We live in an age obsessed with excellence. Employers hunt for “unicorn” hires. Coaches preach the gospel of grit and talent and social media brims with motivational quotes urging you to “be outstanding.” This is all bulshit. Behind all this frenzy lies a sobering mathematical reality: truly exceptional individuals — people who score highly on intelligence, conscientiousness, and emotional stability all at once — are astonishingly rare rare.

According to a new study, fewer than 85 people out of every one million meet that bar. And if you’re wondering how many are profoundly exceptional, scoring three standard deviations above average on all three traits, the answer is close to zero: just one in 20 million.

Special, but not exceptional

Imagine you’re hiring someone for a high-stakes job, like a senior doctor or a policy strategist. Or you’re just offering a very, very well-paid job. You want someone smart, of course. But, you also want someone dependable, self-driven, and emotionally composed under pressure. That seems reasonable, right?

Well, here’s the catch. As the study’s author, psychologist Gilles Gignac from the University of Western Australia, shows, it’s incredibly rare for a person to tick all these boxes.

Gignac simulated data for 20 million fictional individuals using real-world statistics for three key psychological traits: intelligence, conscientiousness, and emotional stability. Intelligence predicts your ability to learn and solve problems. Conscientiousness speaks to how diligent, organized, and responsible you are. Emotional stability reflects your calmness and resilience in the face of stress. These three are the “holy Grail,” the most robust predictors of life success in anything from academic achievement to job performance and well-being.

He used an approach called a multivariate normal distribution, a statistical method that allows researchers to generate synthetic data that mimics how real-world traits are distributed (especially when those traits are correlated with one another). He set realistic correlations between traits, as observed from previous research.

Only 0.0085% of those simulated people — about 85 per million — scored two standard deviations above the mean in all three traits. In psychology (and statistics in general), a standard deviation (SD) is a way to measure how much a score differs from the average. So one standard deviation is above average, and two standard deviations are well above average. For perspective, being that exceptional is like being taller than 6’2″ as a man or 5’8″ as a woman — but across three psychological dimensions at once.

Even fewer — just one person out of 20 million — was “profoundly exceptional,” meaning three standard deviations above average in all three traits.

We’re misunderstanding the extraordinary

Humans have a bias for the rare. We overestimate how often rare things happen — whether it’s winning the lottery, being struck by lightning, or meeting a perfect candidate. Gignac’s study directly tackles this bias.

Here’s the thing: even people who are just slightly above average on these three traits are already rare. So, if you’re above average — not exceptional, just solidly good — you’re already in select company. The quiet worker who shows up, meets deadlines, and handles stress with grace? They’re much rarer and more valuable than you think.

The problem isn’t just unrealistic expectations — it’s the opportunity cost. By waiting for a unicorn, you miss out on the horse that could have carried you to the finish line.

Of course, these three traits are not the only positive ones. Other traits, like creativity, empathy, or leadership are also significant. But Gignac chose intelligence, conscientiousness, and emotional stability because they’re the most consistently validated predictors of performance and life success.

Ultimately, the study emphasizes that if someone is moderately above average in two or three desirable traits, that’s already excellent news. In fact, pushing for extreme levels of any one trait can backfire. Too much conscientiousness, for example, might turn into perfectionism. High emotional stability could sometimes mean lower empathy. And hyper-intelligence doesn’t always translate into better leadership or teamwork.

What do we do with this information?

The first step is recalibration. If you’re a hiring manager, educator, coach, or even a parent, it’s time to rethink what you’re aiming for — and what you’re overlooking.

You don’t need to lower your standards. But you might need to align them with reality. When only 85 in a million people qualify as truly “exceptional” across intelligence, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, setting your sights on the perfect all-rounder is like expecting every Olympic sprinter to also be a Nobel laureate and a Zen monk. It’s not just unlikely. It’s statistically absurd.

Instead, focus on the people who are good — reliably, consistently good — across the board. That intern who asks thoughtful questions, meets deadlines without drama, and stays calm in group meetings? They’re far more valuable than your gut instinct might tell you. According to Gignac’s simulation, people who are just one standard deviation above average on all three traits — still very capable — make up less than 1% of the population. These people may not set the world on fire, but they keep it turning.

In education, the implications are just as profound. Not every student is gifted, but many are highly capable — and deserve tailored support, not just praise for the outliers. In fact, over-focusing on “giftedness” can lead to ignoring students who show quiet, above-average promise in multiple areas — the very type most likely to succeed in the long run.

And in relationships, consider how we evaluate partners and friends. The dating world idolizes intelligence, humor, and emotional maturity — but how many people realistically excel at all three? Gignac’s numbers suggest almost no one. Instead of holding out for the triple-threat soulmate, consider the rarity of someone who’s simply smart, steady, and kind. That person isn’t settling. That person is gold.

The study was published in Personality and Individual Differences.