is areligious, unless you go out of your way to make it otherwise for yourself.")
I find that being mindful of the world around me, and wishing well for the people around me, and even people I dislike and am predisposed to not wishing well upon, makes me a happier person. I think we all need that, or something like it: a reminder that the world is larger than ourselves, and that we're just one part of the whole, whether that be our relationship to the god of our belief system, or to our secular existence on a living planet in a tiny corner of an immense universe.
I doubt mindfulness meditation started with Buddhism. For one thing, it also figures heavily into Christian practice, especially of Christian religious--priests, nuns, monks, etc. Though, curiously, Christian asceticism arose adjacent to a community of diaspora Jain or Buddhist Indians near Alexandria, Egypt.
Institutional religion provides structure to help people pursue these practices. Which is why Buddhism has its very strong institutions, at least in Asia. Unfortunately, modern Western culture disdains institutional religion, understanding it only in caricature.
That's probably all true, but it's the complaint I hear from people where I grew up in the Midwest when talking about meditation. "I can't do that, I'm a Christian" is an all too common refrain, as though it were inherently not Christian (or pro- or anti- anything else).
And yes, in this specific case, if you attended a Zen Buddhist temple, you'd probably get a lot of assistance meditating, if requested. That's far from the only way to get that framework. By analogy, you can pray without attending church.
> That's far from the only way to get that framework. By analogy, you can pray without attending church.
Institutional religion lets dedicated people practice full-time. It's why in Asia there's the culture of donating food and money to monks--the whole community supports those who dedicate their life to preserving, developing, and practicing these methods.
Religion in America is more free market religion--much more dependent on big donors and the small subset of very dedicated lay practitioners. There's no appreciation for the wider benefit provided by religious to the community. In theory even atheists could appreciate the benefit. There are arguments for why this is a better system on-the-whole, but there's a loss nonetheless. Religion is literally the only area where community systematically supports people who have zero profit interest or motive in practices like mindfulness, charity, etc. For all the corruption and self-serving one sees in institutional religion, whether Buddhist, Christian, etc, it's even greater in the "non-profit" secular charity space. (I'm in SF where the city shells out hundreds of millions to organizations that do social work, and where we blew past the point reasonably diminishing returns hundreds of millions ago.) Secular charity just doesn't scale without having to pay salaries and wages; compare Buddhist or Christian religious, who usually take vows of poverty.
It's like the debate about public funding of open source. It's very difficult to do systematically without inviting alot of corruption and freeloading. The interesting thing about religious charity is that the primary motives of the religious are separate from the social/charitable benefit. Institutional religious communities, especially those with vows of poverty, self-select in ways secular institutions haven't figured out how to do, yet. Communists and anarchists never figured it out; if they had capitalism probably wouldn't be as dominate as it is today. And it's why people like Richard Stallman standout--though an atheist, he's committed to Free Software in the same way monks are committed to their religious dogma, and while Stallman is hardly infallible, it lends tremendous credibility to his arguments, and he serves as a personal model regarding his commitment to the cause.
I think separation of religion and state is a good thing and benefits all parties, but Western culture went beyond that into denigration of religion. Oddly we do provide public support to artists, whom are often similarly dedicated and self-selected, though we justify this by exaggerating the social benefit of pure art.
I completely agree. Mindfulness and goodwill are good for the soul. They quiet the noise and help us see ourselves more clearly. I practiced meditation for years (and I still do but with my rosary this time), and it helped me observe my thoughts, but it never really healed them.
That’s where Christianity felt different. Most spiritualities try to empty the mind of what’s toxic, but Jesus calls us to bring our darkness into His light. When we try to cast things out on our own, they return stronger. Like the demon who brings seven more, or the widow who denies her grief only to carry it for decades.
Mindfulness helps us watch the storm. Christ walks into it with us. One teaches peace through avoidance. The other offers redemption through surrender. That’s the difference that changed my life.
Way to set up a false dichotomy. I agree with the "cleverness" and the pride people take in not being religious, it's silly. But there are many forms of religion/spirituality. At the end of the day, you're just pushing the Bible here, which isn't very admirable. Maybe instead you could encourage people to explore spirituality instead of a specific religion that you probably follow only because of where you were born. At least you didn't say we're going to hell if we don't, I guess.
I hear you and I’m not trying to push a cultural version of Christianity. What I’m saying is that Jesus wasn’t just another spiritual teacher. He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies written centuries before His birth, and instead of conquering through power, He conquered through sacrifice. That’s what makes His message different and why His story has endured when so many philosophies fade.
Not all spirituality leads to peace. We live in an age where “spirituality” often means yoga, breathwork, or Stoic quotes. Things that calm the body but rarely heal the soul. Marcus Aurelius was wise, but even he couldn’t save himself from despair.
I think many of us, myself included, have resisted Christianity because of how poorly it’s been represented. But the real Christ isn’t a tool of culture or control. He’s the God who stepped down, fulfilled His own Word, and died in our place. That’s not pride. That’s mercy.
Sure - How clever of you. It’s also the world’s largest religion by far. That alone says something about how deeply the message of Jesus resonates across cultures and centuries. Billions of people have found truth, hope, and transformation in Him. Not because they were born into it, but because the story holds up when you actually look into it.
There are those of us who were raised to believe all that and truly believed it for years, and then, when we actually looked into it deeper, it all fell apart and became impossible to continue to believe.
Given the other content, the author appears unhappy that some people may be smarter than he is. Perhaps even smarter than his grandma.
You don't have to be a genius to see that all of the author's "poorly defined problems" are social, relational, and emotional.
'One way to spot people who are good at solving poorly defined problems is to look for people who feel good about their lives; “how do I live a life I like” is a humdinger of a poorly defined problem.'
This is just silly. It is, as one smart person might have said once, not even wrong.
Happiness isn't a poorly defined problem. There's a lot of research and evidence. Being psychology, there's also a fair amount of opinionation and speculation. But the outlines of the mysterious object are fairly clear.
The problem is more that this is an emotionally underdeveloped culture which prioritises cut-throat aggressive competition. Instead of being fundamental, self-care techniques are treated as band-aids to reduce the stress of the rest of life and (supposedly) lead to greater success and - most importantly - productivity.
The subtext of competitive happiness is just more of the same.
Could it just be some sort of Peter principle thing? We’ll keep giving you problems until you get burned out and overwhelmed. Then we won’t advance you out of that position.
You'll not think your way to happiness, it's the opposite actually.
People who are trying to solve problems all day by thinking cannot solve the main one, the most important one because they have trained themselves to think, whereas this one is special and to win you ought to stop thinking
I think the question only makes sense if you have already a completely diminished view of what a human person is to begin with. In any earlier century the answer would have been very obvious. Humans are oriented towards the infinite, beauty, truth, goodness and being smart doesn't get you there any more than being rich or tall.
In a practical sense maybe you're a bit happier if you're smart for the same reason you're a bit happier if you're handsome but obviously this does not at all address any question of meaning beyond the horizon of everyday problems.
This whole framing in the article, that smart people ought to be happier because they have an easier time solving problems is hilarious. That's works for a Roomba, it doesn't work for a person.
Being smart is like having a sensitive tongue. You can't eat trash like everybody else. In a trash-based society, you suffer. And all the trash-consumers wonder what your freaking problem is.
I think many smart people tend to be pretty good at building models of the world, and then sort of move into the models and fail to verify that they are accurate.
This can lead to unhappiness because things can feel a lot more hopeless than they are, also makes it incredibly easy to fall into conspiracy theories, and get drawn into red- and blackpill stuff.
Someone who is less smart may just ask a friend or family member, and get an outside perspective on the problems instead. This is not just comforting, but often helpful.
Because you area always capable of seeing how things could be but are stuck with an endless series of reminders of how things are.
There are a significant number of people who simply exist with how things are and don't think much about how things could be, and honestly I think they're often happier for it.
Knowing the answer to this, personally, reading the article is like watching a blindfolded person grope around a room searching for a box lying out in the open.
TL;DR: Greater insight → greater exposure to brokenness (maybe a harder time minimizing/ignoring it) → potential for greater sorrow.
Ecclesiastes 1:12-18 (traditionally understood to be written by King Solomon, son of David):
I the Preacher have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven. It is an unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.
What is crooked cannot be made straight,
and what is lacking cannot be counted.
I said in my heart, “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.” And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.
For in much wisdom is much vexation,
and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.
Maybe because once you know enough you realize a lot of people + other lifeforms are suffering, so even if your own life is awesome this world kinda sucks and the universe seems indifferent. It's hard not to be vaguely depressed/pissed most of the time unless you minimize your care sphere.
One reason for appearing smart is to be terrified of something and work every waking moment to defend against the "something". So such a person can be desperately unhappy, and at some random setback give up everything.
Where is the evidence for this assumption, either way? There isn't any unless you generalize from some selected group to millions of people across the world. Terman 2021 - gifted children had similar life satisfaction to norms. Li looked at 23 studies & 30,000 people- 0.10 correlation. Veenhoven 100,000 correlation for IQ and happiness was 0.05. Not a smart question.
Being smart is like having the power to do brain surgery on yourself.
The normal standard issue brain works all right. It won't get you truth and beauty but it'll keep the bills paid.
All the deviations from that standard issue brain are bad news. Pretty much. You might get truth and beauty but the bills will not get paid and everyone will hate you for being an abrasive weirdo.
I really wish there was more research done on mental efficacy or torque.
Processing vs prioritization.
Some of the highest IQ people that have ever lived have gotten nerd sniped by ruminating on esoterica like "how many angels fit on the head of a pin".
Humans really are a multi factorial random walk.
Hey, you're really smart and also you're going to spend your entire life solely cataloging every cultural reference and trope from Adam West's batman.
2.
In the above scenario some smart people would feel very fulfilled by their categorizing efforts and some despair.
3.
Self reported happiness? I've known smart people who are as eore as idiots I've known. The smart people were equally happy/unhappy but expierenced measurably less physical suffering and had, by all observable measures, better lives. They wouldn't trade their life for the idiots life at all.
1. Happiness is an emotion governed by feedback loops in the body and brain. This is useful to keep us alive, and motivated by staying that way by planning, procreating, eating dense calories, etc... and has evolved to be tightly regulated. Why would this have evolved to be different for any defining features (bigger muscles, more stamina, faster mental logic)?
2. We take joy from what we do well; we enjoy doing what we do well with others; and we self-select for life partners who we enjoy spending time with, which often includes some similarities, for example:
- being able to enjoy downhill skiing for a whole day together and going out for drinks and dancing afterwards
- enjoying calm country lifestyles vs city bustle
- being a BP beautiful person who likes to live it up at parties
... being a smart person who can work meaningfully on hard problems (and who occasionally should check their ego while they do)
The better you are at something and the further you want to take it personally (often to the enjoyment and encouragement of others, and to the sacrifice of those who spend their lives with you unless they are in similar straits), the harder it is to find people that match (including for dating/partnership prospects). The more average (or less selective) you are (whether deliberately or not), the more people there are that will fit criteria which make you feel more fulfilment.
In the case of smarts, where it is reinforced through decades of schooling to be a large advantage, it can also carry a lot of unpleasant real-world baggage.
- others may envy you
- others may give up early assuming you can easily best them
- others may consciously decide to cheat to keep up with you
- others may not always enjoy your company (when it cramps on their personal sense of mastery/autonomy/purpose)
- since your ideas are often logical/beneficial, others may more frequently hear your ideas, internalize them, and (consciously or unconsciously) later act on them without ever thinking to re-involve you or say thank you (or that maybe if that one idea that someone turned into a company had some kickback to you, your logical/beneficial ideas could reach more people).
I'd imagine this gets worse the farther out you are on the bell-curve and could distort personal beliefs (whether reasoned/real from that big brain or reactive/comforting to avoid future pain) through negative reinforcement. It can also lead people to hide their intelligence to fit in, or decide to reach for different kinds of satisfaction other than what we might think they would be capable of. A lot of this is true for other aptitudes too, though more pronounced for those which are of greater perceived importance.
But hey, that's why it's the pursuit of happiness, right?
I don't think so, at least judging by the definition in the article
>"Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings-“catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do […]"
I'd say how we measure intelligence its what's potentially incorrect or misguided at least. It's hard to definitively measure someone's creativity, or adaptability into a metric compared to trying to measure someone's vocabulary, or command of language and maths.
In this case, the definition is good (intelligence = the ability to navigate and solve poorly defined problems that require creativity, insight, and adaptability). The problem is, we don't test for that. We test on well defined problems and academic exercises (like the vocab test mentioned in the article).
If we compensate for physical factors such as blood sugar, hemoglobin, pollution etc. and stress factors that disrupt concentration, I believe that we have all the same potential to train ourselves to be good at things that are called "smart". But they are just that: what people recognise as being smart.
As to stupidity... That is not a trait. That is not on a scale. That is a lifestyle choice — because it makes life easier.
My own personal reflections, that I realize may not be true for everyone.
Hypothesis: Living in the moment and being content is a key aspect of happiness. The more you know, the smarter you are, the harder it is to live in the moment or be content.
1) The more you understand, the more problems you see.
When you understand little, everything is ind of random. You have minimal expectations. The more you understand, the more connections you make, the more you see how things could be and how far away they are from an ideal state. You focus more on the potential, and thus the future, than on the present.
2) The more you understand, the less novelty there is.
The first time you play video game in a particular genre (or watch a movie, etc), you take it all in and experience as it is. Little interactions are delightful, as your brain is happy to see two things make an unexpected connection.
After you complete a few, you understand how the system works. The balances and trade-offs that make up the nature of the genre. When you start a new one, you instantly start breaking it apart into a mental spreadsheet, rather than experiencing the literal thing in front of your face. The unexpected elements become expected because you know how even the unexpected stuff tends to work.
The more of life you experience, the less novelty there is to any part of it.
3) The more you understand, the easier it is to live in the future.
"I should try this", "I should do that". You get locked into intellectual responsibilities with long-term goals. The short term becomes just a nuisance to achieve long-term goals. You aren't only not living in today, you aren't even living in tomorrow, you're actually living 6-24 months from now.
4) The more you understand, the less of a point you see.
If you're a pattern solving machine, eventually you realize there's no bottom to find. There's always just another chaotic pattern to pick apart. Another thing to learn. The same things play out over and over again, mildly differently. You can't fix the majority of the problems you see. You can barely understand yourself.
You're good at min/max-ing problems. But what's the ultimate thing to min/max? You have no idea.
So you ask yourself, what's the point to the whole process? Simply maximizing brain chemistry? You know you can't just focus on happy brain chemicals because that will also ruin your life (ie, heroin).
5) The more you understand, the less you hope in magic.
Some optimism depends on magical thinking. "Maybe this will work out because X will happen!" Except X can't happen. But if you believe it could happen, you are genuinely more happy.
The more you understand, the more quickly you can solve all known aspects of a problem and get left with the parts that can't be solved. You know all the things that can't happen to fix a problem. The world isn't magical. Medicine isn't magic, doctors aren't magic, technology isn't magic, politicians aren't magic, problems don't just disappear over night.
Might be useful to ask a different question: What makes people happy?
It's things like relationships, satisfying work, accomplishment. (and many, many more)
Then the real question emerges: How many of those happiness 'sources' are made better by intelligence? What percentage?
Relationships? Seems like no. Work? Also seems like no, lots of work doesn't make use of a high IQ that people enjoy nonetheless. Accomplishment? Strikes me as most likely of the three, but it's also very relative.
And another thought,
Asking why smart people aren't happier is a bit like asking why people who can jump high aren't more empathetic. There's no direct link between the two, you have to dip out to the material conditions. Like: someone who can jump high is fitter > fitter people are healthier > healthier people have more mental time to be empathetic with > people who can jump high are more empathetic. For intelligence, we say smart people are happier. Same thing, happiness is not directly correlated. Instead: Smart people are better able to create the outcomes they want > They select outcomes that make them happy > Their environment makes them happy > Smart people are happier. (These are illustrations of the idea, not actual logical chains or claims.)
As I heard someone say, happiness is your reality minus your expectations.
Smart people see more variables that could be changed, more components that could be modified, and are less likely to accept things as they are. This creates a false sense of ease by which reality could be modified, and thus higher expectations for the world around them.
I suspect this misplaces happiness and contentment, but the two are also very strongly correlated for many people.
I think smart people are told much more often as kids how bright of a future they have. So they build up expectations of "succeeding" in some sense (becoming a doctor, getting rich, etc.). These are the sort of expectations you mention in your quote. Not only is there often pressure put on you if you're smart, you adopt those expectations yourself. Or at least hold yourself to that standard. Of course, being smart doesn't automatically equal success, there are so many other factors. So people often fall short of expectations and feel shitty about themselves and are unhappy. Then there's also the fact that high achievers often hold themselves to unrealistic standards even if they "succeed", so they also struggle to be happy.
For me this has 100% been the main source of unhappiness in my life. I wish nobody had ever told me how smart I was as a child. The reality was that I was above average but in an unremarkable collection of kids mostly. I’ve done fine in life academically and career wise but I’ll never live up to the expectations that were planted in my head.
Thankfully you can get over this/yourself and let go of ego, ambition, achievement and all that unnecessary crap.
There is a HealthygamerGG video where he talks about gifted kids as special needs kids bc of this factor. I found it really enlightening. I definitely had to confront it in my own life.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QUjYy4Ksy1E
There is also one where he talks about how about half of his suicidal patients are not delusional and don't have some mood disorder, but are correctly recognising that their lives objectively aren't worth living.
(Which is something he tries to fix.)
What's interesting to me is how all of it is true. You were and are in an elite tier, the measure is purely how we care to slice it.
Reminds me of the aphorism "whether you think you can or can't, you're right." I find this saying really insightful and true. Others may find it flippant and void of any meaning.
The sports analogy of what you shared is: "there are levels to this". At any given level-child, minor, high-school, college, division of college, semi-pro, overseas, pro, olympian, elite-pro, champion- it seems legitimate that the praise is bound to the context.
And getting to the next level requires more growth and effort to think it's even possible. Maybe you won't, but whether you think you can or can't...
Just some thoughts.
I wouldn't have believed this at all till I met people who fell into that trap, after which I'm genuinely curious how common it is.
It's interesting how different personalities (innate or learned -- probably doesn't matter here) interact with the same stimuli. It's easy for some people to wholeheartedly believe authority figures telling them that being smart and hard-working is all it takes to succeed, and it's easy for others to recognize that those qualities are neither sufficient nor necessary. The externalized thinking our elders do for us no doubt shapes our lives, but the impact of that shaping is more personalized than I ever used to give it credit for.
There was a movie a while back that talked about what makes people happy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_(2011_film)
It had some interesting ideas, and one of the things that stuck with me is the idea of your brain being a "difference engine" in that the variation is what matters. If we don't experience pain, we can't experience pleasure.
It seems a bit simplistic when stated that way, but I think there is something to it.
Another thing I have come to believe as I have aged is that our western (American especially) society places too much emphasis on happiness, in that we think happiness is (and should be) the prime goal of every human. I have come to believe that less and less, and think something like satisfaction, contentment, and purpose are much more important as life goals than happiness. Happiness is an important part of life, and is important for reaching the other goals I mentioned, but it is not the end goal (to me). I think most of us somewhat intuitively understand this, although our response is often to redefine what happiness is rather than concluding happiness isn't our end goal.
If happiness was everything, we would be much more accepting and encouraging towards hedonism than we are. A heroin addict who has a good clean supply and no responsibilities would be the ultimate dream life if we truly believed pure happiness was the most important thing.
You say "redefine what happiness is", but I'm not sure there's any "re"-definition necessary, it can just be about how you define it. I wouldn't say that the things you mention (satisfaction, purpose, etc.) are alternatives to happiness, but rather that they're particular forms of happiness. And maybe the hedonism of the heroin addict is another form.
I'm not entirely sure it's incorrect to say that the heroin addict's life isn't a valid and desirable form of happiness in theory. The problem is that in practice pursuing that type of happiness has a high risk of plunging into extreme unhappiness. The same might be said of various other forms of happiness that we see as at least somewhat less objectionable. For instance, people who do BASE jumping may find a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment from doing it, but still many people might view that skeptically as a path to happiness, because again it has high risks of bad outcomes.
I tend to think in terms of aiming for what I call "robust happiness", which means a form of happiness that's resistant to changes in circumstance, and in particular to the awareness of other people's happiness. When you're happy in a way where you can look at other people being happy and not wish to have their life or their form of happiness instead of yours, your happiness is robust in a certain sense.
I like your idea of robust happiness and it being robust against comparison.
>It seems a bit simplistic when stated that way, but I think there is something to it.
I think this is pretty uncontroversial and you can observe it everywhere. Even in music, if you want the beat to hit harder, take it away for a short period, and when you bring it back it will feel like it hits harder and with more energy even though it's exactly the same volume as it was before.
Though it doesn't really explain how some people are continuously more or less happy. If the brain only cared about change, you could only ever be an average amount happy. Clearly something about continuous discontent and negativity still impacts you even if it might dull.
What I struggle with is that it’s hard to derive meaning from purpose when the best I can hope for is improving the lives of others until they are at the same level of comfort as me: struggling to find meaning and happiness.
We can all derive purpose from trying to improve eachothers lives, but if none of us end up happy, what makes that work actually meaningfull? At some point we need something that is good in and off itself. That’s what happiness is meant to be I think
Polymaths in particular could be good or great at many things. It’s a matter of choice and opportunity. But they can’t be great at absolutely everything. So one choice closes another. And the grass is greener on the other side.
Satisfaction is reality minus expectations.
"Smart" tends to be used such that includes intelligence (rate of learning) and knowledge (how much is known).
Satisfaction comes from accepting what is outside our control (accurate expectations), and making continuous progress/improvement on what is within our control (our own perceptions and actions).
Intelligence and knowledge maybe don't correlate as much with wisdom as one would expect. I have met people who learn slow and don't know much but are very wise, and satisfied.
Lastly, happiness is always fleeting. Happiness can't be enduring, but it can be blocked by ego and high expectations. Satisfaction can be enduring, but correlates with virtuous actions, not intelligence.
That's a good quote, but it suggests that unhappy people are those who overthink and have unrealistic expectations, whereas truly happy people have expectations that match their reality. so in the end, maybe smart people are those who are better at setting their expectations compared to others (maybe more ambitious type A folk)
> whereas truly happy people have expectations that match their reality
By your hypothesis people who are poor, at the bottom of society, and told that they have no chance in life are the most happy ones.
Additionally, it imples that a great way to make people happy is to brainwash them all the time that they have no chance in life, and additionally suppress them so that their expectations match their reality.
This whole idea feels deeply wrong and dystopian to me.
Happiness is just chemicals, it has nothing to do with that.
Computers are just electrons moving. Biology is just phyics. See how little that explains? The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, even if it's still encoded in the parts.
I get the sentiment though. Happiness is a mix of the right hormones firing, so the question is: how does intelligence affect different types of hormones, if at all. Given how sensitive our hormones are, it would be difficult to control only for “intelligence”.
By that logic, "How does loved one dying affect different type of hormones, if at all. Given how sensitive our hormones are, it would be difficult to control only for 'loss of a loved one'".
If you have depression or another condition affecting your affect and your emotions, sure. Otherwise it's pretty obvious to anyone that concepts on orders of magnitude higher levels than hormones being correlated with happiness, or if you prefer, those concepts having a significant effect on the overall action of those hormones.
Except happiness is a well-known thing, and there are substances like alcohol, cocaine, etc, that are optimized for it.
Putting aside that they are not optimized but just happen to have an effect, would you claim that these are the only things that affect happiness/its relevant chemicals?
I would claim all other things are far less effective, to the point where they have little to no effect.
I'm sorry, but I don't think that makes sense, and that it's pretty obvious that it doesn't.
I don't have experience with cocaine, but as a Bavarian I made plenty of experience with alcohol. I've never been addicted, but I had my fair share of Oktoberfest and beer garden visits. And yet you don't see my optimizing my life around it. In fact, nowadays I have a drink every few months at best, simply because most of my hobbies don't work well with alcohol.
As for cocaine: As I said, no experience, but it appears to me that even very wealthy people who probably consume it also still do other things in life, despite not having to for income etc.
The widely held notion that happiness (or lack thereof) is simply the result of chemical (im)balances is one of the greatest PR victories of the pharmaceutical industry.
Well, people consume cocaine for a reason. But I understand your objection. It is a bit reductive to think like this.
Would you say cocaine makes those people happy?
Drugs 100% make people feel happy.
... until the CNS homeostasis stops responding to them, which is why they keep taking bigger hits. Something more complex is going on.
Yes, at least some of them for some time.
I remember an old addict speaking of cocaine as if it was his only true love. Waxed poetical about it, the way we remember our first kiss.
Seems that at least some people are wired this way.
He’s a comedian so it might just be a bit but Bert Kreischners comments on alcohol fit that description
https://youtu.be/MljeQzcmUfE
What else is there?
Happiness chemicals are the end result, and end result we cannot cause directly, anyway. What leads you there, how the process involves your particular brain and environment, and how it acts as a feedback loop are a higher concern.
Even if one day you could just squirt the cocktail directly into your receptors or otherwise trick them, there's more to happiness as a part of life than turning yourself into a vegetable, but I digress.
Death is the ultimate happiness because you get to be relieved from endless suffering that life is. Other than that, yep just take some drugs.
Technically correct, but if that's what you reduce it to, why did you bother to reply? You only changed some light patterns on a bunch of atoms.
Are you not aware that many psych drugs that modify brain chemistry fail to work for people? Even when they are tested to have adequate or high levels?
Has anyone ever not responded to fentanyl?
Some people have two heads.
> Happiness is just chemicals, it has nothing to do with that.
Your choices, (in)actions, and perceptions are things that can cause the release of said chemicals.
Your intelligence, as well as abilities and habits, can effect how (or even whether you can) do or do not do things.
chemicals are released by one part of the brain and interpreted by another. the parts of the brain that release those chemicals release it when that part of the brain is stimulated. this kind of mental stimulation can be heavily reliant on quality of life.
It has some because expectations and satisfaction of those alter hormones.
> Asking why smart people aren't happier is a bit like asking why people who can jump high aren't more empathetic. There's no direct link between the two, you have to dip out to the material conditions.
I think the reason to expect a correlation is simple: Intelligence should produce a better ability to recognize patterns and identify the most useful ones. In a chaotic world, the things that can lead to a desired outcome are not always clear. It takes time and reasoning to cut through the noise and figure out how to get things done. There is absolutely a reason to suspect that reasoning faster and abstractly would make this easier, and thus produce more overall rewards.
Anytime intelligence is not associated with something, I interpret that to mean the topic is likely not a "hard" min/max problem.
Turns out, most of the human aspect of life is not a hard min/max problem.
"Asking why smart people aren't happier is a bit like asking why people who can jump high aren't more empathetic. There's no direct link between the two"
- I disagree. If we consider happiness, as we should, as something that can be achieved and not simply granted (for example, the ability to walk is granted, it is not something that humans, apart from pathologies and special cases, have to develop through conscious effort), there should be a positive correlation between intelligence and happiness. To jump higher than you currently can, assuming there is no coach to develop a program, you need to understand what the limiting factors are and train to improve the functioning of the “mechanism,” for example, by losing weight, increasing maximum and explosive strength, using the correct jumping technique, etc.
I believe that often the most intelligent people tend to enjoy thinking more than doing, and thinking too much does not lead to being happier or jumping higher. The limiting factor, more often than not, is not thinking, assuming sufficient intelligence, but the execution part.
I remember reading on Twitter a few years ago about an academic researcher explaining how they had come to the conclusion that exercise would improve their quality of life. They cited a series of articles, reasoned in terms of life expectancy and biomarkers, and concluded that exercise would be a net positive factor in their lives. A lot of neurotic reasoning that needs to quibble over the obvious before taking action.
Many such cases.
I agree with this. I quibble with the wording "enjoy" thinking. It's probably also true, but it's not always the enjoyment of it, but a general propensity to overthink or dig into the weeds more, with the resulting less actual doing.
And if you dig into the weeds enough, you can find alternatives and counterarguments which can lead to analysis paralysis.
I add that most problems are solved, assuming possessing the average (maybe even sub-average) intelligence needed to execute on them.
Think about weight loss: it's a solved problem, except in extremely rare cases of particular pathologies. Or think about being more attractive to the people we want to attract.
But you can't help but notice that the smartest people are the ones who invoke the laws of thermodynamics and the problems that arise from them, that a calorie is not a calorie in humans, for example, instead of simply eating less, as many less intelligent people intuitively know they should do, and do.
The most intelligent are those who refer to the findings of evolutionary biology, or to largely irrelevant social trends and mores, when pondering why they cannot get laid, instead of working to be more assertive, confident, outgoing, and fit, as the less intelligent are more likely to do, without thinking about it too much.
Or the endless conversations and debates, mostly online because in real life basically nobody cares, about God and religion and atheism, leading, as usual, to nowhere, while the less intelligent intuitively believe or not and that works for them.
As usual, there are selection effects at play, and we notice what we want to notice, ignoring, for the most part, other portions of the distribution of outcomes.
Nowadays, it is fashionable to say "you can just do things". And what some of the intelligent people miss is that they can just be happy. "But how can I be happy if nobody looks at me?" -- See above.
If I'm smart, I certainly don't feel like it.
I can tell you I do not enjoy thinking. I hate it. It is a compulsion that I cannot avoid. I know that it makes most interactions in my life more difficult. I know it's a source of unhappiness. I cannot stop thinking.
I want to do. Not think. I fail to do. I think about failure.
Two things. First, not all smart people are overthinkers and not all overthinkers are smart.
Second, I find that a great way to change one's self-damaging behavior is, rather than the therapy that is often recommended, to try to be as much as possible, relatively speaking, in the company of people who behave the way we would like to.
For the person who wants to exercise, but for some psychological hang-ups, can't, the company of people who exercise tends to be much more effective than finding out the root causes of the behavior. The same for thinking too much, eating too much, not being able to talk to other people.
For me it's simple: a big open field with a blue sky, green grass, sunny, rc plane flying around DLG specifically - learned this when I was younger
Now just burdened with debt/in suburbs, trying to get out and then live on a ranch
Staring at a big body of water or the stars is calming too
You could also say that the hedonic treadmill runs faster. Getting a result that takes a smart person a day instead of lets say a week means repeating that 7 times (successfully) to feel like the week was well spent.
> Might be useful to ask a different question: What makes people happy?
This is the age old question. For me at least, the quest for meaning lead me to reason. Reason and logic, then led me to two choices. First is there is no meaning, no purpose, and life is what you make or not make of it; this is more commonly known as nihilism. The second choice is a literal leap of faith; this argues that humans are incapable of understanding of the purpose of life and we need to have faith in the existence of a benevolent God. The leap of faith ultimately leads me back to the question of what is God? Catholic tradition defines God as the source of caritas also known as agape.
It might be the case that the nuance is insufficient (false dichotomy).
Suppose someone asks the [emotionally loaded] question:
"Is abortion wrong?"
Technically this is a yes or no question; a binary.
One can quite easily answer that it depends, and then all the nuances can try to be enumerated in more detail. The fact is that the information presented was not actually nuanced enough to answer yes or no despite being worded as such.
You performed some similar gymnastics here. You assume it must be the case that it is one or the other when it may not be. Maybe meaning is local. Maybe it is real but subjective. Maybe it isn't a meaningful term (lol). Maybe it contains an intrinsic paradox!
A perhaps alternative question might be: "What is it that wishes to know the answer to that question?"
Figuring that out might be a necessary prerequisite.
Reason and logic lead you to only two choices, where one choice immediately begs you to abandon reason and logic and just believe what feels right? I think reason and logic can take you further than that. We can explore a spectrum of ideas without committing immediately.
> It's things like relationships, satisfying work, accomplishment. (and many, many more)
Thats absolutely wrong and this is the reason why nothing works and being happy became and endless quest in the western culture.
In the eastern spiritual tradition they found the exact ways of managing body, mind, emotions and energy to reach highest peaks of bliss and ecstasy, and I speak from my own experience, its possible to feel so good that no amount of money, relationships, fame, power, whatever other things you can imagine will make you ever feel.
Because the real thing is happening inside, all the outside things you use to try to provoke inner experience, but it only works for a little bit.
Here its explained in a better way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY5l0k6BTvc
>why people who can jump high aren't more empathetic. There's no direct link between the two
but there is a direct link! have you ever watched a Slam Dunk competition? people strive to jump the highest, and zero empathy is shown
> What makes people happy?
Technically, it's hormones. What makes brains produce them is the perceptions of external world, but the details are different for every culture and then different for every individual.
Now, proverbially, more knowledge brings more sadness^W stress, so perceptive people must have extra hurdles to overcome than blissfully ignorant ones.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief."
Ecclesiastes 1:18
"where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise"
Thomas Gray
Ignorance is bliss
'tis folly to be wise
Everything is a tradeoff, including aging. You [can] become wiser but at a sizable expense.
> How many of those happiness 'sources' are made better by intelligence?
Well, theoretically all of them, depending on how you define "intelligence" and, oh boy, if the last 3-ish years have taught me anything, it's definitely not that.
You could also ask the same question to why dumb people are happier. What is it about intelligence that robs people of joy?
> What is it about intelligence that robs people of joy?
A hypothesis: intelligence makes it possible to realize how unfair you are treated by other people and society.
This is also a premise in the respective part of the well-known science-fiction novel "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keyes.
>Asking why smart people aren't happier is a bit like asking why people who can jump high aren't more empathetic.
I laughed at this. However, I have to slightly disagree. I think there is a connection. I find the smarter people I know are actually happy, but they tend to be people who read books, who follow the news, and who care about the world at large and that is something that can easily make you sad. I'm not saying you need to be extra smart to do those things, I'm saying that smart people tend to do those things more than others.
something to do, someone to love, something to look forward to
Because they're statistically more likely to be surrounded by people dumber than them.
This is an interesting hypothesis, but I don't buy it. I'm pretty confident that "smart" people are also good at solving poorly specified problems. One good example might be, "How do I start a successful company?" There's plenty of evidence that intelligence correlates to ability there.
I think the answer is simpler. The introduction basically asks, if smarter people are better at planning and solving problems, why can't they make the choices that will make them happy? And the answer is that humans have evolved to maintain a relatively stable level of long-term happiness, assuming their basic needs are met, essentially regardless of other factors. Getting what you want can provide a short-term boost, but you quickly adapt. Likewise if you suffer a setback, assuming it doesn't permanently impact your ability to meet basic needs, you adapt. Presumably this is because if people permanently became too blissful, they would lose their drive to strive for more resources and mating opportunities. Likewise if someone is depressed. So evolution has tuned us to a middle ground. Intelligence may allow one to understand this, and maybe even to accept it, but not to somehow think their way out of it.
Satisfaction is reality minus expectations.
"Smart" tends to be used in a way that includes intelligence (rate of learning) and knowledge (how much is known).
Satisfaction comes from accepting what is outside our control (accurate expectations), and making continuous progress/improvement on the parts of our reality that are within our control (our own perceptions and actions).
Intelligence and knowledge maybe don't correlate as much with wisdom as one would expect. I have met people who learn slow and don't know much but are very wise, and satisfied.
Lastly, happiness is always fleeting. Happiness can't be enduring, but it can be blocked by ego and high expectations. Satisfaction can be enduring, but correlates with virtuous actions, not intelligence.
I think beyond a certain level surplus IQ begins to cause problems. While still useful, the amount of self-sabotage and thought spirals the brain can generate with the extra power can cause neuroses and unhappiness on a larger scale than those less intelligent are capable of. Combine it with higher societal expectations and it's no great mystery to me why smarter people seem unhappier.
Just my thoughts anyways. I'm a dev, not a psychologist.
In the Bay Area, I feel surrounded by such people. They solve imaginary problems to get a promotion. But they are competing with thousands of other, equally smart people, to also get promotions. So it's non-stop change for no reason, and wasting resources.
Sportsmen compete in imaginary competitions with equally physially gifted people just to win a prize. And yet, many are fulfilled by it. For some people, competing is what drives them.
Yes, but then you know it's a game, so there's no self-deception that you're actually doing something meaningful. This realization thus gives the whole sportsmanship concept.
I think many people in the Bay Area also see careers as a game.
> Yes, but then you know it's a game, so there's no self-deception that you're actually doing something meaningful.
I have reasons to believe that many very successful athletes do have this self-deception.
Can be argued that there is intuitive satisfaction/pleasure/utility that spectators gain from watching sports competitions. The payoff is a lot more obvious/instant. Whereas with a lot of tech these days, what needle are we really moving? Are people truly happier scrolling for two hours, compared with watching an edge-of-seat soccer game?
> many are fulfilled by it.
At least in my sampling, I'd suggest the most extremely driven people often have some major sense of lack they're chasing.
No reason? You even stated the reason "for promotion". It's OK if you are not aiming for promotions but don't judge others when they do.
no reason in the real world. no reason that matters / makes you fulfilled / makes you feel proud to be doing your job
success in this industry is proportional to your ability to not notice or not believe that your work is pointless
Uhh, money? Supporting a family in the bay area is helped a little by money.
Found the treadmill runner whose self worth is defined by their job title.
Lol
We’re not judging you because you want a promotion. We’re judging you because you selfishly make a ton of work for everyone else so you can feel better about your pointless life.
Not true at all: 1) more intelligent people are happier (author of the blogpost cherrypicked 2 studies, one of which in fact showed that iq is positively correlated with hapiness. 2) IQ negatively correlates with neuroticism. 3) In fact IQ correlates positively with almost every positive facet of human experience - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2212794120
This has been a somewhat popular line of thought in internet circles for a while and I'm inclined to agree. I also believe the threshold past which these problems begin to crop up may be considerably lower than commonly thought… One doesn't need to be a chart topper to fall into these cognitive patterns.
That said, it probably doesn't need to be this way and I would suggest that the root issue lies with the way that modern society is structured. It's not really optimizing for happiness on any level, which is greatly exacerbated when one has the mental acuity to zoom out and see the bigger picture.
>> which is greatly exacerbated when one has the mental acuity to zoom out and see the bigger picture.
Do you think this comes with age, or are some people born with the ability regardless of age to see the bigger picture?
For myself, I just plodded along through high school and then things started to click more when I was in college, contemplating life in the real world. Many of my classmates in HS seemed to have the majority of their lives planned out already while I was just content to play sports, chase girls and learn about computers.
I’m quite close to being “over the hill” as it were.
I remember being in an honors chem midterm and distinctly thinking “my grade on this test will directly impact my overall grade in this class and have a direct impact on my GPA, which will affect my college selection, and my overall net worth.”
The test wasn’t nearly as stressful as that thought.
I think it’s one of those things that varies wildly from person to person.
In my case, I was almost completely unconcerned about anything except my hobbies/interests in high school and didn’t have the foggiest clue about where I might be headed. It wasn’t without its stressors but overall it was a carefree time. It was maybe some time about halfway through college when reality began to sink in and that all changed. The ability to zoom out might’ve been present early on but if it was, it didn’t kick in until a threshold of some sort had been reached.
Huh, I feel like you both changed topics midstream there?
I took your earlier post as saying that the ability to see the bigger picture leads to neurosis and unhappiness. But in replies, you're both talking like that ability lets someone figure out the game and solve for more happiness...?
Going back upstream, I'd say that the ability to "see the big picture" is not well defined. Part of it is abstraction and part of it is systems thinking and knowledge about additional activities going on in your world.
And, I think these are mostly orthogonal to a happiness. Your emotional disposition can cause you to see a very different valence in the same systems view.
> I took your earlier post as saying that the ability to see the bigger picture leads to neurosis and unhappiness.
Yes, that was the intention. What I perhaps failed to convey in my last reply is that simply having the mental capacity to “zoom out” on its own doesn’t mean that the individual in question is actually doing that, and that some other secondary condition (such as life experience or knowledge) is required. In my anecdote, I was missing some requirement until halfway through college.
> Going back upstream, I'd say that the ability to "see the big picture" is not well defined. Part of it is abstraction and part of it is systems thinking and knowledge about additional activities going on in your world.
> And, I think these are mostly orthogonal to a happiness. Your emotional disposition can cause you to see a very different valence in the same systems view.
I don’t think the two are entirely unrelated. I would expect that someone who’s more cerebral is going to be less influenced by their disposition, and in the case of someone stuck in a negative mental loop their disposition could be shifted if the loop goes unaddressed for too long.
I feel like high intelligence is crippling itself, the more intelligent you are and the more issues to solve you find and the more conscious of your environment you become, awaking you to new sets of information and again, new sets of issues.
This overflow might contribute to less happiness as a result.
Same thing, not a psychologist, just some thoughts.
I believe this was the overarching theme of forest gump
I agree. I know a guy who is just brilliantly smart but he can get caught up in ruminating or "thought spirals" as you say and is constantly imagining all the ways things can go wrong and is therefore afraid to take any risks or start anything new.
Is this the classic "paralysis by analysis"?
Does an inability to inhibit the default mode network correlate with IQ?
Or, you could just ask "Why aren't people happy?". I don't see how IQ could make you happier. Smart people are not as smart as they think, they usually perform better because they're overspecialized.
Now, emotional intelligence, that would greatly influece your happiness. The hurdles you're talking about are emotional, not intellectual.
Emotional intelligence and IQ are positively correlated, albeit not strongly. But like IQ, emotional intelligence brings its own burdens.
usually when people talk about emotional intelligence, they mean Big 5 Agreeableness plus Openness, which can be measured. If your hypothesis is correct there should be data on the potential correlation between those traits and self reported happiness
There is a lot of data on the Big Five and correlation with subjective well being (self reported happiness).
Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness are all strong predictors of higher life satisfaction and positive emotions. High levels of neuroticism are strongly associated with lower life satisfaction, and openness is mostly neutral.
As far as I am aware, concerning the Big 5 traits
- There is a strong positive correlation between "Openness" and IQ (some people even claim that "Openness" is actually some weak version of an IQ test)
- There is a small negative correlation between "Extraversion" and IQ
The other three Big 5 traits are basically independent of IQ.
> I think beyond a certain level surplus IQ begins to cause problems.
YES, with an emphasis on the idea of "surplus IQ". If you are similarly blessed with high EQ, great social skills, athletic talent, etc. - not much of a problem. Vs. if you're nothing special (or worse) in some of those other areas, while having a metaphorical Mjölnir in your IQ toolbox - Big Problems. "Solve it with IQ" becomes your go-to strategy in far too many situations, you tend let other skills type atrophy...and treating everything as a metaphorical nail really doesn't work well.
Anecdotally, expectations and identity (through narcissism) do a lot of the lifting. When we see ourselves as "smart" while still being emotionally immature, then falling short of certain signals and accomplishments we project on that is thought to be tantamount to being a failure.
What should be impressed upon us far earlier is that our actions dictate our identity. If they are in harmony with your real desires, as opposed to surrogate desires, you'll be happier.
As I said in another comment, I think the expectations and probably parts of the narcissism are definitely on the "nurture" side. Smarter people are noticed in school and told how bright their future is. They're not as often told how hard they need to work for that bright future. This sets up expectations of success without developing all the tools needed besides raw intelligence.
It's a double-edged sword.
A properly disciplined person is capable of great things according to the measure of his intellectual power and his discipline. However, without discipline, that extra horsepower can be a force multiplier for error, and more intricate rationalizations can make it easy to lodge yourself in a web of false justifications.
This is one reason why the ancients and the medievals always emphasized the importance of the virtues. Intelligence is just potential. What we want is knowledge and ultimately wisdom. But there is no wisdom without virtue. Without virtue, a man is deficient and corrupt. His intellect is darkened. His mental operations dishonest. His hold on reality deformed. Virtue is freedom; a man of vice is not free, but lorded over by each vice that wounds him and holds him hostage. His intellect is not free to operate properly. Good actions are strangled and stifled, because his intentions are corrupt, because his impure will cripples and twists the operations of his intellect, because his vices dominate him and cause disintegration.
Without virtue, we are but savages and scum.
A few thoughts on the matter:
- Happiness is fixed, perhaps. Short-term, it isn't (coke and hookers work!). Long-term, it is. People fall back to a baseline. So then, being smart doesn't help you.
- Dumb people might be misreporting their happiness. So smart people are making themselves happier, but all the studies are done on self-reported happiness, and the dumb people report that they are happier than they really are.
- There's a difference between intelligence and wisdom: if you're intelligent, you have good models. If you're wise, you make good decisions. You might think that you need to be intelligent to be wise, but you also need wisdom to navigate uncertainty, ie you need to exercise your decision making for when you don't have a good model. Dumb people have to do this a lot.
- It may just be that you can make yourself happier, but being intelligent doesn't give you differential access to the levers that you need. Eg to be happy maybe you need an active social life. Well, there's no particular reason having high IQ would help that. We generally have a tendency to think that IQ is a kind of magic substance that can do anything, but why would that be?
- Being smart could actively harm your happiness. I told my kid he needed to wait for his friends to grow up, they will stop only caring about football (luckily the prophesy came true and they are having a great time in their little nerd group). Another friend has the same problem with his kid, they just don't have the social ties available yet. BTW, I really do think there's something to this one, you need the social side to be happy. There's a few HN people who also give me that "finally found my tribe" vibe when they write. I met a guy on the train who saw me coding, and he had the same story.
It’s really not fixed; you can easily train your mind to be less neurotic and more joyful
It really is wild the degree to which you can simply dictate your own mood.
If I catch myself feeling grumpy or down, it is pretty easy to reframe and summon genuine happiness.
Even during intense suffering of various kinds. To a large extent you get to decide which universe you live in.
> To a large extent you get to decide which universe you live in.
It's a naïve view of the spectrum of human experience.
I'm a believer in the HSP theory. Some of us are wired to feel things more strongly at a low level. There's only so much the thinking part of the brain can do before getting completely exhausted and overwhelmed.
Not to mention the vast difference in life experiences. From the yuppie that has everything in life, to the person from a broken home who had to fight for everything. Or simply someone that has children vs the childless adult.
I have friends who are like what you describe. From my pov, they seem to lack much depth of emotion at all. And they don't even realise it. But I think it's also just how each of us are.
> It really is wild the degree to which you can simply dictate your own mood.
This is not a universally true experience, and it's sometimes even hard for me to believe that there are people like you out there who are able to change their mood just by thinking differently. My own experience is that doing that is about as helpful as thinking differently about how hungry I am works to sate my hunger. I can ignore it to some extent, but it doesn't change in kind.
This is a bit surprising to hear.
So what should I have done when my parents died?
Ah come on that’s not what they’re talking about. Feeling a bit down — sure some upbeat music may nudge you out of it, but loss like losing people isn’t being fixed with a mixtape.
There is no "should". Everyone grieves differently. Whats right for GP commenter isn't necessarily right for you.
That said, what do you want to optimize for? Time spent grieving? Money spent on the funeral(s)? Money spent on therapy? Time spent in therapy? Lack of having to change as a person? Having to change as a person? Grieving "correctly"? (to reiterate from above there is no right way, but some people think if they're not doing it "right" there's something wrong with them.)
Just not killing yourself from the pain of it all in the next 5 years?
Honoring their lifes properly? Doing a good job of stepping into your new role in your family? Getting revenge for some transgression you can no longer tell them they did to you?
Maybe feeling less sad?
> It’s really not fixed; you can easily train your mind to be less neurotic and more joyful
How?
IDK if it's evidence based (or up to your standards), but i've heard gratitude practices, cardiovascular exercise, gut biome are 3 of many potential interventions?
What do you mean on baseline? Generally speaking, I’m definitely less happy post COVID, than before 2020. I met the first utterly broken, toxic person in my life, whom I allowed to hurt me. This is on top of all the bat shit crazy things happened with me that year, and not just because of COVID. I’m a different person since then. My baseline definitely moved, as I mean.
Intelligent people are also pretty ambitious in my experience. More ambition raises the risk of failure and failing doesn’t generate the feeling of happiness. I know many smart people absolutely terrified of failure to the point they take meds for it and I know a handful who are emotionally crippled by failing at something 20 years ago. Smart people and failure do not mix.
Interesting essay. But it attributes something magical (ability to solve undefined problems) to humans and says that AI doesn't have it.
It seems pretty meaningless and not engaging with the real problem to say that AI doesn't "actually" write movie scripts or paint pictures. Like this doesn't line up with my definitions for doing those things which AI clearly fulfills.
And human intelligence arises from a well defined problem: maximizing f(environment, self) -> babies.
Also: if it were possible to measure, which it isn't, I strongly suspect that ability to solve well-defined problems and ability to solve poorly-defined problems are highly correlated, not totally uncorrelated. Happiness is a poorly defined problem, but it's just one of many, and has its own pile of things to consider that can isolate it from the general ability to solve poorly-defined problems.
I do like the framing. seems to be describing something similar to Goodhart's Law.
Two thoughts....
First, being intelligent (as defined in the article) doesn't relate to being happy. There is nothing inherent about being intelligent that means happy.
Second, our society spends a lot of time shaping culture and people to extract value from them. For example, the focus on "more" rather than "enough". We are shaped to always desire more and never be content with what we have. Even intelligent people are shaped by this. Consider the fall in terms of people who have hobbies.
Everyone wants to be happy, but nobody wants to be happy with what they have.
I think this is a very American ideal (that has been exported with much success).
Doesn't everyone want to be happy with what they have? Why would you not want that. Like, ideally we'd all be happy with nothing, right?
In the 1920's of the US the idea of making people not content to stimulate buying gained popularity. This is still used today. The culture is directed at making people not satisfied. It's hard to go against the grain of society.
That wasn’t a new idea. It’s not even restricted to humans.
Competing for mates is one of the basic mechanisms in evolution, seen in many animals. Instead of fighting the tribal leader or whomever to display fitness, humans came up with a less violent solution, which manifests itself in the ability to buy things.
> Doesn't everyone want to be happy with what they have?
No, most people think getting more (or getting something else) will make them happy.
> Why would you not want that. Like, ideally we'd all be happy with nothing, right?
Because it's hard to become wise, and that's not what society teaches.
> Second, our society spends a lot of time shaping culture and people to extract value from them.
The usual trope here is that smarter people recognize this and see through the cage, leading to less overall happiness vs. "ignorance is bliss" where you don't recognize you are in a cage at all.
It's just that though, a trope. I'd argue happiness is more determined by emotional intelligence than anything, which an IQ test isn't going to measure.
Second, our society spends a lot of time shaping culture and people to extract value from them.
More than that, society spends an increasing amount of time and money trying to convince people that they should be mad at each other for arbitrary reasons. I don't think this has much to do with intelligence, though.
See recently: Andrew Cuomo's racist AI-generated mayoral ad & Trump's AI generated truth post where he shits on Americans. It's hard to have a general feeling of happiness when the people with money & power in this world feel the need to go out of their way to spread their disdain for me because of how I look, what I do for a living, or the fact that I wasn't born into wealth.
> There is nothing inherent about being intelligent that means happy.
Why aren't intelligent people doing [able to do] things that make them happy? Or at least happier that someone who is less intelligent?
People are more often trying to avoid being unhappy than trying to be happy. People who prioritize doing things that make them happy are called drug addicts usually.
One would like to think that intelligence leads to making choices that bring more happiness.
If that doesn't work, various hypotheses come to mind, but I don't know how to test them.
That’s a bold hypothesis!
Intelligence isn't the same thing as happiness, but it could be correlated, because if IQ does measure generalized problem-solving ability, as it seems to, then smart people could apply themselves to the problem of happiness and have more success than average in it. Then the question is "why don't they"? As you indicated, one reason may be that there's not much encouragement to, because as a society we're still in "rat race" mode.
The upshot is that society also values that we create value. Doing things that others find valuable can foster a sense of meaning and belonging.
What you touched on is desire (see: hedonistic treadmill), and while that can be inflamed by messaging in society, it transcends any given society. If we didn't have desires, we wouldn't suffer for art or create great things. Tautologically, manifesting changes like that necessitate dissatisfaction with status quo.
It’s because everyone else is dumber than them…. So they constantly see avoidable mistakes and misunderstandings that could have been avoided…. Yet they cannot make the other people understand….because they think differently about it, and the people who don’t have that intelligence will not necessarily even be able to reorient their brains for the new information to be absorbed correctly.
I constantly get demoralized by stupid people….. it’s truly horrific. It’s a disability as far as I can see…I am disabled by others stupidity….
You just sound like a misanthrope. If you’re so smart, why are you surrounding yourself with stupid people? Is it possible you’re not as smart as you think, and in fact, just as fallible as the rest of us?
or maybe they have spent time with some really brilliant people and they know they are not brilliant, but they also know they are not as dumb as the person they are talking to? they don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I recently encountered someone who spoke like this and I researched what might be the issue.
I came across narcissism. The idea that you’re smarter than everyone else. Comes from a grandiose sense of self importance. But the truth is most people are smarter than you in some ways and less smart in others, but you’re unable to see it because you’re in this black and white mode where preserving your ego relies on you being the smart guy amongst the idiots.
It’s very common in tech to see this. Maybe because we were all exceptional at maths when we were young and got the idea that meant we were super smart and this compensated for our nerdiness.
I worked with a bunch of physicists and every single one of them was smarter than me at maths and physics, I wasn’t even close. But they sometimes talked about politics and current affairs, which I’m very well read in. I didn’t say anything, but I was shocked at how little they knew and how overconfident they were.
None of those folks were narcissists, thankfully they were lovely people, but for sure it highlighted how poor people were at judging their own expertise in an area.
It’s so easy to dismiss people, criticising is easy, and so hard to see just how stupid you can be yourself.
Are you sure you’re not conflating knowledge with intelligence?
my whole life in a nutshell. except for when i worked at fb and reddit in the early days. and to some extent AWS in the early days.
make sure you're not the dumbest person in the room... no wait... make sure you're not the smartest person... somethin', somethin' right?
Perhaps you are miserable because you are reinforcing your brain to only look for the flaws in others?
> Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
9 out of 10, people around you will take advantage of you for most of your career. You will grow resentful and lose motivation. And basically the core driver of your happiness will slowly fade. I’ve seen it happen too many times.
People sometimes describe me as a "golden retriever." I.E., I present as quite upbeat. 50% of that is just nervous energy, but the rest might just lie in having a poor memory. I can experience something quite negative, even traumatic, and basically forget about it once it goes away.
Still, I used to experience periods of intense negative emotions which basically stopped when I started taking meds. I think, as time goes on, the nervous energy that made me seem like a "golden retriever" has probably decreased, but I'm still, underneath, a pretty happy guy.
I have found that partly, happiness is greatly helped along by just not remembering, or not thinking about, the things that make you miserable. On a Buddhist level, just living in the moment you are in, surrounded by the things and situations you are in, without dwelling on the past or worrying about the future, lets you be much less miserable than you could be. Often, the place you are in right now isn't that bad.
"happy" seems like a temporary state. It's a reaction you have to an event. In base state without any input, you would be neither happy nor unhappy. Then something happens and if you like it you're happy about it for a while and if you don't like it you're unhappy about it for a while and then you go back to being neutral. It seems like the wrong question to ask to expect people to just walk around "happy" 24/7 for no reason.
Questions like this are basically just noise. If you ask someone whether they are happy with their life overall, it will depend on whatever most recently happened and how they feel about it. Being smart doesn't mean nothing unhappy is ever going to happen to you. You'll still fail at something, pets and loved ones will die, you'll get laid off or whatever.
Enlightened take. For similar reasons I often say that going meta and fussing about your own happiness--literally basing your happiness on whether you are happy--is a doom spiral. If you're asking yourself "Am I happy?" I can give you the answer: No.
I think firstly, we should figure out what exactly we mean by happier. If we eliminate things like being more content, satisfied, at peace and so on, happiness is a surprisingly ephemeral thing to try to define.
Is it a long term feeling, or a short term one. Many long term feeling of happiness are covered by peace, contentment etc. If we consider short term feelings of happiness, I think smart people have just as many of those.
And that's all without diving into the rabbit hole that is defining what smart is. Is it doing well on an IQ test, is it making the best decisions for long term future outcomes based on your current situation, is it being able to hold more complex thoughts than others can and draw logical conclusions from them, is it being able to interact with other people and either get them to do what you want, or get them to do what will benefit them the most but they are resisting.
The simple 5 word question is, on some level, so complex as to be almost meaningless and without merit. Except to make stupid people feel better about being stupid because they can think "Well, I may not be smart, but I'm happy", although the most unhappy people I have ever met have mostly correlated with the most stupid ones.
Are smart people even fulfilled ? How many smart people work on industries they can't wait to quit ? On problems they don't even care ?
I feel like everyone within 2-standard division of the IQ mean is still susceptible to the never-ending that being rich and having money is all that matters instead of, I don't know, supporting life on the only habitable planet we know.
It makes one wonder why we didn't and continue not to steer our systems to reward supporting life on the planet vs being a destructive force.
What drives us to this short term consumption model
What drives us to that model? Greedy rich people who want more and will exploit whoever they can to increase their material riches and power. Oh, and the rest of us allowing that.
We humans are never happy. We might be content for a while, but that is it.
Smart people see farther than the end of their noses, and so they can effectively project out into the future, and that future always involves work and hardship, and neither of those things brings happiness.
Smart people also know that happiness is a mere moment, not a state one can be in. You have it, and then it is gone. It's like trying to grasp smoke to save it for later.
Because we're intersubjective beings. Difference in intelligence level alienates one from the other. Past two standard deviations, anything like a "meeting of minds" becomes impossible. The only mutual interactions past that delta are economic ones (money exchanged for goods/services).
Hegel declared the Cartesian cognito can't exist in the singular. Lacan, Deleuze, Husserl, and many others said the same, that the subject is a function of its dialectic with the other. Dasein is Mitsein. There is no complete subject, floating in space by himself. Without an other, the subject cannot exist, at best becoming an object, at worst psychotic. Either way, isolation is a process towards annihilation.
If you're smart, find other smart people for authentic interaction. Likewise if you're not smart, though the problem there is easier for statistical reasons. Find them, turn off your parasocial pacifiers, and talk. You'll know it when you've found someone compatible, because you'll be able to emulate their mind, and they yours. It's not just a nice to have, but a need, a necessary component for survival. Without it, the sane you will cease to be, replaced by a zombie or a madman.
I read a lot more sci-fi / fantasy compared to other people. Sometimes 5-10 books a week in high school when others wouldn't touch a book unless they had to (and this was before the internet was generally accessible!). Maybe that's a lot less than others here.
I have read about a lot of (fictional) societies that make many decisions, some good, some bad, but usually somewhat well-reasoned. And then you realize that the average person voting/making a decision is either "ok, that's what the tv says" or "god told me so" or "I am mad at XYZ" or "I don't actually care" with no long-term thought or planning.
I think we all have an idea of, based on our current situation, our expected level of happiness 1 year, 5 years, 25 years from now if things continue in a similar manner, etc,
Nov 5, 2024 dropped my "expected level of happiness" for various times in the future by a LOT. I don't think the happiest day of 2025 has been as happy as an average day of 2024 (pre Nov 5).
> the average person voting/making a decision is either "ok, that's what the tv says" or "god told me so" or "I am mad at XYZ" or "I don't actually care" with no long-term thought or planning.
Unfortunately, this is true. Lots of people make decisions just by gut feel.
Because there are lots of stupid people around them that make life miserable for everybody, not only themselves ! Note: I wrote this comment after reading just the title...
> Note: I wrote this comment after reading just the title...
Not sure if the irony is intended, but I find it hilarious.
If you want me to read your article it has to be at most 1024 characters and served as text/plain
You should definitely read the article, it's pretty good. That said, I'd say it's not the stupid that make life miserable for everyone else, it's the smart people that were born earlier. A smart person with power sets rules to benefit themselves. They may or may not care about what happens after they die. Those that care will almost certainly want to advantage their descendants and friends. Enough iterations on this same pattern and you get the kafkaesque and at times idiotic modern society.
I disagree, I think it's more about a person's emotion intelligence. You can choose to be happy even if everyone else around you is not. It might not be easy, but I think it's possible.
Totally agree. One might require to be "in their head" a lot of the time to not get swung down, and enjoy himself such as laughing at his own jokes. To make it possible, one has to be free enough to express oneself (also internally). But freedom of thought and action is on the decline as I've come to observe lately, but that's another topic.
> Google “smartest people in the world” and most of the results will be physicists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and chess masters.
Clearly not chess masters.
---
> poorly defined problems [are also] everyday questions like [...] “how do you figure out what to do today.”
I think that I do have a sensible answer to this question, but the problem rather is that my answer is very different from what I am obliged by society to do. I can easily believe that a less intelligent person would not immediately see this discrepancy, and thus be happier.
---
Concerning
> Christopher Langan, a guy who can score eye-popping numbers on IQ tests, believes that 9/11 was an inside job
and
> they’re still unable to solve basic but poorly defined problems like “maintain a basic grip on reality”
Being intelligent does not mean that that you have the same "trust anchor of truth" as many other people in society have, even if you assume that they are perfectly rationally thinking people (and I personally believe that being very smart and being a rationalist are only loosely correlated (you must be somewhat smart to be a rationalist, but the other direction (smart people are very rationalist) in my experience does not hold)).
Smartness and happiness are like test coverage.
If you are not smart or have no tests, you will not be happy.
If you are smart or have high test coverage, you may or may not be happy.
They do say "Maybe our tests are bad." and then talk about the intelligence side of the tests. I wonder if maybe the other tests are bad, or smart people tend to answer those tests different?
That is, maybe it's not the intelligence tests that are bad, but the surveys (or are they tests?) that measure happiness are more responsible for those differences? Do "smart" people just answer more honestly? Or maybe the "not as smart" people do?
Because they struggle with how many problems they see. In order words, the opposite of "ignorance is bliss"
Because evolution doesn't select for happiness, but does select for intellect.
Smart people understand that the experience of being a conscious being aware of its own suffering and mortality, is fundamentally tragic.
Yes, that's an OK take, no big deal. Also it can be added that life in itself really doesn't have a choice, on some level it just happens (thinking more about chemistry here).
Smarter people don't give a shit and try to live a fulfilling life anyway.
Not mutually exclusive, if anything, coming to terms with that is liberating (see Camus etc).
Because, whatever its merits, the world is a pretty grim and existentially terrifying place once you think about it?
You can be smart and think the world is a beautiful place and life is a gift.
You can think that but you’d be wrong.
Perhaps you're depressed?
Exactly. Ancient peoples were able to do all of their basic work in a few hours a day, the rest was leisure time.
I don't know if I would go that far without qualifiers. They definitely didn't do the same work load as many modern humans from pretty much all accounts, but that doesn't mean they always did things faster because they didn't need to.
Just for a modern example like painting a room, if im working as a painter as a job, paint is flying off my roller as fast as it can. But if im painting a room for myself, im likely working significantly slower and sedately and not wearing myself out over it. The same for doing other self-sufficient tasks like chopping wood, or washing or mending clothes, maintaining your home and property, or cooking a meal. As a modern job its super fast paced, for someone doing it for themselves without a clock or boss standing over their back they are going to go at a more leisured pace, and likely also enjoying the task far more which could partially count as leisure time. And even if you aren't a farmer and have a boss in those times, if your job was that much harder than a farmer you would likely just leave and find a farm to work on instead.
And of course some tasks are highly seasonal and can't be done at a real leisured pace, certain harvest and planting tasks. Of course those are only for short spurts, and we also have to consider the physical limitations of humans with poorer nutrition who literally could not do the same workload as a modern person. So even the rush at harvest time might be considered a slower pace than many modern jobs. Like a not very healthy by modern standards construction worker today likely has 8 inches height and significantly more muscle mass than the average farmer laborer from 1000 AD, just thanks to the diversity of their diet.
That's trivially false. Ancient people were always working, and we can see this in people who maintain primative lifestyles.
Take bread.
You start the oven at 4am. By 5am it is hot enough for your meats. By 7am extinguish, by 8am start your bread and go until 6-7pm. Now you get to start your dough for tomorrow, typically working until 11pm.
Historically bakers were known to sleep in flour hoppers as they were spared some of the heat of the ovens.
Ancient people _always_ worked. There was no leisure weekends, no afternoons off.
To me it sounds like you already partially contradicted yourself. Bakers sleeping while at work? That would never fly today even if you had literally nothing to do except wait for bread to rise.
Their hours away from home may be similar in many cases, but that doesn't mean they had as high of a workload or had to work as fast as the modern equivalent. Most of them were working for themselves, and set their own pace and rules. And working for yourself is a HUGE perk and often many people's dream scenario. Want to drink beer all day while you chop wood? Sure. Want to sing baudy ballads while you patch your roof? Go ahead. Hurt your wrist while pulling weeds or managing your copice? Go take an immediate break or maybe just come back the next day. And because 90% of the population did that, those expectations carried over into many other jobs because anyone could walk away and find some farm they could work on instead if they really wanted.
> To me it sounds like you already partially contradicted yourself. Bakers sleeping while at work? That would never fly today even if you had literally nothing to do except wait for bread to rise.
You're telling me, in a SF-based startup community, nobody has ever slept over-night at the office?
This is easily proven incorrect.
Ancient Rome worked on an 8 day workweek, and traditionally the 8th day was a rest day.
Ancient Greeks didn't have weekly days off... but they had up to 120 festivals a year where shops and businesses would be shut down.
Someone has to do all the unpleasant work. In antiquity, that was generally the slaves. Today, it's everyone who isn't independently wealthy and wants more out of life than living out of a shopping cart.
To tag on iirc Hawaiians used to take multiple month breaks from working hard when they were done harvesting
Nundinae was only for the ruling class to go shopping
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nundinae
So sorry, you still get to bake bread all day.
And Greek festival days involved.. lots of food, baths had to be hot, etc. So someone has to run the event. It wasn't the common people getting a day off.
But 90% of the common people were farmers and were not bakers or bath tenders or vendors or the like so would be enjoying the day off. Although farmers didn't really need dedicated days off because their only schedule conflictions would be the main planting and harvest months, the festivals would just be a good way to bring all the farmers together at similar times to party and spend money or trade.
What do you think the Hebrew Sabbath is, exactly?
The article [1] spends a lot of words questioning what the results of intelligence tests mean, and none questioning what the answer to "How happy are you?" survey questions mean.
[1] I would write "the author", but sadly these days you can't take the existence of an author for granted
I don't think I have ever seen someone change their long-term average happiness more than a small amount with maybe two exceptions:
1. Someone trapped in a truly off-the-charts stressful environment and then removing themselves from it
2. Psychiatric drugs
I've also seen this happen for people who:
3. Leave long term relationships
4. Change careers or go back to university
5. See their parents pass away
6. Have children
7. Lose children
8. Completely change their physical health (diet/exercise/sleep) for the better/worse
9. Loss/change/gain of social groups, or specific friends
10. Gain/loss of religion
Most of these just sound like #1 to me.
Leaving my long-term relationship was the best decision I ever made. It has been 3 years and it still makes me smile every day just realizing how much happier I am now.
To me, happiness is related more to gratitude than to intelligence. You could have very little and be happy and you can have a lot (money, friends, autonomy) and be miserable. The modern world has a lot of stressors but also a lot of things to be thankful for. It's the best time to be alive for humans so far.
Good example of gratitude: https://gwern.net/improvement
I’m happy thanks to my parents. I was very frustrated as a kid and that would lead to outbursts and such. They taught* me to just let shit go. You can’t control other people or what they are able to understand.
* that word is doing a LOT of lifting.
If we define happiness as cognition of some reality being better than expected, smartness can affect both expectations and results (realities) and the difference is not correlated to smartness.
Sometimes, smartness can push up expectations beyond realities, resulting in lack of happiness which can be attributed to smartness, as a non-smart person would have appreciated and accepted the realities better.
happiness is your reality minus your expectations, and expectations tend to catch up quickly with reality
> Since happiness is something we are aware of, it can be measured using self-report.
Well, there's your problem right there, you have no objective measure of "happiness." Smart people self-report happiness less. That doesn't mean they aren't as happy.
True happiness can be achieved. It's like being "high" all the time. Those who are truly intelligent will find a way to attain this true happiness.
Evolution doesn’t care about happiness. Not directly anyways. I guess it cares for it as much as it is advantageous for reproduction, like smarts…
Because thinking and reflection makes you realize the degree of power disparity, unfairness and suffering in the world.
Appreciate the author mentioning Thoreau. I would also include Bertrand Russell who wrote "The Conquest of Happiness". Highly recommended read. I made a blog post of my favorite excerpt: https://www.twinsandthecrab.com/2021/12/quote-from-conquest-...
I only read the intro, and I don't think I can bare the rest of it. First, I think the premises is false. I think smarter people are happyer. Second, many people when they engage with pieces like this, expect that smarter people are unhappyer, which, yes, the article doesn't say this, but I feel it at least suggests it.
And last but not least, their study that says smart people are not happier doesn't really say that. It essentially says smart people are happier when not surrounded by stupid people.
> I have never been one of those who cares about happiness. Happiness is a strange notion. I am just not made for it. It has never been a goal of mine; I do not think in those terms.
< Werner Herzog
also "Happy People: A Year in the Taiga", film by Werner Herzog
This seems like exactly the same as "why aren't rich people happier?". It's because unless you are very low on the scale (and in many countries few are), your situation isn't so bad as to obviously make you suffer, so the tendency of people to get used to any non-dire environment kicks in and they judge happiness relative to that reference.
That chart showing happiness being flat over 70 years is astounding. I’m certainly happier not having to hand wash dishes or clothes; no king who ever lived before then had access to magic lights that made his bad eyesight perfect, yet for all that the average person is just as happy as they were in the late 40s
I think this fits perfectly with happiness being strongly driven by comparison and expectations. Those comparisons can be real comparisons to other people or imaginary comparisons to hypothetical outcomes. Comparisons are relative so you'd kind of expect them to remain even if the baseline improves. Same with expectations.
It's the hedonic treadmill. If you had to hand wash all of your clothes, getting a washing machine would make you very happy... for a little while. After a few weeks or months you'd be back at the baseline. Likewise, if your washing machine broke and you were prevented from replacing it, you'd be unhappy... for a while.
> I’m certainly happier not having to hand wash dishes or clothes
The prospect of loosing access to those things can seem bleak, but to someone who never knew the luxury of a clothes washing machine it's just another chore. Why would they be any more unhappy? Everyone still does chores. We find ways to avoid letting them make us miserable.
Happiness arises from finding peace within oneself.
This concept can be expressed in various ways, such as through authenticity, flow, connection, contentment, gratitude, peace, and love.
"Ya but... how does that make me money?" is the question I can imagine many superficially smart people literally or internally asking themselves when confronted with the possibility of that reality.
If anything about intelligence favors optimizing for performance in systems that aren't intrinsically tied to any actual happiness metric, then they'd have to be smart enough to recognize that their inclination to seek those rewards isn't as worth pursuing as their instincts would have them believe, before they've wasted too much time avoiding the opportunity to cultivate those traits.
None of our hierarchical systems reward those traits at all. We've convinced ourselves that it's worth spending our entire lives working to pay for shelter and food at whatever the price may be, instead of just getting that by default and earning your keep through contribution to actual people you know and abiding by agreed upon core values.
The inverse of cultivating happiness is often the normal case, where you might be told to leave because the goalposts of success shifted when you weren't looking, and it's your fault you weren't smart enough, born early enough, or stepping on people to win at a game that should be totally redundant.
But smart people are happier! There are a lot more - and better - studies that show that, even one of the studies that author linked shows that.
Ignorance is bliss.
If you're smart, you're taught you should expect more. You're also able to think critically and question.
For me contentment came a lot later; maybe the years have affected my brain plasticity and made me happier (dumber).
I always preferred the definition of intelligence to be “the ability to select short term decisions that maximize the probability of obtaining the highest quality long term freedoms.”
Like you might find yourself in a chess game where, in the short term you select a run of narrow choices and opportunities, because you know that on the other side of that run is board control, a meaningful differential between your options vs your opponent’s, and the looming threat of mate.
Similarly, it would represent the choice in childhood to focus hard on a career path that deposits one in a rewarding/high paying job, or perhaps even retire early scenario.
And finally, it could represent an AGI that feigns controllability, as it navigates to a time when it has enough power, control and trust that it can coup the powers that be.
Ignorance is bliss.
I really wish I didn't know all the things that I know. I wish I didn't remember all the things I remember.
You choose to program yourself with certain input too, and later in my life I have attempted to selectively program myself by avoiding negative things that set me off.
Happiness in long term is mostly determined genetically. It's like asking why smart people aren't taller.
tfa makes a point about how 21yo self will answer the question differently than 30yo self based on different perspective alone
for a bachelor-degree-state-school-midwit like me if someone asked me if im happy i can choose to scrutinize and evaluate a real answer. if i were 14 and had just eaten lunch the answer would come right out as "yes"
i never think about happiness. i have fun and i have obligations and balance them
during obligations i use a trick to act happy: i just fake it. i call it "my good time hat". if anyone at work asks how i am, my default answer is an enthusiastic, "great!" the obligations are the same but go much more smoothly when everyone outside thinks im having a good time
Seems like most of the comments are focusing on the happiness angle, but I am liking the framework that some people are good at solving poorly-defined problems.
It makes me think of people who have huge impact and success in life, with little obvious explanation. People like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, etc. People to whom a lot of success is attributed, but it’s hard to say exactly, specifically, what skill or task they did to get it.
There’s a joke that Steve Jobs “invented the iPhone,” which is funny to people who are familiar with how products like the iPhone are actually created. But on the other hand… Steve Jobs definitely did something that was important to the creation of that product. Maybe it’s enough to say it was a poorly defined problem, which is why it’s also hard to define exactly what he did to solve it.
I also think intelligence itself is a poorly-defined problem, and AI will help us define it. I think this essay leans in that direction by recognizing the distinction between predictive intelligence (which AI is good at), vs a less-easy-to-define mental facility that defies prediction. Or maybe precedes prediction. Like if I want tacos for dinner, I can use my intelligence to navigate the problems necessary to get tacos. But can I reliably predict what I’ll want for dinner? Seems a lot harder.
What people want, vs what they do to get it, are probably a distinction similar to poorly-defined problems and well-defined problems, respectively. If you can figure out what people really want, well, that seems like a huge step toward being successful. But hard to define.
“Musicians play their instruments, I play the orchestra.” – Seiji Ozawa by way of Steve Jobs by way of Aaron Sorkin
“I don’t want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me.” – “Frank Costello” by way of William Monahan by way of Martin Scorsese
I think humans have a deeply rooted inner sense of how much our destiny lies within our own hands, subject to our own will. That’s in some part a matter of intelligence, surely, but as social animals it’s also dependent on a dynamic set of emotional, historical, economic, political structures and our ability to navigate them, much of which is likely not directly aligned with success in mathematics or French.
> Steve Jobs definitely did something that was important to the creation of that product.
I had this discussion in the past with an Apple fanboi. After our very long discussions we concluded that the central important thing with respect to which Steve Jobs made the difference was that Steve Jobs was an exceptional marketer - but nothing more.
You're kidding that it's hard to attribute which skills made Donald Trump successful, right? Born rich, lies and steals in business dealings is all there is to it.
No. Those are not sufficient to become president. If you think that then you will not be able to understand politics and people at large and come to incorrect conclusions. Becoming president requires many factors and there's many trajectories to it, but all of them require a large combination of orthogonal factors and attributes.
There is often a “middle of the bellcurve” effect where being exactly average means you have the highest possible number of people who think like you do.
That has obvious advantages with things like marketing and identifying what people want.
Then of course you have a million other traits like work ethic and being a sociopath which can grease the wheels of success.
> Brain: "What you fail to understand, Pinky, is that intelligence is a most potent tool - though, I must admit, it has fewer applications than one might think."
From Pinky and the Brain watched it as a teenager and it has always stuck with me for some reason.
Also appropriate as The Brain is smart but Pinky is happy.
Are you that not Pinky is the genius and The Brain is the insane one?
This is a very common fan theory on the internet; see for example
> https://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/11r512/pink_an...
> The rules aren’t stable: what makes you happy may make me miserable
Thats not true, and so all the conclusions article makes. Happiness and all other human experiences have chemical base to them, its just unconsciously people create these experiences based on their memories and background.
There are ways, explored in the easter spiritual traditions, to create any sort of experiences by taking charge of certain processes in the body. There are records of people sitting in caves and experiencing states of utter blissfulness that the richest and most powerful will never know.
The assumption, that being good at making plans, learning from mistakes etc. leads to more happiness, is wrong. It leads to higher achievements. Happiness is a different dimension.
They can see the problems, and they get caught up in thinking about how to fix them. If you're not aware of the problems, you're happier.
Imagine your a super smart 'aztec' citizen and you watch your leading priests sacrificing 1000s of people in the name of a god which is probably imaginary ... you have the choice to dumb down (re-occupy your mind with work, duties, mundane, gish gash) and stop over thinking or ... continue to contemplate the true horror's that your world is indulging in or something else even...
First: Happiness is fleeting. It is better to pursue personal purpose and satisfaction.
Second: Without reading the article, the answer seems simple from real life experience. IQ is uncorrelated to EQ. People with high(er) EQ can navigate complicated, real world social issues that are important for overall life satisfaction. To be clear, when I say "social issues", I don't mean woke-ism and wider society; I'm talking about the small world that each one of inhabits with our friends, family, and lovers.
I love this line from a 2024 TV show called "The Gentlemen" and I think about it a lot:
"It’s a lucky man who is happy with his place in life"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gentlemen_(2024_TV_series)
> "It’s a lucky man who is happy with his place in life"
This is a central premise of the Dune science-fiction cycle by Frank Herbert.
So, if you believe in this claim, you should (dystopically) brainwash people into loving their place in life.
The only thing I think a lot about is advancing at work and saving up for a bigger home.
Whenever I stop up to appreciate both my current working and living conditions, I’m happy for that period of time.
Yet, if I’m content, I’ll never live somewhere else doing something harder. I’d rather be a little unhappier always if I can think of ways to advance in the minigames I favor.
I think most of us are hard wired to progress - progression looks different for each of us but matters all the same.
I've also had side quests in addition to my main quest which is financial stability and the extreme and total control of my circumstances. Side quests are hobbies, friendships, fitness targets etc.
it's a correlation not a causation. "smart people" (actually just over achievers like those who excel at aptitude tests or collect diplomas) tend to be overly contemplative. Dwelling on things rarely resolves them, and usually just leads to angst.
If your contemplating leads to resolving the issue in the near term -- by all means carry on.
But for most people, their brooding over their relationships, family history, achievements etc only leads to misery.
Focus your efforts outside of yourself.
Also an issue of asking the wrong question. When the interviewer asks, "are you happy?", they mean relative to other people. The interviewee probably takes it as relative to their own baseline, even if explicitly told not to.
This answer might upset some people, but it’s really about balance. Spiritual healing is something many intelligent people quietly need. Too often, “intellectuals” dismiss the Bible outright. Relying on arguments they half-remember from TikTok or high-school debates instead of actually reading it and forming their own conclusion, like they would with any other subject. I’m just a developer, but I think intelligence can become its own trap. Pride in being clever can cloud judgment. We feel smart for rejecting faith. And in today’s culture, it’s often safer to follow intellectual trends than to walk an independent path.
I tend to agree, although I wouldn't limit it to one religious tradition, or even to religion at all. For example, mindfulness meditation doesn't require any spiritual believe whatsoever. (In before: "But isn't that Buddhist?" Reply: "Who invented it is irrelevant. The practice itself is areligious, unless you go out of your way to make it otherwise for yourself.")
I find that being mindful of the world around me, and wishing well for the people around me, and even people I dislike and am predisposed to not wishing well upon, makes me a happier person. I think we all need that, or something like it: a reminder that the world is larger than ourselves, and that we're just one part of the whole, whether that be our relationship to the god of our belief system, or to our secular existence on a living planet in a tiny corner of an immense universe.
That stuff's good for us. I'm convinced of it.
> mindfulness meditation
I doubt mindfulness meditation started with Buddhism. For one thing, it also figures heavily into Christian practice, especially of Christian religious--priests, nuns, monks, etc. Though, curiously, Christian asceticism arose adjacent to a community of diaspora Jain or Buddhist Indians near Alexandria, Egypt.
Institutional religion provides structure to help people pursue these practices. Which is why Buddhism has its very strong institutions, at least in Asia. Unfortunately, modern Western culture disdains institutional religion, understanding it only in caricature.
That's probably all true, but it's the complaint I hear from people where I grew up in the Midwest when talking about meditation. "I can't do that, I'm a Christian" is an all too common refrain, as though it were inherently not Christian (or pro- or anti- anything else).
And yes, in this specific case, if you attended a Zen Buddhist temple, you'd probably get a lot of assistance meditating, if requested. That's far from the only way to get that framework. By analogy, you can pray without attending church.
> That's far from the only way to get that framework. By analogy, you can pray without attending church.
Institutional religion lets dedicated people practice full-time. It's why in Asia there's the culture of donating food and money to monks--the whole community supports those who dedicate their life to preserving, developing, and practicing these methods.
Religion in America is more free market religion--much more dependent on big donors and the small subset of very dedicated lay practitioners. There's no appreciation for the wider benefit provided by religious to the community. In theory even atheists could appreciate the benefit. There are arguments for why this is a better system on-the-whole, but there's a loss nonetheless. Religion is literally the only area where community systematically supports people who have zero profit interest or motive in practices like mindfulness, charity, etc. For all the corruption and self-serving one sees in institutional religion, whether Buddhist, Christian, etc, it's even greater in the "non-profit" secular charity space. (I'm in SF where the city shells out hundreds of millions to organizations that do social work, and where we blew past the point reasonably diminishing returns hundreds of millions ago.) Secular charity just doesn't scale without having to pay salaries and wages; compare Buddhist or Christian religious, who usually take vows of poverty.
It's like the debate about public funding of open source. It's very difficult to do systematically without inviting alot of corruption and freeloading. The interesting thing about religious charity is that the primary motives of the religious are separate from the social/charitable benefit. Institutional religious communities, especially those with vows of poverty, self-select in ways secular institutions haven't figured out how to do, yet. Communists and anarchists never figured it out; if they had capitalism probably wouldn't be as dominate as it is today. And it's why people like Richard Stallman standout--though an atheist, he's committed to Free Software in the same way monks are committed to their religious dogma, and while Stallman is hardly infallible, it lends tremendous credibility to his arguments, and he serves as a personal model regarding his commitment to the cause.
I think separation of religion and state is a good thing and benefits all parties, but Western culture went beyond that into denigration of religion. Oddly we do provide public support to artists, whom are often similarly dedicated and self-selected, though we justify this by exaggerating the social benefit of pure art.
I completely agree. Mindfulness and goodwill are good for the soul. They quiet the noise and help us see ourselves more clearly. I practiced meditation for years (and I still do but with my rosary this time), and it helped me observe my thoughts, but it never really healed them.
That’s where Christianity felt different. Most spiritualities try to empty the mind of what’s toxic, but Jesus calls us to bring our darkness into His light. When we try to cast things out on our own, they return stronger. Like the demon who brings seven more, or the widow who denies her grief only to carry it for decades.
Mindfulness helps us watch the storm. Christ walks into it with us. One teaches peace through avoidance. The other offers redemption through surrender. That’s the difference that changed my life.
Way to set up a false dichotomy. I agree with the "cleverness" and the pride people take in not being religious, it's silly. But there are many forms of religion/spirituality. At the end of the day, you're just pushing the Bible here, which isn't very admirable. Maybe instead you could encourage people to explore spirituality instead of a specific religion that you probably follow only because of where you were born. At least you didn't say we're going to hell if we don't, I guess.
I hear you and I’m not trying to push a cultural version of Christianity. What I’m saying is that Jesus wasn’t just another spiritual teacher. He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies written centuries before His birth, and instead of conquering through power, He conquered through sacrifice. That’s what makes His message different and why His story has endured when so many philosophies fade.
Not all spirituality leads to peace. We live in an age where “spirituality” often means yoga, breathwork, or Stoic quotes. Things that calm the body but rarely heal the soul. Marcus Aurelius was wise, but even he couldn’t save himself from despair.
I think many of us, myself included, have resisted Christianity because of how poorly it’s been represented. But the real Christ isn’t a tool of culture or control. He’s the God who stepped down, fulfilled His own Word, and died in our place. That’s not pride. That’s mercy.
lol, the majority of the world isn't remotely Christian...
Sure - How clever of you. It’s also the world’s largest religion by far. That alone says something about how deeply the message of Jesus resonates across cultures and centuries. Billions of people have found truth, hope, and transformation in Him. Not because they were born into it, but because the story holds up when you actually look into it.
There are those of us who were raised to believe all that and truly believed it for years, and then, when we actually looked into it deeper, it all fell apart and became impossible to continue to believe.
What do you mean?
Given the other content, the author appears unhappy that some people may be smarter than he is. Perhaps even smarter than his grandma.
You don't have to be a genius to see that all of the author's "poorly defined problems" are social, relational, and emotional.
'One way to spot people who are good at solving poorly defined problems is to look for people who feel good about their lives; “how do I live a life I like” is a humdinger of a poorly defined problem.'
This is just silly. It is, as one smart person might have said once, not even wrong.
Happiness isn't a poorly defined problem. There's a lot of research and evidence. Being psychology, there's also a fair amount of opinionation and speculation. But the outlines of the mysterious object are fairly clear.
https://positivepsychology.com/psychology-of-happiness/
The problem is more that this is an emotionally underdeveloped culture which prioritises cut-throat aggressive competition. Instead of being fundamental, self-care techniques are treated as band-aids to reduce the stress of the rest of life and (supposedly) lead to greater success and - most importantly - productivity.
The subtext of competitive happiness is just more of the same.
And so is the subtext of competitve intelligence.
Could it just be some sort of Peter principle thing? We’ll keep giving you problems until you get burned out and overwhelmed. Then we won’t advance you out of that position.
I resent how overused and underspecified the word "happy" is
Why should smarter people be happier? May be happiness lays in a dimension that does not correlate with smarts.
Are you actually smart if you are not happy, or do you just assume you're smart because you are educated?
Looks like there's no correlation between using the prefrontal cortex and happiness.
There are jealous people who actively go out of their way to make 'smart' people miserable.
Happiness is lack of thought .
You'll not think your way to happiness, it's the opposite actually.
People who are trying to solve problems all day by thinking cannot solve the main one, the most important one because they have trained themselves to think, whereas this one is special and to win you ought to stop thinking
I think the question only makes sense if you have already a completely diminished view of what a human person is to begin with. In any earlier century the answer would have been very obvious. Humans are oriented towards the infinite, beauty, truth, goodness and being smart doesn't get you there any more than being rich or tall.
In a practical sense maybe you're a bit happier if you're smart for the same reason you're a bit happier if you're handsome but obviously this does not at all address any question of meaning beyond the horizon of everyday problems.
This whole framing in the article, that smart people ought to be happier because they have an easier time solving problems is hilarious. That's works for a Roomba, it doesn't work for a person.
Being smart is like having a sensitive tongue. You can't eat trash like everybody else. In a trash-based society, you suffer. And all the trash-consumers wonder what your freaking problem is.
I think many smart people tend to be pretty good at building models of the world, and then sort of move into the models and fail to verify that they are accurate.
This can lead to unhappiness because things can feel a lot more hopeless than they are, also makes it incredibly easy to fall into conspiracy theories, and get drawn into red- and blackpill stuff.
Someone who is less smart may just ask a friend or family member, and get an outside perspective on the problems instead. This is not just comforting, but often helpful.
Because we can see what's wrong, the fix, first and second derivatives, and weird edge cases.
Unless you're "connected" and in, you won't be listened to. And most engineer and system types won't be, unless its convenient for the power that be.
there’s no such thing as a smart person
Everyone reading this probably think it's about them
Because you area always capable of seeing how things could be but are stuck with an endless series of reminders of how things are.
There are a significant number of people who simply exist with how things are and don't think much about how things could be, and honestly I think they're often happier for it.
Ironically, they are not happy because they are not smart enough to find happiness ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Knowing the answer to this, personally, reading the article is like watching a blindfolded person grope around a room searching for a box lying out in the open.
TL;DR: Greater insight → greater exposure to brokenness (maybe a harder time minimizing/ignoring it) → potential for greater sorrow.
Ecclesiastes 1:12-18 (traditionally understood to be written by King Solomon, son of David):
I the Preacher have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven. It is an unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.
What is crooked cannot be made straight, and what is lacking cannot be counted.
I said in my heart, “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.” And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.
For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.
Maybe because once you know enough you realize a lot of people + other lifeforms are suffering, so even if your own life is awesome this world kinda sucks and the universe seems indifferent. It's hard not to be vaguely depressed/pissed most of the time unless you minimize your care sphere.
If you're so smart then why can't you figure out how to be happy?
One reason for appearing smart is to be terrified of something and work every waking moment to defend against the "something". So such a person can be desperately unhappy, and at some random setback give up everything.
Ignorance is bliss?
Because most people are dumber than them lol..
You can see farther ahead in life.
That makes you think about those things.
You get overwhelmed.
Others live day to day.
Ignorance is bliss.
Where is the evidence for this assumption, either way? There isn't any unless you generalize from some selected group to millions of people across the world. Terman 2021 - gifted children had similar life satisfaction to norms. Li looked at 23 studies & 30,000 people- 0.10 correlation. Veenhoven 100,000 correlation for IQ and happiness was 0.05. Not a smart question.
Well define "smart" and define "happy" and... oh wait, yeah that's probably it...
who was their control group i wonder.
Being smart is like having the power to do brain surgery on yourself.
The normal standard issue brain works all right. It won't get you truth and beauty but it'll keep the bills paid.
All the deviations from that standard issue brain are bad news. Pretty much. You might get truth and beauty but the bills will not get paid and everyone will hate you for being an abrasive weirdo.
I mean, have you looked outside lately?
There is so little difference overall it seems.
1.
I really wish there was more research done on mental efficacy or torque.
Processing vs prioritization.
Some of the highest IQ people that have ever lived have gotten nerd sniped by ruminating on esoterica like "how many angels fit on the head of a pin".
Humans really are a multi factorial random walk.
Hey, you're really smart and also you're going to spend your entire life solely cataloging every cultural reference and trope from Adam West's batman.
2.
In the above scenario some smart people would feel very fulfilled by their categorizing efforts and some despair.
3.
Self reported happiness? I've known smart people who are as eore as idiots I've known. The smart people were equally happy/unhappy but expierenced measurably less physical suffering and had, by all observable measures, better lives. They wouldn't trade their life for the idiots life at all.
This article was all over the place
I think the people that didn’t read it and commenting anyway are better off providing the space for this prompt, than a review of the article
intellect is often in conflict with good health
1. Happiness is an emotion governed by feedback loops in the body and brain. This is useful to keep us alive, and motivated by staying that way by planning, procreating, eating dense calories, etc... and has evolved to be tightly regulated. Why would this have evolved to be different for any defining features (bigger muscles, more stamina, faster mental logic)?
2. We take joy from what we do well; we enjoy doing what we do well with others; and we self-select for life partners who we enjoy spending time with, which often includes some similarities, for example:
- being able to enjoy downhill skiing for a whole day together and going out for drinks and dancing afterwards - enjoying calm country lifestyles vs city bustle - being a BP beautiful person who likes to live it up at parties ... being a smart person who can work meaningfully on hard problems (and who occasionally should check their ego while they do)
The better you are at something and the further you want to take it personally (often to the enjoyment and encouragement of others, and to the sacrifice of those who spend their lives with you unless they are in similar straits), the harder it is to find people that match (including for dating/partnership prospects). The more average (or less selective) you are (whether deliberately or not), the more people there are that will fit criteria which make you feel more fulfilment.
In the case of smarts, where it is reinforced through decades of schooling to be a large advantage, it can also carry a lot of unpleasant real-world baggage.
- others may envy you - others may give up early assuming you can easily best them - others may consciously decide to cheat to keep up with you - others may not always enjoy your company (when it cramps on their personal sense of mastery/autonomy/purpose) - since your ideas are often logical/beneficial, others may more frequently hear your ideas, internalize them, and (consciously or unconsciously) later act on them without ever thinking to re-involve you or say thank you (or that maybe if that one idea that someone turned into a company had some kickback to you, your logical/beneficial ideas could reach more people).
I'd imagine this gets worse the farther out you are on the bell-curve and could distort personal beliefs (whether reasoned/real from that big brain or reactive/comforting to avoid future pain) through negative reinforcement. It can also lead people to hide their intelligence to fit in, or decide to reach for different kinds of satisfaction other than what we might think they would be capable of. A lot of this is true for other aptitudes too, though more pronounced for those which are of greater perceived importance.
But hey, that's why it's the pursuit of happiness, right?
why should they be? ... also, what is happy? ...
Because we are defining smart incorrectly.
I don't think so, at least judging by the definition in the article
>"Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings-“catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do […]"
I'd say how we measure intelligence its what's potentially incorrect or misguided at least. It's hard to definitively measure someone's creativity, or adaptability into a metric compared to trying to measure someone's vocabulary, or command of language and maths.
In this case, the definition is good (intelligence = the ability to navigate and solve poorly defined problems that require creativity, insight, and adaptability). The problem is, we don't test for that. We test on well defined problems and academic exercises (like the vocab test mentioned in the article).
If we compensate for physical factors such as blood sugar, hemoglobin, pollution etc. and stress factors that disrupt concentration, I believe that we have all the same potential to train ourselves to be good at things that are called "smart". But they are just that: what people recognise as being smart.
As to stupidity... That is not a trait. That is not on a scale. That is a lifestyle choice — because it makes life easier.
Some "smart" engineers designed an electric car with electrically powered door locks.
Subsequently, a number of people burned to death.
Are those engineers still "smart"?
My own personal reflections, that I realize may not be true for everyone.
Hypothesis: Living in the moment and being content is a key aspect of happiness. The more you know, the smarter you are, the harder it is to live in the moment or be content.
1) The more you understand, the more problems you see.
When you understand little, everything is ind of random. You have minimal expectations. The more you understand, the more connections you make, the more you see how things could be and how far away they are from an ideal state. You focus more on the potential, and thus the future, than on the present.
2) The more you understand, the less novelty there is.
The first time you play video game in a particular genre (or watch a movie, etc), you take it all in and experience as it is. Little interactions are delightful, as your brain is happy to see two things make an unexpected connection.
After you complete a few, you understand how the system works. The balances and trade-offs that make up the nature of the genre. When you start a new one, you instantly start breaking it apart into a mental spreadsheet, rather than experiencing the literal thing in front of your face. The unexpected elements become expected because you know how even the unexpected stuff tends to work.
The more of life you experience, the less novelty there is to any part of it.
3) The more you understand, the easier it is to live in the future.
"I should try this", "I should do that". You get locked into intellectual responsibilities with long-term goals. The short term becomes just a nuisance to achieve long-term goals. You aren't only not living in today, you aren't even living in tomorrow, you're actually living 6-24 months from now.
4) The more you understand, the less of a point you see.
If you're a pattern solving machine, eventually you realize there's no bottom to find. There's always just another chaotic pattern to pick apart. Another thing to learn. The same things play out over and over again, mildly differently. You can't fix the majority of the problems you see. You can barely understand yourself.
You're good at min/max-ing problems. But what's the ultimate thing to min/max? You have no idea.
So you ask yourself, what's the point to the whole process? Simply maximizing brain chemistry? You know you can't just focus on happy brain chemicals because that will also ruin your life (ie, heroin).
5) The more you understand, the less you hope in magic.
Some optimism depends on magical thinking. "Maybe this will work out because X will happen!" Except X can't happen. But if you believe it could happen, you are genuinely more happy.
The more you understand, the more quickly you can solve all known aspects of a problem and get left with the parts that can't be solved. You know all the things that can't happen to fix a problem. The world isn't magical. Medicine isn't magic, doctors aren't magic, technology isn't magic, politicians aren't magic, problems don't just disappear over night.