People value intelligence and will apply that label to themselves even if it may not be true. It's a hard thing to measure though IQ does it reasonably well. To those who have a high IQ: what is it like? Can you pick up any book, read it, and understand the gist with minimal repetition? Can you infer solid and accurate conclusions based on a small amount of evidence? Is any subject or discipline up for grabs or do you have to have a keen interest in a particular field in order to flourish? What is something you are able to do that you know is because of your intelligence -- the proverbial 1,000 pound deadlift of the brain, if you will.
There is no point to these questions other than curiosity.
The longer answer I would give is: It depends on a lot of things such as how much smarter you might be compared to those around you, how frequent any differences may be demonstrated, and how, if at all, said differences improve over a period of time.
The short answer is: it ranges between tedious and infuriating.
And now for the sperg of text. When others can't do things that you find easy enough to be trivial it brings up questions why it's so difficult for them as well as why they can't improve, even when you already know the answer which is: everyone is different and has different capabilities.
Being able to look at a puzzle, or a mix of letters, or some other potential pattern and "just get it" is as pointed out elsewhere in the comments just a trait. It's how someone is and how they interpret and respond to stimuli. But when you then add various context to that situation it can go from solving a puzzle in seconds just because you can, to being told everyone else has spent the last 15 minutes trying to solve it and failing. Thus creating the comparison. You're not just "smart" at this point for solving the problem, you're now also "smarter" then others which leads to various issues from both sides of the comparison.
Frustration at others inability to do what you can and/or consider trivial will lead to resentment which can in turn lead to distancing and isolation. This can also come about by others feeling intimidated or put off just how much someone outshines everyone else and more so when it's clear through less effort than everyone else needs to put in. Even though it may be known it's not intentional or malicious behaviour the result is still the same, and there is very little that can be done to solve it.
this.
and the way forward nowadays is to wall out the lessers.
the US military spent decades researching why/how anyone of IQ 83 or lower is net negative to the military -- that there's literally no job they can do which is net positive.
the US military has 2 million people in it. most companies aren't even close. as organizations get smaller, especially those streamlined to remove mundane tasks, the standard is a lot higher. and LLMs are raising the bar exponentially, not lowering it... a 140 IQ person with an LLM can have many times more value output over 100x 120 IQ people with LLMs and 10,000x more output over 100x 100 IQ people with LLMs.
increasingly, i find the only solution is to just not be around those people. old world thinking was that if you train someone, then you no longer have to do it and you can scale more. but at some degree, the increasing complexity of the tasks make it such that the amount you invest in training someone hits diminishing returns... you spend more time and money training people than it would take to just do it yourself, even counting long term and opportunity costs. and the amount of resources it would take for them to "get it" is either excessive or infinite (because they will never get it).
in my last company, i tended to find the bar is somewhere around 120 IQ. software company doing some really technical shit, so anyone under 120 IQ was not even qualified for customer service or sales.
First, 120 is usually just past the pretentious halfwit range. Ignoring machine learning, the only reason this would be true is the difficulty and cost of managing increasing amounts of people. Assuming that there's acceptable leadership, it's better to have 10 people ranging from 140-105 IQ with diverse backgrounds (not the intersectional type) than three 145s of similar background. The Wisdom of Crowds book cites at least 1 study showcasing how important it is for a team strategy to not have blind spots resulting from groupthink.
A rockstar is still capable of unique invention, so 1+ genius shouldn't be discarded if possible.
VIs only benefit is lessening the burden of less virtuous or misaligned individuals on the more productive. The homogeneity they output reminds me of the Irish potato famine, however British oppression plays into it. Certainly not gauranteeing 1 borderline genius to out profit 100 borderline smarts working g together.
sure, but have you ever tried to get multiple 145+ IQ people in the room together? you're talking about a fraction of 1% of the population. rolling in those groups, half of them just wanted brain opiates (playing magic or other games with 30%+ RNG), and then some derpy data science shit for their day job. the others tended to have high sociopathic tendencies, not interested in working together unless they were the boss. those of us who are neither are basically functional autists.
Hey, we could easily be all three!
Preach.