[iclaudius]

This kind of reminds me of that misconception that everyone seems to have about geniuses being statistically more likely to suffer from mental illness (ie schizophrenia, chronic depression (chemical), bipolar, etc.). For the record, that is horrendously untrue; statistically speaking, people with genius IQ ratings are not only less sick, but that also tend to be better in virtually every category than us average folk. For example, they're generally more happy, less bothered, harder working, more productive, more successful, they eat healthier, they are less obese, they hold jobs for longer, they have more satisfying personal relationships, they are more satisified with their lives.... although admittedly not in that specific combination. As far as I can tell, there is no evidence of observable correlation between intelligence and unhappiness, if for no reason other than the fact that the human race has yet to provide a reliable standard for the determination and/or measurement of such a thing in the first place. If you don't know what it is, how can you tell if people who have it are unhappy? Answer: you can't.

First, let's get something out of the way: so-called "intelligence testing" (I'm looking at you, IQ test) is grossly mislabeled and almost universally misunderstood, even by so-called experts. In the first place, all variations of this monstrosity presuppose to some extent that potential ability to learn and actualized ability to learn are the same things, when they are clearly not. That's because, in order to test at all, you have to test using concepts that have been introduced outside of the test. (Reading instructions, for example.) In addition, these tests do not account for the various important parts of learning and learning development; a person's learning potential is not the same in childhood and adulthood, or even from day to day. Emotions factor in, too -- some people just suck at taking tests, for example. Because these tests have no way of differentiating actual intelligence from contextual hangups (or advantages), they just end up measuring a vague comparative propensity to do something a certain way (and very loosely indicate how successful that particular person will be in life). There are entire books written by reputable social scientists on why these tests are unreliable for measureing intelligence -- if you don't want to take my word for it, I would suggest picking any number of these up. IQ tests aren't without merit, but they definitely shouldn't be called IQ tests.

The other thing I want to address is this: introspective != intelligent. Plenty of amazing scientists, artists, inventors, etc. are merely curious people. True, many are constantly absurdly brilliant, but most are not Isaac Newton. Measuring intelligence by behavior (ie "smart things," like reading or doing math) is just stupid. Not all people who are smart are intelligent, and not all people who are intelligent are smart. It's important to make that distinction, because when people complain about introspectiveness causing unhappiness, it's not the same as saying intelligence causes unhappiness. On that note, I see no reason to link negativeness and reality, or intelligence and pessimism. In spite of what Mrs. Crabtree told you in 4th grade, things are not half-full or half-empty... they are half and half. Facts and truths in this universe are neutral; people choose to interpret them as "depressing" or "bad," and that choice differentiates the intelligent from the simply unhappy. If you see everything in a bad light and are intelligent, it isn't because you're intelligent, it's because you are unhappy. That I am an introspective person does not mean that I am also unhappy, or that I see things in a negative light. I can personally attest to that, because I am introspective and very happy.

Furthermore, I see a good many of us have taken the liberty of making the mental leap between "intelligent people are unhappy" and "intelligence makes you unhappy." That's a huge fallacy. (For the record, those of you who have not made this mental leap, but have not said what I am saying are equally in the wrong; if we're debating intelligent people being unhappy without establishing causation, we are not debating anything, being that there are unhappy people in all forms: religious, gay, intelligent, black, short, Asian, ugly, lower-class, paraplegic, you name it...) It's true that human nature by and large is to want to be accepted, and it's true that high intelligence can put you in a fringe group that could lead to you being outcast, but that DOES NOT mean that intelligence itself is to blame. If you are unhappy because "normal" people have discarded you, then you are unhappy because you have been discarded, and not because you are smart. Do you think the problem would go away if you were not intelligent? If you answered "yes," go sit in the corner; the only thing that would change is the symptom of the problem would be gone. You would still be dependent upon other people for your own emotional support, and would have that root of self-doubt stuck inside you. I see no reason to accept that something in common with all intelligent people causes them to be unhappy, or at least moreso than other people.

In short, the real question is, "who isn't unhappy?" Many people cover it up by living unexamined, overly-emotional lives. Many people examine things obsessively to find some sort of truth. We all have ways of coping, and in the end, intelligent people are no worse off than any other type of person. In the real world everyone struggles with the same things. This is guaranteed by the fact that everyone has the capability to change: there is always the potential that your life will be uprooted and you will be forced to do some deep psychological sorting out; the fact that it never comes to be does not mean that there are no circumstances under which you would be unhappy. It is specifically because you have the capability to be sad that you will never, ever be 100% purely happy. The trick is to put it all into perspective.