If conscientiousness is a largely inherited, why do educators usually regard it as a matter of personal choice, as opposed to intelligence which is pure luck?

From what I understand, research shows that trait conscientiousness is, like all of the other 5 traits in the big 5 model, largely inherited, relatively stable across the lifespan of an individual, and extremely difficult to change. Intelligence is believed to be similar. Why then is conscientiousness viewed so differently than intelligence? Most teachers/professors I have come across will openly admit that they respect a hardworking, less intelligent student more than a lazy but intelligent one. Obviously if the “lazy” student happens to also be entitled and to demand good grades that he did not earn, then that is a problem, just like a student who puts a lot of effort in doesn’t automatically get an A just for putting in a lot of effort. However, even if the lazy but intelligent student accepts their penalty gracefully, I still believe they would be viewed less favorably and not achieving their potential, whereas someone with low intelligence is rarely (outwardly at least) chided for not being more intelligent.

Sources: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10212-011-0099-9

Submitted March 02, 2021 at 07:48AM by Satyr_nalia https://ift.tt/3rdG3r4