>>13581901Not really. In school, for example, one of the most significant factors that people will attribute to intelligence is test scores, so people will usually make a vague hierarchy accordingly. However tests are inherently a poor indicator of intelligence, and school tests in particular fail as an indicator for anyone outside the typical range (around 140+ IQ if we're going to put an arbitrary number to it).
Besides tests, the main other way people would make a hierarchy of intelligence is through talking about people. Besides those with extreme arrogance, most people can tell if someone is smarter than them, and the words of smart people are typically held in higher regard. Thus, if a smart person calls another smart, it means that they are at least on their level. Less smart people will typically just follow whatever their leader tells them, and thus they determine some hierarchy through this means.
So we've established that people can usually rank people fairly accurately for their intelligence, however they do so mostly by indirect means. However when outliers are involved, there is often a failure of most to recognize where such a person lies. A person of (still using the arbitrary measurement of IQ), say 180 IQ, will often naturally be so remarkable, that it's impossible not to recognize their intelligence because at a young age they are already smarter than adults. However people in the range of say 150-170 IQ, while exceptionally smart, usually cannot be distinguished even from people with e.g. 130 IQ.
This is what causes so many problems for people around the 150-170 range. They are held back in school by retards, and due to societal norms, in school are unable to go at a reasonable pace for themselves, causing a resentment to learning and such.
