Although intelligence is one of the most consistent and important predictors of real-life success, the connection is by no means perfect. This explains why we all know people who we consider “smart” in a traditional sense (e.g., knowledgeable, bookish, geeky, and mathematically sharp), but who seem to malfunction in everyday life. In fact, decades of scientific research show that intellectual and emotional intelligence are only marginally related, so the ability to function well in interpersonal or social situations is not necessarily a strength for individuals known for admirable mental horsepower or abstract reasoning capacity.
To be sure, there’s no shortage of fictional examples of high-IQ people who struggle with basic interpersonal challenges. For example, Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory, Sherlock Holmes, and Mark Zuckerberg as portrayed in The Social Network all combine formidable intellectual ability with a striking inability to navigate ordinary human interactions. At times, this disconnect between highly advanced cognitive capabilities and relatively limited emotional or interpersonal skills is attributed to empathy deficits and neuroatypical patterns along the lines of Simon Baron-Cohen’s “spectrum” theory. This model postulates that some people, particularly those on the autism or Asperger syndrome spectrum, show stronger systemizing abilities alongside weaker empathizing abilities, potentially explaining this uneven cognitive-interpersonal profile. It should be noted, however, that the broader category of “neurodiversity” bundles together highly heterogeneous traits and conditions, so it is more useful as an inclusive umbrella concept than as a precise scientific explanation of individual differences (with diagnosis being somewhat unreliable, too).
Why smart people act in dumb ways
Leaving neurodiversity aside, there are multiple reasons why people who are legitimately regarded as “smart,” “clever,” or indeed “intelligent” may end up acting in unintelligent and even dumb ways. Here are some useful generalizations from science.
1. Pressure undermines clear thinking: When faced with high-stakes, consequential, important real-life situations, it is only human to feel some pressure. Pressure tends to translate into nerves, anxiety, and even stress. This effect is so well documented that even early intelligence test pioneers speculated that in order to increase the validity of an IQ test, it would be pertinent to administer it in high-pressure environments. So they manipulated variables like noise, heat, or test-taking time to induce pressure in test-takers. The logic was that if you test intelligence under pressure, you will be better able to predict intelligence under pressure in real-world situations. The idea never caught on, and ethics committees and regulations would make it unfeasible to apply it today—though, if you think about it, a typical recruitment interview does put people under some degree of pressure.
2. Likability matters: Although it is highly advantageous to be smart—even in the geeky, technical, academic sense of the word—our judgment of others is rather more holistic than IQ tests and we tend to be influenced more by personality, values, behaviors, and other non-PC factors such as attractiveness, gender, or race. In essence, we tend to like people who are like us and are generally skeptical of those who aren’t. In fact, we are more likely to like people when they show similar intelligence levels to ours, which makes sense: interests, conversation, and even beliefs co-vary with intelligence levels (as do political ideology and educational level). All this matters because in order to be effective in most real-life situations, you need to impress others and be positively viewed by them; yet others are not so objective when they judge you, and they will generally be biased against people who aren’t like them and in favor of people who are like them. In essence, being smarter than your peers can be a handicap, and being similar to them will make you appear socially skilled and interpersonally effective irrespective of your IQ and EQ.
3. Intellectual humility vs. arrogance: Smart people are often aware of their intelligence, and they may have no inhibitions in making other people aware. It follows that if you are working or interacting with people who are very clever, they may not be the archetype of humility. Instead, they may engage in patronizing, arrogant, and hubristic behavior—which can not only work against them when they underestimate others and their intelligence, but also make them less likable. In essence, then, it is better to be somewhat smart but interpersonally skilled enough to come across as humble than the smartest person in the room. Needless to say, at times the people who behave as if they are the smartest person in the room are only the smartest person in the room (or world!) in their own mind . . . which is the worst-case scenario for them and everyone else.
4. Deeper interests: Perhaps the most important reason why intellectually brilliant people may appear to struggle in everyday life—to the point of making dumb choices and decisions—is that everyday life may seem trivial and uninteresting to them. For instance, consider Isaac Newton in the modern world of digital influencers, or Marie Curie updating her LinkedIn profile. Would Einstein have remembered to submit his expenses on time? Would Darwin have optimized his personal brand, attended optional networking happy hours, or remembered to “circle back” after a productive meeting? It seems reasonable to assume that people capable of becoming deeply absorbed in difficult, abstract, and consequential problems may have less cognitive bandwidth, motivation, or patience for the mundane demands of ordinary life. What looks like incompetence may therefore sometimes be a question of priorities: If your mind is preoccupied with discovering gravity, radioactivity, or evolution, remembering your password, replying to WhatsApp messages, and completing your mandatory cybersecurity training may understandably slip down the list. The irony is that modern life is exceptionally good at testing precisely these abilities, so even a genius can end up looking rather stupid when trying to reset the Wi-Fi.
Importantly, just because a quality isn’t perfectly linked to success doesn’t make it a handicap or negative. Being smart (intellectually, academically, cognitively) is better than the alternative, and it does predict practical problem-solving, since logical reasoning and acting rationally are generally more beneficial than the reverse, even when you are trying to solve everyday problems like choosing the cheapest mortgage, deciding whether to change jobs, or figuring out whether that suspiciously cheap Airbnb rental is actually a bargain. Intelligence helps us process information, anticipate consequences, detect inconsistencies, and avoid at least some of the bad decisions that make life unnecessarily difficult. All else being equal, it is better to understand what is going on than not to.
The complication is that human beings are not especially rational creatures, so succeeding with them often requires understanding, and sometimes even appreciating, their irrationality. People respond to stories, status, flattery, emotion, identity, symbolism, and countless other things that make little sense to a perfectly rational mind but matter enormously in real life. As I predicted in I, Human: AI, Automation, and the Quest to Reclaim What Makes Us Unique, perhaps this will turn out to be the last refuge of humans in an age of intelligent machines. AI may have surpassed humans on many measures of intelligence, but unless it can also master human irrationality, especially the kind that is paradoxically associated with superior results and success, there will always be room for us in this world.
