In the famous book- Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell, the author has posed a great oxymoron. He says that the innate genius is not a guarantee of success. Actually, he said a higher IQ might be counterproductive.
In the book, the author talks about a guy with an IQ of 191(total being 200) who was not as successful as another with an IQ of 150. Now, one might think – how is that possible? Arent we all conditioned in our schools and society to study hard and increase our IQ. The gifted children who can play chess effortlessly or solve mathematical problems in a breeze are appreciated and talked about. In a school system, more ‘Genius’ the child is more is the focus given to them.
But what happens in the college? A by-the-book high IQ student might be labeled a nerd. There what matters is the ‘Smarts’. Crowd pleasers, entertainers are surely more famous. Smart students who can present well, talk well or play well are given due attention. It is all about living large. How many real school geniuses were famous in college? (Do let me know in comments)
After college, comes the career stage or, as elders say it, the real world stage. What do you think happens there? Who wins? Is it geniuses or smarts? Actually, it is a bit of both. Pure form of either of the trait is a problem. A pure genius is often socially blunt, not able to put forward their point in a socially acceptable manner. On the other hand, a pure smart (or oversmart), though overly pleasing might lack the skills required for the job.
More often than not, a recipe for success is the combination of both IQ(intelligence) and EQ(emotions). In the above example, the person with the IQ of 191 was a pure genius and lacked the social skills to put his genius forward, while the person with IQ of 151 was genius, combined with the societal skills. Hence, dear readers, please consciously put efforts to improve on both the sides of the coin.
Let me know in the comments if you could guess the people written in the article !!