The "level of intelligence" should only be a problem to you if you are not managing to accomplish what you want to accomplish.

If you want to accomplish could fusion youd probably be worrying about not being a genius. If you want to make a comic book, you should be drawing. If you want to impress others with your intelligence, you should suicide.

Your "intelligence" should be a consequence of your intentions. To me "natural geniuses" are the ones who grabbed to a hobby since a kid, so they develop theyr entire live around a subject, making them super experienced on it.

So a super brain would be one that allow for fast learning and good keeping of information, like savants.

I do wander how much % a super skilled person is effortful and how much % she is fast learner. To me it all ends on how much different persons need to study to get the same level of skill.

Consider Carmack, does he have a super brain? If you read the book Masters of Doom you will see that all he cared about in live was programming. The bastard even dumped his cat cause it was too much nuisance for him. If someone has as much hours of programming as Carmack, would he be as skilled?

The "level of intelligence" should only be a problem to you if you are not managing to accomplish what you want to accomplish.

If you want to accomplish could fusion youd probably be worrying about not being a genius. If you want to make a comic book, you should be drawing. If you want to impress others with your intelligence, you should suicide.

Your "intelligence" should be a consequence of your intentions. To me "natural geniuses" are the ones who grabbed to a hobby since a kid, so they develop theyr entire live around a subject, making them super experienced on it.

So a super brain would be one that allow for fast learning and good keeping of information, like savants.

I do wander how much % a super skilled person is effortful and how much % she is fast learner. To me it all ends on how much different persons need to study to get the same level of skill.

Consider Carmack, does he have a super brain? If you read the book Masters of Doom you will see that all he cared about in live was programming. The bastard even dumped his cat cause it was too much nuisance for him. If someone has as much hours of programming as Carmack, would he be as skilled?

Well, there is a modern theory of intelligence that suggests that some people start out with varying sizes of advantage in processing in one or more areas, but that these differences are incredibly small compared to how people normally perceive genius. As the child interacts with the world they gravitate towards what they are good at due to adults praising them. By the time they are measured by society for intelligence they have a large advantage and are called gifted. This validates the parents who motivate the child even more and the child internalizes this aspect of their lives as a major part f their character. They spend a lot of extra time outside of school on hobbies related to their talent plus all the time in school.

Essentially a lot of little advantages over time combine together to produce what we consider to be large variants. But its all similar to the 10000 hour theory with a slight twist.

As far as the world changing ideas, that's probably a simple case of concept privilege. Some people are just exposed to the right set of circumstances with the right ideas running through their mind.

Intelligence is useless if its not focused, or if its focused on a subject that doesn't matter. Basically its like creativity. A lot of writers or musicians are totally focused on their work but they are poor and unknown not because they aren't talented but because their talent is focused on something that doesn't appeal to other people.

Being talented is necessary but not sufficient.

"Intelligence" isn't even all that well defined a trait. Someone who's good at math might be called intelligent, unless he or she is an idiot savant. Stemming from that, there isn't really a measurement of intelligence that would allow someone to make a precise judgment of it. IQ scores used to be all the rage, but now they've fallen somewhat out of favor.

That's not to say that it can't be assessed, but I don't think you can make the fine distinctions or easy definitions that people usually try to apply to it. But echoing others above, intelligence alone isn't sufficient for anything. A more intelligent person may be able to tackle harder or more complex problems than a less intelligent person, but that does zero good until the intelligence is actually applied to something or other.