Probably the same. From what I understand from my limited studies in psychology, it is one's emotional make-up and character which is a greater determinant of success and achievement than genius or profoundly gifted talent -- (by whatever personal standard you gauge it.)
Everything would be better. I would be superior, but I know things would still be messed up somehow. Yet I would prefer to be a genius than an average Joe.
Would depend on the field in which I was a genius, I think. I would hope my genius-ness (is there such a word?) would not lead to a very narrow outlook on life though. And certainly not to arrogance.
Anyway, I'm not one and I don't think that's been a disadvantage. I've muddled through 40 years of working life at a very modest level compared to most people I have known in school, at work and socially. Although regret is pointless, I would not have minded being brighter and better-educated. I left school with a clutch of mediocre GCE O-Level* results - but we can't have everything, and let's remember the genuine meaning of "mediocre" is not "low quality" but "average" - the root is "medi", meaning 'middle', not "sub".
I think I rather disappointed my parents who apparently thought I was very bright and could do really well for myself, but they were wise enough not to mention it, let alone moan about it. Frankly though, it hardly matters. I don't really care if I did disappoint them because it was my adult life, not theirs.
What I have gained though is a set of circles of friends of all ages and backgrounds, and they are far more valuable than mere IQ, learning ability and consequent riches gained from the sort of highly-paid career some of them enjoy. Or didn't - a few succumbed to stress, and the stress levels in high-flying careers make you wonder if all that ambition and promotion was really worth the effort!
I used to know a PhD-bearing scientist - hence a "genius" by my definition - who rose so high that he was no longer was a scientist as such, but a senior manager. I heard after he retired he became a part-time consultant, and thoroughly enjoyed being a working scientist again - his work was primarily extremely advanced mathematics, so perhaps he could also work at home.
Are geniuses (genii?) luckier/ happier than we ordinary mortals? Many people of genius are probably very happy because they are lucky enough to be able to achieve or create so much - not to mention the salaries they might command for very fulfilling careers as a result!
I hear on the radio a great variety of people I would regard as of genius ability - scientists, senior judges, musicians - etc., talking about some aspect of their work, or performing some great concerto say, and their enthusiasm for their work is often very evident.
I'm not talking about so-called "savants". I doubt there is any such thing in any meaningful way, although the word means only "wise one". Anyway, Wisdom is usually out of Experience by Learning, it is not necessarily the same as Knowledge or Skill in a given field. One can be wise without being extraordinarily talented in anything; and vice-versa! Or of course, be neither. The most famous so-called "savants" had the ability to learn their skills to an unusually high level, but closer inspection often reveals considerable personal cost due to unrelenting, grinding study and practice, beyond what most people would want or regard as particularly sensible.
*GCE O[ordinary]-Level: the standard school-leaving exams until the 1970s when the entire UK education system was changed fundamentally to "Comprehensive", with very mixed results. The number and type of O-Levels gained at age 15-16, guided your choice of further education and/or employment. It was possible to embark on an apprenticeship or similar training coupled with college courses leading to a high-grade professional career, with just 4 or 5 good O-Levels.
Social skill is MUCH more important than intelligence. One identifying characteristic of a genius is that his teachers hate him. Get "Dress For Success" by John Molloy and consider his advice for students: - Vocal skill will affect your earning power more than any other detail. - Acting skill will get you a job offer even when you are not qualified for the job. - The most important benefit you get from school is your address book. - The difference between a successful person and a very successful person is that the latter knows hundreds more people, and knows them quite well. - No school will teach you any of the above. They don't even teach how to do well in their school.
Point Two of the advice you quote contains the seeds of its own downfall, for such an employee would soon be found out as incompetent. No employer of any sense will engage and retain someone who thinks he or she can hoodwink the interviewer into being offered the post, only to find the new starter was a cheat and liar. If it such an "actor" is engaged then the employer is not assessing the applicants properly. Large organisations wanting people for high-value work have complex recruitment systems that involve a lot of background work, far beyond reading a CV and interviewing the potential recruit.
I don't think it's a school's role to teach anyone to do well. Its role is to give its students the means to make themselves do well. The most it can offer beyond that is advice on careers and further-education. It ought though advise on the basics of applying for employment, and if I were to give such advice I would tell my students, "Do NOT follow books like that by John Molloy, because you will fail, probably sooner than later. Employers of any worth, and their staff, don't like cheats!"
However, many employers now have complained that modern curricula and teaching methods have resulted in far too many school-leavers being barely literate and numerate - though I've noticed no-one thinks to ask how many of the ignorant are so by their own lack of effort or ability. You cannot force anyone to learn anything but in some situations school-children themselves can't be bothered to do well because they see no point, thereby condemning themselves to dead-end work or even unemployability in future.
If I was interviewing someone for a post of any worth, I'd certainly give them an opening if I found they were trying to cheat me - and themselves - by pretending to be clever in the way Molloy suggests. And ask them to close it quietly behind them.
Your opinion is understandable, but that is not advice. Mr. Molloy hires actors to do job interviews as part of his image consultant business, and that is what he learned as a result. Not because he was trying to cheat anybody.
Durdle 