In many societies, achievement is the main point for intellect, while others consider that intelligence can be rated in other methods. While intellectual people can have a lot of achievements, I firmly believe that intelligence is a complex skill that cannot be judged by only one way.
On one hand, success is often seen as a clear sign of intelligence because it shows practical application of mental abilities. For example, business leaders like Bill Gates or inventors like Thomas Edison achieved great things through their smart ideas and hard work. In fields such as science or business, where results can be measured by money or awards, success proves skills like problem-solving and creativity. Many people think this way because it is easy to see and compare, like in exams or jobs where high achievers get promoted. So, linking intelligence to success makes sense in competitive societies.
On the other hand, I think intelligence has many sides that success alone cannot show. For instance, IQ tests measure logic, math, and language skills without needing real-world wins. Also, emotional intelligence, like understanding feelings and building relationships, is important but may not lead to big achievements. Think of artists or teachers who are very smart in creative or social ways but do not become famous or rich. Factors like luck, family background, or opportunities can block success, even for intelligent people. Therefore, using only success ignores these other forms of intelligence.
In conclusion, while success can indicate some intelligence, it is not the full picture. We should use different methods, like tests and personal skills, to measure it properly. This way, society can value all kinds of smart people