General intelligence is very innate, therefore academic achievement cannot prove it. Intelligence comes in many different forms, most of which academics do not prove nor test.

That's the thing though, your example of academic achievement represents more of a talent rather than more grounded and realistic examples of such achievements. It's not the strongest, like Richard Feynman said: "Never confuse education with intelligence, you can have a PhD and still be an idiot." That stands today too, because academic achievements test either your talent, or work ethic and level or studying rigory. The logic stands, because it can be proved in day to day life. There are people who are masters of social, emotional and even fluid reasoning abilities who didn't do well in school at all. Your logic fails once you understand that people are not the same, people's minds are not the same, people have different talents and wiring for different subjects and topics.

Your statement is a fallacy, when you don't see something does not mean it's not there, and how if something can't test something therefore it can't be is a complete logical error. Something can be something despite invisibility, you either know it's there but don't see it, or don't know it's there but can feel it. Nobel prizes and academics are entirely different worlds of a similar spectrum. Nobel prizes are given to those who have revolutionized or discovered something amazing, regular academics and thesis are operating ON TOP of those same people's studies. By your logic since I'm the best in the class at physics, does that mean I have Issac Newton's level of intelligence? No it does not.

I have not denied academic achievement are great things, they truly are. But stating that it proves of superiority in intellect is not true. And Feynman's quote actually DOWNGRADES your own logic, because he was an academically brilliant man and he states that himself, that means your logic is a paradox. Since he is very academically brilliant, that means he is very logical, abstract and etc just like YOU stated. But then you stated under that same logic that it does mean such person is superior in intelligence. It does not prove of superior meanl horsepower unless treated under other factors and conditions. Like I have stated before, I have NEVER stated that academic achievements are worthless because they really aren't.

You keep on dodging the point. The point stands, that in a general unidealistic world where people are vastly different than each other that means intelligence is not proved under academic circumstances of being top of your class and being above a very specific academic baseline. If it is a measurable way, then why don't IQ tests based on your logic prove mental abilities under academic subjects and topics? Why don't schools operate under that same logic too? That if a kid aces a test or a lot of them that immidiately proves he is very highly intelligent? And then why do scientists and neurologists and constantly test the mind and study it and put it under tests have stated that under your same logic. And once again, saying I'm dismissing it disproves YOUR own logic once again.