Well 'academic' and 'intelligent' are two different things. You are conflating them. A mistake prevalent in our society.
The former has two meanings:
- Relating to education and scholarship
- Of theoretical, but not practical interest.
Every single one of those academics you spoke about, no matter how nerdy/well-dressed/whatever they are. All have something in common.
The ability to pass exams, and have excellent written + oral communication skills, in their field of interest. In 2024 undergraduate degrees (in the UK at least) have 'diverse' modes of assessment, some may be more 'practical'. But all Master's degrees whatever the country require a dissertation, or written output with the appropriate formal language and formatting. Similarly, a PhD requires a thesis. These are all requirements of education and scholarship.
The definition of intelligence however is broader:
- The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
This covers a broad range of abilities as you stated. The nursery worker who knows what a baby wants when they start to cry? Intelligent. My illiterate grandmother whose food was perfect, and who could cook anything once she'd watched someone else do it? Intelligent!
Many people understand something instinctively but cannot communicate in a formalised way. They will never be 'academic'. I know many people who for example can fix anything, but they can't pass written exams on the theory of 'fixing things'. Similarly a good cook like my grandmother will eb able to articulate why they do certain things but they may not be able, or even want to write essays on the subject of cooking.
Maybe with the use of AI more of these people will be able to access academia. But there are so many qualifications, covering a wide variety of skills, I don't know when 'academia' became the gold standard for a judgement of intelligence.