You may not notice it, if you live in your own little isolated world.

Yes, you can be very intelligent, and incompetent; but no, you cannot be competent, able to get stuff done, and not intelligent.

Again and again, as a kid, I'd come across situations with bullies and go with the lie that the bullies were stupid and jealous. Then in high school, I'd realize that some of those bullies were very bright, clever, and talkative, and that my own actions towards other kids could be perceived as bullying, when to me it was more a good-natured hazing. I started to realize that even the stoner deadheads that I thought were entirely mindless were in fact intelligent people who knew they were ruining their lives and just didn't care.

From the people I've seen, the idea of exclusive intelligence is not as true as most people think it is. I've met people with higher IQs than me who seem less intelligent than I am, because they weren't raised in the way I was, and so went around laboriously working on schoolwork without ever once finding their own interests. For me, that was the height of unintelligence: doing things without asking why. On the other hand, I know one or two people I used to think were stupid going out and doing some pretty impressive things, not because they were particularly bright, but because they kept at something longer than other people did.

The line about genius being 99% perspiration keeps coming up in my mind during this conversation. Most people have good ideas: one statement I read says everybody has three million-dollar ideas every year. We've all thought of cool things and then seen somebody else making a fortune of that cool thing. The difference between that person and the rest of the people with that idea is that that person knew what to do with his idea. The idea itself wasn't uncommon, but its realization was.

Most people don't do great things because most people don't care to do great things. They never try once. Look at the startups you see here. Most of them are interesting, most of the coders have good things in mind. But how many would you call great? Even the really good coders rarely take on anything monumental.

Most people are very bright and just don't care to apply themselves.

I think it's probably closer to the truth to say most people don't know how to apply themselves. Just about everyone starts off with dreams of doing something great. Most people, no matter how smart, either give up to quickly or (less often) spend their lives working on the wrong thing. Figuring out what to work on, and then not giving up, is way more important than raw intelligence.

Perhaps you've missed this because some people give up so quickly that it appears they never tried at all.

Stop! Stop! Now I feel less special!

People are successful for all different reasons, and the best anyone can do is put themselves out there and take advantage of opportunities. The minute you convince yourself that are not smart enough or too lazy or whatever, then you're just committing to failure—most likely because psychologically safe—which is stupid because no one has the recipe for success. Chase your dreams!

Certainly, they can be successful, but at what? Not likely anything great.

If you're like me and think that greatness is a few-times-in-a-century thing, then look at the people who achieve it, you'll be astonished. Some of my big-list people aren't people you'd expect at all. Bill Watterson, who was by all accounts keep-to-himself in school. Samuel Beckett, who entered college as a cricket fiend and slowly gravitated towards writing.

Nobody tries to be great. There's the limit. Few average-minded people will attempt anything extraordinary. Few smart people will, for that matter. And if you don't try, you don't do it.

That said, none of the great works I've seen in my life are things I've felt to be beyond me. Do you feel otherwise? Do you look at things and feel like you could not, at birth, have entered a path of life capable of producing those things?

The things I think are beyond me are beyond me by choice. I won't ever write virtuoso piano music, because I don't want to spend 20 years learning to play the piano well enough to write that stuff. But if I really, really wanted to, I could, given enough time.

The problem is that few people realize that. They see something complex and decide they could never do that, not realizing that the more you know the simpler it seems.

On second read, maybe that's not what you're saying, and I missunderstood. Forgive me--I haven't slept in 40 hours. :-)

Have you read, or read of, any of these longitudinal studies?: http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/eric/faq/gt-long.html

The best known longitudinal studies were conducted by Louis Terman. In 1921 Terman and his colleagues began a longitudinal study of 1,528 gifted youth with IQs greater than 140 who were approximately 12 years old. Over a period of approximately 40 years, the researchers laid the groundwork for our understanding of giftedness and paved the way for efforts to identify and nurture giftedness in school. Terman died in 1959 but the study will continue until 2020, to encompass the entire lives of his original 1528 gifted youth. Results of the study have been published in several volumes

http://books.google.com/books?id=KQ4rLiAbHQQC&pg=PA41...

Intelligence is an important determinant of lifetime achivement. The classical study demonstrating this association was carried out by Lewis Terman and his colleagues. The study began around 1920 by intelligence testing a large number of children in California. From this sample they selected 1,528 (857 boys and 671 girls) with IQs of 135 and above. The minimum IQ of 135 represents approximately the top one percent of the population. The average IQ of the total sample was 151 (Terman, 1925).

These children were followed up thirty-five years after their initial identification when they were in their early forties. By this time, the authors of the follow-up concluded that "the superior child, with few exceptions, becomes the able adult, superior in nearly every respect to the generality" (Terman and Oden, 1959, p. 143).

Terman and his associated found that 70 percent of their sample had graduated from college; two fifths of the men and three fifths of the women had gone through graduate school. Of the men, 86 percent were in the two highest socioeconomic categories of professions and management. None of these individuals were in the lowest socioeconomic category of unskilled workers, as compared with 13 percent of the male population at that time. Seventy of the men were listed in American Men of Science, and three had been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Thirty-one were listed in Who's Who in America. Between them, they had produced nearly 2000 scientific papers, some 60 books in the sciences, 230 patents, and 33 novels. Fourteen percent of the men did not fulfill the promise of their high IQs and failed to obtain socioeconomic class one or two occupations. These men were almost all impaired by psychiatric problems or lack of motivation.

Among the women, most of them became housewives and mothers and consequently did not have such visible achievements. Nevertheless, seven women were listed in American Men of Science and two in Who's Who in America. Between them they had produced 32 scholarly books, 5 novels, more than 200 scientific papers, and 5 patents.

The other possibility is that I am completely wrong...

What I said in the other branch of this thread is that you'll never know if you can be great unless you spend your life trying, and that so few people do try that almost all of the people who really strive for it end up succeeding, to at least some degree.