I really dislike speaking about intelligence as though it's a measurable, quantifiable thing. Sure, some people are just plain more brilliant than everyone else, but it just seems to lower everyone's confidence if we're given an arbitrary, limiting label like our IQ. Not to mention, public knowledge of all people's actual IQ could create a social stigma of advantage and disadvantage that is potentially more damaging (towards equality) even than racism or sexism. So it's a useless paradigm to set our sights on for too long.
After all, the mental sciences are often speaking out in science magazines about how there's different kinds of intelligence, rather than a simple, inferiority-to-superiority scale. I mean, an autistic savant might be able to do amazing things with numbers, and so can Stephen Hawking, but can either of them paint a great artwork that comments on a social convention or is just plain beautiful and popular? I doubt it. Intelligence varies in type depending on the person. Either that, or it's just not as relevant as everyone says it is. (Or both.)
Myself, I'm a humanities type thinker. I'm terrible at mathematics, but if you give me something to research and write an essay about, I can do it, and I'll put it into a strong theoretical framework, semiotic analyses included if necessary. I can write, play music, and use computers rather well, and receive compliments in these terms from those that I know, and those that I don't know, often enough to be confident. At the same time, I aspire to keep in touch with the world of science in a casual way. So even if I'm not above the average of intelligence in the IQ sense because of my low maths skill, at least I try to get there and stay there. And perhaps that is the best that we could say of most people.
