A society's well-being cannot be reduced to a single yardstick, but if forced to choose between the happiness of the average citizen and the achievements of a talented few, the former is the more meaningful measure — because achievement that does not eventually improve ordinary lives is, by most reasonable definitions, not yet a social good at all.

Consider two nations with comparable GDP: one channels its wealth into world-class research institutes and a handful of Nobel laureates, while median households struggle with housing and healthcare costs; the other has fewer headline-grabbing achievements but broad access to stable jobs, education, and medical care. Most observers, and most citizens themselves, would judge the second society healthier, even though it produces less "achievement" in the narrow sense. Historical examples reinforce this: the Soviet Union's space program produced extraordinary scientific firsts, yet the everyday material and civic conditions of most citizens lagged far behind Western Europe's less spectacular but more broadly distributed prosperity.

A critic might object that a society's greatest achievers — its scientists, artists, and entrepreneurs — are precisely what create the conditions for future average well-being: penicillin, electricity, and the internet all trace back to a small number of exceptional individuals whose work eventually raised living standards for everyone. This is a fair and important qualification. But it actually supports rather than undermines the original claim: these achievements matter for a society's well-being only once they are diffused into ordinary life. A cure that sits in a lab, or a technology accessible only to the wealthy, has not yet made the society healthier — it is the translation of achievement into widespread benefit, not the achievement in isolation, that we should measure.

There is also a psychological dimension worth acknowledging: societies fixated on celebrating a narrow elite of high achievers often generate corrosive social comparison, status anxiety, and a sense among the majority that they are falling behind by definition. Countries that rank consistently high on well-being surveys, such as several in Scandinavia, tend to emphasize broad social stability, work-life balance, and a strong safety net over the celebration of a small class of exceptional achievers — and this emphasis correlates with higher reported life satisfaction across the population, not merely among the successful.

None of this implies that individual achievement is unimportant; a society without ambitious innovators would stagnate. But as a measure of well-being specifically, the stability and contentment of the many is the more direct and honest indicator, with exceptional achievement mattering chiefly insofar as its benefits are shared.

I agree that a society's well-being is better measured by the happiness of average citizens than by the achievements of its most talented members, although both matter to some degree.

First, most people in a society are average citizens, not exceptional achievers, so their happiness affects far more lives overall. If a country has a few famous scientists but most people are unhappy or struggling financially, it is hard to call that society successful. For example, a country could have a very impressive space program but still have many citizens who cannot afford healthcare.

Second, achievements by talented individuals do not automatically help everyone. A new invention might make a company or a few people rich without improving life for the average person, at least not right away. So achievement alone does not guarantee well-being for the whole society.

On the other hand, someone could argue that talented individuals eventually create things that help everyone, like medicine or technology. This is true in some cases, but it can take a long time, and not everyone benefits equally, especially in poorer countries or poorer communities within a rich country.

In conclusion, while individual achievement is valuable and can eventually help society, I believe the happiness and stability of ordinary citizens is a more accurate and immediate measure of a society's well-being, since it reflects how most people are actually living.

I think happiness of normal people is more important than achievement of talented people because happiness is what matters most in life.

If people are not happy then the society is not good even if some people are very successful. Rich or famous people are not always representing everyone else in the country. Also achievement is not the same as happiness, a country can have good scientists but people can still be sad.

But also achievement is important too because without smart people nothing would improve in the world and society needs new ideas to move forward, so its complicated and both things matter for a society.

In conclusion happiness of normal people is more important than achievement because most people are normal and not talented so their happiness matters more for society overall in general.