When we say someone is " intelligent ", what are we talking about?

In terms of the criteria implied in the question, this is mainly about " IQ".

So what is "IQ"?

If you try to take any kind of IQ test, such as the Mensa Society test, you will find that it is just some logic test. Simply put, it is often thought that "high intelligence" is reflected in the ability of some people to identify connections and correlations in things better than others, and to use those correlations to expand into more cognitive areas. That's all.

So, when someone has this ability, does it guarantee that they will be "successful"? Is this ability enough to guarantee that they will be able to do all the work?

Obviously not. We can categorize human work into the following types:

First, focus on work that deals with people and their problems. To a large extent this has nothing to do with intelligence. Because people themselves have a lot of non-logical behavior. When we want to reach some kind of consensus with someone, we pay more attention to the "commonality" between us and others. This "commonality" requires you to adapt to others as much as possible, to consider the feelings of others. Of course, I do not deny that many people with high IQs are also able to do this well. But it is clear that human intelligence is in normal distributed. When someone is in a distinct "minority" group, it is usually harder for them to find "commonality" with the majority. This is why when we are in school, it is usually the smartest kids and the least smart kids who are isolated and ostracized. Because they are the obvious "minority".

Second, there is a fixed and well-developed logical system of work. Usually it is some skillful work. For these jobs, we all know the famous 10,000-hour rule. Obviously, it is easy to understand the logic of this type of work, but "understanding the principles" and "actually doing it" or even "getting better at it" are completely different state. Patience, proficiency, and dedication are more important than " intelligence". People who succeed in such areas are also not " intelligent" in the general sense. Because of the odds, " intelligent" people think they know more and are more easily attracted to new things. They usually have a hard time keeping themselves in a particular area for long. At this point, " intelligence " is a burden.

Third, creative work. You may be confused. It is logical that " intelligent people " should be good at " creative work ". However, the reality is also very harsh. Our world is likely to progress through quantitative changes on the basis of sufficient accumulation. This means that the jobs we encounter in our daily lives are mainly of the above two kinds. The "creative work" that is really needed can only be done by a "very small number of people". This means that when someone really wants to succeed in such a field, he will face competition from other " intelligent people ". And from the objective law of normal distribution, the more you get to the level of "very few people", the bigger the gap between individuals. Someone is always more intelligent than the other "intelligent people", and much more intelligent... A simple logic is that no one will remember "second place". So, how confident are you that you will always be "first"?

Well, we have to admit that whether or not an individual is as " intelligent" as they are perceived to be, the odds of reaching their potential or realizing their talent are very small. We have to recognize that most people are average, and that's about it. If you do succeed through your own efforts and opportunities, that's great, that's something to be proud of, and that's something for others to be happy about. If not, there's no need to worry or be anxious. You're just living an ordinary life like most people, and enjoying life itself is a happy enough thing.