I suspect your notion of intelligence includes more than the quality itself. Humans are complex systems and exist inside much more complex systems. If intelligence were purely adaptive then there would be a lot more of it than there is. If the adaptation of an organism didn't dominate the expression of it's qualities then they would always be manifest; They are not. When they are not, happiness is also often not. It is true that a more fully manifest human is happier. Also that as their happiness and observable intelligence are correlated. But what would result from intelligence that hadn't been able to fully manifest? I suspect the expression of many of these concerns. Your final statement equalizes on this point. In fact, the expression of these concerns is absolutely not equal among humans. I can appreciate the hesitation to accept their indication of higher intelligence. They're not remarkable thoughts. They're absolutely not thoughts we want to reward. They are only occasionally the product of excessive intelligence becoming maladaptive. A person that is failing to cope takes a fairly regular form. This form is ultimately not an expression of their intelligence.
You seem to be talking about "adaptive" intelligence. I suspect this is in fact the nearness to an optimal quantity and not merely more of the quality itself. Also, that this fluctuates over time. Adaptation to it is a continuous process of the meta-mind. Ignorance can be recognized as a form of unconscious intelligence possessed by any finite thinking thing. The calculations of this intelligence precede the existence of any particular mind and needn't be known by it. Our capacity to know this form of intelligence is unlikely. Hence your perception of imprecision. The thing you wish were precise never will be. Psychology simply cannot talk about it. As a science it wouldn't intend to. It can only theorize about definable qualities. To understand and properly measure "adaptive" intelligence we would have to subvert the entirety of it's effects. We would have to know what it deemed unworthy of being within the finite knower; Merely to confirm that it was in fact unworthy of being known. We can only pontificate about what "adaptive" intelligence is. Perhaps we can assert it's the correlates of observable intelligence. This demands that it doesn't fluctuate over time. Anything we can know to properly define it is too finite. Knowing it would imply a more "real" intelligence we have yet to define. We cannot "know" the meta-mind.
You seem to be talking about "adaptive" intelligence. I suspect this is in fact the nearness to an optimal quantity and not merely more of the quality itself. Also, that this fluctuates over time. Adaptation to it is a continuous process of the meta-mind. Ignorance can be recognized as a form of unconscious intelligence possessed by any finite thinking thing. The calculations of this intelligence precede the existence of any particular mind and needn't be known by it. Our capacity to know this form of intelligence is unlikely. Hence your perception of imprecision. The thing you wish were precise never will be. Psychology simply cannot talk about it. As a science it wouldn't intend to. It can only theorize about definable qualities. To understand and properly measure "adaptive" intelligence we would have to subvert the entirety of it's effects. We would have to know what it deemed unworthy of being within the finite knower; Merely to confirm that it was in fact unworthy of being known. We can only pontificate about what "adaptive" intelligence is. Perhaps we can assert it's the correlates of observable intelligence. This demands that it doesn't fluctuate over time. Anything we can know to properly define it is too finite. Knowing it would imply a more "real" intelligence we have yet to define. We cannot "know" the meta-mind.