Yes! And the main theory of the article is barely discussed in current comments thread, but to me novel and very thought-provoking: The model of "well-defined problems" vs "poorly-defined problems" and the hypothesis that what we call "smart" is usually being good at solving well-defined problems, but it's being good at solving poorly-defined problems that might correlate with happiness, and being good at solving well-behaved vs poorly-behaved problems does not correlate.

This rings true to me, in that in that model I recognize I'm pretty good at solving well-defined problems, but pretty terrible at solving poorly-defined problems (and currently not especially happy).

That was all new to me as a way of thinking about it! Most of the comments here are about "why are smarter people less happy", which is not what the OP is about, and is more well-trodden.