Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder if some smart people are unhappy because they get - thrown under the bus - by the system? Policy is set for the greater good. Since they are outside the sigma of the bell curve where policy set for the general population, maybe they are collateral damage of policy and they realize it. That could make them unhappy I suppose.
Policy for the greater good, like democracy, is a dictatorship where the minority has no say.
I wonder if some smart people are unhappy because they get - thrown under the bus - by the system? Policy is set for the greater good. Since they are outside the sigma of the bell curve where policy set for the general population, maybe they are collateral damage of policy and they realize it. That could make them unhappy I suppose.
Policy for the greater good, like democracy, is a dictatorship where the minority has no say.
I don't believe we can equate smart people with being 'happy' or 'unhappy'.
If we were to take the whole percentile of so-called 'smartest' people in the world [2%] and ever lived, I believe we can represent those who had been happy [on average] and unhappy on a Bell-Curve, i.e. on one side of the curve we have 50% of increasing happiness from the mean, and the other side, 50% of people with of increasing unhappiness from the mean.
From the above we can infer smartness is not a significant determinant for 'happiness.'
As I had stated earlier what is to be targeted is a state of sustained optimal happiness with equanimity and that is best achieved via Philosophy-proper.
Philosophy-proper is the application of wisdom to achieve optimality that contribute net-positively to the well being of the individual and therefrom humanity.
I don't believe we can equate smart people with being 'happy' or 'unhappy'.
If we were to take the whole percentile of so-called 'smartest' people in the world [2%] and ever lived, I believe we can represent those who had been happy [on average] and unhappy on a Bell-Curve, i.e. on one side of the curve we have 50% of increasing happiness from the mean, and the other side, 50% of people with of increasing unhappiness from the mean.
From the above we can infer smartness is not a significant determinant for 'happiness.'
As I had stated earlier what is to be targeted is a state of sustained optimal happiness with equanimity and that is best achieved via Philosophy-proper.
Philosophy-proper is the application of wisdom to achieve optimality that contribute net-positively to the well being of the individual and therefrom humanity.
I realize now that I didn't state it well, and your comment here makes me realize why I added the qualifier of money.
I suspect you are correct that
Quote:
If we were to take the whole percentile of so-called 'smartest' people in the world [2%] and ever lived...
we would find they were of average happiness. Smart people tend to do well financially and have more resources and therefore more options than society on average.
What I suspect and am ultimately proposing is; if we were to take the whole percentile of so-called 'smartest' people in the world [2%] that ever lived and then further reduce that set to only include those that are of less than average wealth, would those be likely to be less happy than society on average?
In effect they would witness other people that are much more ignorant and less capable of (what ever smart people are capable of) being far more successful (wealthy).
Lets say hypothetically some smart guy went to school and became an astrophysicist. Another guy, not to bright, struggled in grade school and high school and dropped out of school in the 9th grade with poor reading and math skills. He went on to work cooking french-fries with no likelihood of advancement.
Next, the government decides to tax astrophysicists at 98% and subsidize fry cooks 1500%. Ridiculous I know, but for this discussion it inverts the wages of the two. Now the smart guy is poorer than average, and I suspect less happy.
The fry cook may have a hobby of fishing and a couple hundred bucks of fishing tackle fills his needs. The astrophysicist may have a hobby of astronomy and needs a $50,000 telescope to see the distant objects that interest him.
The fry cook, now wealthier, buys a bass boat expanding his hobby and is happier(?). The astrophysicist can now only afford a $100 telescope and doesn't even bother because he knows it's limitations and it will only disappoint him. As a result he looses his beloved hobby completely. Now he's sad.
^^^ I get what you are saying but many people don't want or need expensive hobbies. I think I am pretty smart and very much so when it comes to common sense, I am happy, have a great life and money to me is for security. I don't like spending it, I don't feel a need to impress and I certainly don't care what others have or do. I prefer the simple things in life. So while I can afford a very expensive boat I don't want it Sometimes those things are overrated.
So if you equate smart people and money....I think they need more to make them happy. It's not about getting thrown under the bus. It's about the wants. There are different kinds of smart and intelligence. Not all have very high paying jobs or live that life style where they have to keep up. I actually consider the people who don't play at keeping up appearances smarter than the ones on that hamster wheel.
I wonder if some smart people are unhappy because they get - thrown under the bus - by the system? Policy is set for the greater good. Since they are outside the sigma of the bell curve where policy set for the general population, maybe they are collateral damage of policy and they realize it. That could make them unhappy I suppose. Policy for the greater good, like democracy, is a dictatorship where the minority has no say.
This is all true, especially the bolded. It's precisely why the United States was set up to be a Republic, which is there to protect from the 'tyranny of the majority'.
Happiness doesn’t just happen to anyone; we have to create it. If one hasn’t figured out how to be happy, how smart can one be?
One doesn't create happiness in a vacuum. Circumstances factor in heavily and are often rather intractable. In my life experience, some of the smartest people I've associated with/read about/read from have been some of the most miserable. Big picture-thinking is conducive to seeing the misery that underlies the Darwinian nature of life as a whole. My IQ was measured at 163 when I was in grade school and I've struggled with depression/anxiety for 15 years now.
One doesn't create happiness in a vacuum. Circumstances factor in heavily and are often rather intractable. In my life experience, some of the smartest people I've associated with/read about/read from have been some of the most miserable. Big picture-thinking is conducive to seeing the misery that underlies the Darwinian nature of life as a whole. My IQ was measured at 163 when I was in grade school and I've struggled with depression/anxiety for 15 years now.
I agree depression, addiction and illness can play a role in unhappiness. That said, that’s different than asking in re: a correlation between intelligence and happiness as the OP did. Therefore, all else being equal; and if we are simply comparing above-average intelligence vs. below-average intelligence to the likelihood of happiness, it’s obvious the former would have a leg-up.
I agree depression, addiction and illness can play a role in unhappiness. That said, that’s different than asking in re: a correlation between intelligence and happiness as the OP did. Therefore, all else being equal; and if we are simply comparing above-average intelligence vs. below-average intelligence to the likelihood of happiness, it’s obvious the former would have a leg-up.
Sure, but it's been documented that high intelligence positively correlates with increased likelihood of mental illness.
I've always thought that above-average but not incredibly high intelligence was something like the sweet spot for maximizing 'life satisfaction'. Not sure if research (that I'm sure has been conducted by now--with all the money vis-a-vis happiness studies that have been done, I'm sure intelligence as it relates to happiness has been studied, probably on numerous occasions) bears this out--I'll google in a minute
I've always thought that above-average but not incredibly high intelligence was something like the sweet spot for maximizing 'life satisfaction'. Not sure if research (that I'm sure has been conducted by now--with all the money vis-a-vis happiness studies that have been done, I'm sure intelligence as it relates to happiness has been studied, probably on numerous occasions) bears this out--I'll google in a minute
I agree re: there potentially being some correlation between ‘genius-level’ intelligence and the likelihood of developing certain mental illnesses (which is different, however, than exploring the OP’s question in and of itself). To do so effectively, we would have to compare apples to apples i.e. two healthy minds, one being significantly smarter than the other to determine the difference intelligence (especially emotional IQ) can play in happiness (which seems obvious to me it would be substantial all else being equal).
Happiness is ultimately a state of mind - and the more knowledgeable/self-aware/intelligent one is, the more likely they are to ‘figure it out’.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sometimes those things are overrated. 
