I agree, but I think sneaking the word "high achievers" into the conversation is part of the problem. "High achievers" shouldn't be people who scored well on t

I agree, but I think sneaking the word "high achievers" into the conversation is part of the problem. "High achievers" shouldn't be people who scored well on tests (IQ tests, the SATs, etc.) They should be people who achieved things in real life! For example, building something people use (e.g. not "playing house" for investors), reforming our legal system or government, excelling at sports, music, etc. There's a certain part of the population that I'm familiar with where achievement means "performs well on metrics that somebody else designed". But I also think there is a large part of the population who "calls bullshit" on that value system. And I would call that "common sense" more than anti-intellectualism. The former kind of "achiever" lacks agency in the world, and that's probably a major reason why they're depressed (speaking from past experience). It's human nature to be depressed when you're being judged and have to jump through hoops set up by others. It's also natural to be depressed if everyone's telling you that you achieved something, but yet nothing in your life is actually better. I guess it goes back to the comment about passing the IQ test but failing the intelligence test ...