We have scholastic results, scholastic degrees and honors designations, credit reports, criminal background checks, licensing tests, certification tests, IQ tests, placement tests, personality tests, aptitude tests, scholastic competitions, peer review, brain scans, and etc. The argument could be made that we don't have "a well defined, impartial and objective metric for measuring the importance of an asset or quality" for modern art either - yet somehow a value is established. Rather than a narrow definition of intelligence - perhaps a value should be reached by weighing the collective results?This is really the foundation for my argument. As far as I can tell, there doesn't exist a well defined, impartial and objective metric for measuring the importance of an asset or quality in someone. By that reasoning, I conclude that on a purely individual basis (i.e. outside of the confines of society), intelligence has no outlying importance in comparison to any other quality. I'm glad to see that other people share this view, it's pretty annoying when people are infatuated with their own intelligence as if it holds any weight in comparison. These kind of observations are what prompted this post.