The discussion is good under the previous update and I recommend it. As with many other topics here, I receive private emails from folks who do not want to become embroiled in contention, but want to mention something to me. In this case, a friend notes that the discussion seems to go too quickly to looking only at excellence, at genius and high accomplishment. But the advantage of desirable skills is that they also raise the floor, so that a person who has a lot of one necessary ability for a particular task is not a complete washout even if s/he has not quite enough for the others. To continue the basketball analogy, Tacko Fall is the tallest person in the NBA at 7-5. He is below-average but not terrible in coordination. He did not start playing basketball in Senegal until quite late. He works hard and is extremely likable. As an illustration, when he came to the Boston Celtics he was invited to be guest conductor for the Boston Pops for one piece, and was not quite keeping the rhythm accurately. Almost. But the crowd loved him, he tried hard, and he wasn't embarrassingly bad, so long as you weren't expecting an actual conductor.
He will never be a starter, let alone a star. He is improving, and at his peak may become a "rotation player," someone who plays 15-25 legitimate minutes of a 48-minute game, and even some minutes in the playoffs. If he was a jerk he'd be gone. If he didn't work hard he'd be gone. But mostly, if he was average height he would never have even been under consideration, because his coordination and early training are not excellent. I should mention as a humorous aside that he is also very smart, 1440 on his SAT's despite English being a second language and Senegalese schools being...unremarkable. I don't have the breakdown, but his math ability is apparently very good, so likely approaching a perfect 800 there.
This is the same for any other ability. There are jobs that require that you endure a moderate amount of danger and remain clear-headed, such as a diver. Or jobs that require you keep your temper under provocation, such as...well, anyone who works with the public, frankly. I have already mentioned beauty, or resilience, or diligence, or charm, or trustworthiness, or tact, ...or IQ. If you have a lot of anything, you can at least make your way in the world and carve out some niche, even if you don't set the world on fire. That is very valuable, not only for you, but for the society around you.
I plead guilty, that I was one of the people falling into that error, and further admit that I often fall into that error. Even when mentioning that I was not focusing on individuals but on group success, I failed to take the next logical step and remember that success does not only mean "some people who do really well at this," but also "lots of competent people," and "very few people who we just can't find a niche for."
To return to a frequent theme, yes, it is irritating when one of those people who has a high IQ talks like they are some sort of success when they are actually just being endured because they provide some value while falling short in other areas, but that is true of all abilities. Attractive people think the initial approval they receive is their deserved level. People who have degrees or other credentials can show inordinate entitlement. Even the salt-of-the-earth, hardworking folks with diligence, resilience, attention to detail, and the like can display those resentments of "I've got so much of this, why doesn't anyone appreciate me? I'm better than them." It is true of all abilities, it's just that certain ones just get us torqued off more.