I think being smart universally trumps being less smart - but the definition of smart needs to be more encompassing.

For example take the stereotype of a brilliant man or woman who neglected family for career, and are forever single and childless forever -- while someone less brilliant just "ends up" with a family and ultimately more fulfilled in life.

Superficially this is an example of an average person being happier than the really smart one but I don't agree with this. I look at this as the non-brilliant person being smarter in the areas that matter. Or vice versa the "brilliant" person neglected a really important area of life - which isn't that smart.

With this expanded definition - where smart isn't just a measurement of raw processing power or a spike in one area, but rather the product of "smart about what's important" * "smart about how to go about it" - that kind of person I think is consistently happier than anyone else.

One dimension of this is the (in)ability to stick with tradition and culture rather than "smartly" invent everything yourself. In the scenario above, the average person maybe ended up with a family because they were more able to follow family patterns and advice while the "brilliant" person tries to figure out everything from scratch, not able to benefit from the "well troden paths" that are available.

▲

bittercynic 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As a single and childless person, I don't like the implication that those are marks of a less fulfilling life. I know some people married with kids who seem very happy and fulfilled, and some profoundly miserable and trapped. I may be missing out on some good things, but I'm also avoiding some extreme misery, and generally do feel content and fulfilled.

	▲	xyzelement an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Thanks for sharing that. Obviously respect your choices on the individual level. The contrast you provided between those who are happy with family and those two seem miserable is in line with what I am saying: it's both 'be smart about what you persue' and 'be smart about how you persue it.' So likely the first group was 'smarter' about who they chose as a spouse and how they set up the life with them than the second group. So maybe we can score the miserable group as a -1, the happy group as a +1 and your avoidance strategy as in-between: 0. So you can look at your strategy as good because it avoids the extreme misery but it also denies a shot at extreme happiness. And then if one were to go that potentially high risk/high reward path, their actual outcome (are they happy or miserable) is a function of how smartly they persue that endeavor.
	▲	argee an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Part of being smart is being able to diagnose certain ideas as dogmatic, which is far more than can be expected from most. "Most people would die sooner than think—in fact, they do so" — Bertrand Russell

▲

Nail2680 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Right, there is a problem with even defining "smart", a decent number of mathematicians I have known would not call themselves smart, but persistent. I have known a lot of physicists too, some of whom forget simple integrals all the time, but publish like a monster, and some very smart physicists who know almost any fact you could want off the top of their head who don't publish almost at all. One group is more successful than the other.