Why Are High-IQ Children Also Called Lazy? It Took Me Time to Understand That Intelligence Comes in More Than One Form
Why school success and intelligence are not the same thing — and why some highly capable children are misunderstood as lazy
By Jane Sonnenschein · First draft: January 5, 2026 · Revised on May 19, 2026
A couple of days ago, I wrote an essay called I Used to Think That Children with High IQs Were Supposed to Be xueba[1], and Later I Realized I Was Wrong.
After finishing that piece, one question kept staying in my mind without ever being fully unfolded: why do we so naturally equate “high IQ” with being a top student?
Later, I slowly realized that maybe the problem is not only that we misunderstand high intelligence. Maybe the deeper problem is that, from the very beginning, we have lumped several completely different kinds of children together and called them all “smart.”
In everyday language, if a child gets good grades, we say they’re smart. If a child thinks quickly, we also say they’re smart. If a child has a lot of ideas and does not follow the usual pattern, sometimes we call that smart too.
But those kinds of “smart” are not actually the same thing.
Some children are especially well suited to the school system.
Some children have high intelligence and can also adapt to the school system.
And some children really are very smart, but the way their minds work simply does not fit well with the school system.
If we do not separate these different kinds of children, it becomes very easy to reach a rough and simplistic conclusion: children with good grades are smart, children with poor grades are not smart enough, and children who are obviously smart but do not study well are lazy.
But reality is much more complicated than that.
Type One: the school-system-adapted xueba[1] (the most common kind in China)
The first type of child is the one we know best: the school-system-adapted xueba.
These children do not necessarily have the highest intellectual ceiling, but they usually have a very stable set of strengths.
They have a strong sense of rules. They can accept repeated training, and they can tolerate delayed gratification.
They know how to follow the whole process of previewing, listening in class, doing practice work, and reviewing afterward. Just as importantly, they are willing to stay in that process over the long term.
That ability is actually quite remarkable.
Very often, when a child can maintain strong grades over a long period of time in school, what supports that is not just comprehension. It is also self-management, time organization, task completion, emotional stability, and sustained effort.
In other words, what helps them win is not only intelligence. It is also their ability to adapt to the rules of school.
Get Jane Sonnenschein | A Chinese Way of Seeing’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
In the Chinese context, this is the kind of child we are most likely to understand as a “smart child.”
Because their strengths show up very clearly on report cards.
Teachers like them, parents feel reassured, relatives praise them, and the people around them easily arrive at the same conclusion: look, this is what a smart child looks like.
But there is an easily overlooked issue here: being highly suited to the school system does not necessarily mean that a child has the highest intellectual potential.
Of course they may be very smart. But their more visible advantage is that they are able to deliver their abilities in the way the system wants them delivered.
Type Two: high IQ + system-compatible (extremely rare)
The second type is the kind of “genius top student” people most love to imagine.
They understand things quickly, they are strong in abstract thinking, and they are good at drawing inferences. At the same time, they can also adapt to school rules.
They can grasp complex problems quickly, and they can also tolerate boring basic drills. They have creativity, but they also have execution. They have high ability, but they also stay engaged with tasks.
This is the type most likely to become the star of the story.
The young prodigies we see in the news, the competition champions, the people who go all the way through elite schools and then seem to do well both academically and professionally — many of them belong to this category.
Their existence is so dazzling that we easily start to assume: if a child has a high IQ, then surely they should naturally turn out like this.
But that is exactly where the problem lies.
This kind of child is actually very rare.
What is truly rare is not simply “being smart.” What is rare is having both high-level understanding and the ability to keep doing things you may not even like for a very long time.
They can think quickly, yet also slow down and do repetitive practice. They can raise questions, yet also obey rules. They have ideas of their own, yet can still produce standard answers inside an exam system.
Only when all of those abilities are stacked together do we get what we tend to see as the “genius top student.”
But very often, we use this tiny group of children as the standard for every child we think is smart.
And that is where things start to go wrong.
[1] xuébà（学霸）: A popular Chinese term for a student who consistently excels within the school system. It usually refers not just to high grades, but also to strong discipline, steady performance, and an ability to handle the routines, repetition, and expectations of formal schooling. It is not exactly the same as “gifted” or “genius,” because it often emphasizes success within the system rather than raw intellectual potential alone.
Continue reading the full essay on A Chinese Way of Seeing:
Originally published on A Chinese Way of Seeing, a trilingual collection of essays by Jane Sonnenschein about China, family, language, and cultural perspectives.
