I think there is actually a lot of benefit in being "smart enough" but not a genius in some areas. When I was growing up, if you were too smart as a young kid,

I think there is actually a lot of benefit in being "smart enough" but not a genius in some areas. When I was growing up, if you were too smart as a young kid, you'd be singled out as "gifted and talented" and then put in special classes, asked to do more schoolwork, etc. This separation had both positive and negative effects - on the one hand, it was a lot less boring to work on accelerated material. On the other hand, adults came to view you as "special" and just inherently smart in a way others weren't. That's both denigrating to others, and an intense amount of pressure for a kid. Personally, my response to this pressure was always to shut down if I didn't immediately grasp something. I just didn't bother to try - why fail and look stupid? It wasn't until college that I learned how to study and flex mental muscles that weren't already strong. In fact, I took introductory calculus three times - once in high school, twice in college - before I actually understood what was going on. Unlike language-related fields, higher mathematics just didn't come naturally. It took three tries because I had to figure out how to study, which I had never needed to do until that point, and because I'd taken the idea that I had to study as a sign I was unfit to be learning the material at all. I went on to do just as well as my peers, or better, in the other higher mathematics classes I needed to take, but the fear was always there - what if this is finally the thing I can't do, that my brain just can't learn? What if this is just too hard, because it doesn't come naturally at all? It's much better, in my view, to be someone who knows they can do anything, but that they have to put in effort. Learning to put in that effort consistently and not be disheartened by the challenge is much more valuable in some ways than knowing how to do the specific thing one is learning.