Why aren't smart people happier?

Like people refer to meditation and don't explain all the process involved in one of the traditions because there is a wealth of information available, I would much prefer to answer to specific questions on the practice instead of copying and pasting from Wikipedia, which I am doing now.

"The technique involves repetitions of a set of visualisations accompanied by vocal suggestions that induce a state of relaxation and is based on passive concentration of bodily perceptions like heaviness and warmth of limbs, which are facilitated by self-suggestions.Autogenic training is used to alleviate many stress-induced psychosomatic disorders"

The formulas are six: heaviness, warmth, heart beating regularly and strongly, calm breath, warm solar plexus, and cool forehead.

There's no vocal suggestion (the Wikipedia article is wrong in that regard), the formulas are repeated silently. It's a much more effective practice of the hocus-pocus that is often meditation of the Eastern tradition, especially the bastardized variety adopted in the West, and there are plenty of books and papers available on the results of scientific studies that measure the effect on soma and psyche of AT.

I want to add that "belief" in yourself, though as you say is rather a biased pathway, is still to me so essential and valuable. Because it is the thing that in some socioeconomic circles is taken for granted and in others is completely assumed in the reverse. So from a humanist perspective I'd rather people fall short of their dream than to never even be able to dream at all.

I guess I am saying it is the lived experience that counts. If you are blissfully naive then is it a better life? iono maybe! but that's reminds me of beautiful animals. And the difference between humans and animals, so far as we come to believe, is that we can choose to suffer. and understand happiness and in that be so utterly unhappy. hah

There are certainly tradeoffs in everything, but majority rule is good enough. In practice any candidate that couldn't possibly handle the job has no real chance of winning. By the time you get into the race amongst those who have a realistic chance, they're all pretty much equally capable. Even if you don't get exactly who you want to see, the winner will be fine.

It's not exactly the most difficult job in the world† to begin with. If you get someone slightly worse than another, is it really going to matter? All they have to do is pay attention to the democracy taking place the local level and carry that sentiment to the central meeting place. What they deliver in the central meeting place is formally recorded, so if they are not acting in good faith to the constituents a tar and feathering will occur.

But to your question, yes, dumb people especially get overly worked up about this. Dumb people have come to believe that democracy ends after they have selected the employee. This is why they feel it is a tragedy when their top choice isn't selected. Whereas the smart people understand that democracy begins only after the employee is hired. That is when you start to talk to them and direct them, as is your democratic obligation.

† Which is to say that it isn't if you are surrounded by smart people who understand the democratic process. If you have to put with dumb people who think you are supposed be some kind of "leader" over them (even though they hired you), then the job becomes very hard trying to read their minds. One certainly does not envy anyone stuck in that position.

> especially when those solutions involve convincing dumb people.

That's the positive note about representative democracy. Since the dumb people end up being too dumb to participate, smart people end up ruling the day. This actually, even if a little counterintuitive, makes it much easier to get things done in practice for those who are smart.