Whilst I do, (broadly), agree with the points you raise, I do take a different view. My belief is that the ‘scientific’ qualitative and quantitative assessments of intelligence are sub-optimal.
This is because the ‘instinctive’ capability of an individual is what really makes the difference between being ‘bright’ or ‘sharp’ and verging on genius (in any field).
It is instinct that facilitates speed of analysis and decision making. The capacity to adapt to the unknown or the unexpected (be it the sharp wit of a comedian or the adaptability of a great boxer)...
In the same way, a very clever individual can be absolutely shockingly daft at certain things and specific areas of life. Therefore, the quotient of their intellect is more nuanced and nebulous than can be accounted for in the traditional science-based approach we are familiar with in the West.
Of course measuring intelligence is never easy, since there are several types of intelligence.
Exactly, I imagine Einstein’s or Tesla were horrible athletes.
There are creative people that can’t do math, and math people that aren’t creative at all. And both types are intelligent.