Attempting to "objectively" compare humans is just grounds for trying to determine what kinds of people are "objectively superior" which is kinda... suspect.
I have found multiple times throughout my life that people who are traditionally considered "more stupid", per say, have been some of the kindest friends I've ever had. And there are some people who are really smart who I have been friends with who have not been great at well, being friends. I value both of them equally. If I even was to endorse the idea that some people are inherently and objectively more valuable, better than others, I would be not only contradicting what my experience has led me to conclude, but I would also be dismissing the value of people as a whole.
There are also theories of multiple intelligences that are decently supported, and your definition of intellect doesn't seem to account for that.
Put simply, there is merely little or no value when it comes to objectively comparing humans, and the entire concept of intellect kinda just falls short when you start thinking about what it actually is.
I guess I bring this up because I think that this kind of thinking, this method of looking at people, I think it's highly ineffective and I really don't want anyone reading this thread to take away the conclusion of "higher IQ = better".