Except that there isn't some kind of universal rule for any of this it's context-specific. I was a clever, plain, very poor working-class girl in a rough school known for fighting, truancy, teenage drinking (this was largely pre-drugs) and pregnancies. I got picked on because my cleverness had no currency there, among the demoralised staff nor schoolmates nor at home, where reading was 'lazy' and my parents tried to pressure me into leaving school at 15. I was just 'weak' in the context in which I grew up, a natural loser, the one the pack kicked and left in the ditch.
But of course I discovered I had way more currency than anyone else there because of my abilities (starting off with winning a scholarship to Oxford and getting the hell out). I discovered that elsewhere in the world I was in fact well up at the front of the 'Darwinian pack'. In other contexts, I was clever, articulate, personable, popular without making much of an effort, academically successful, then successful in my career. If I'd been born into another type of setting that valued brains, I'd still have been plain, but my cleverness would have been recognised, rewarded, and at a minimum made me feared/respected, if not popular among classmates.
My parents still live close to my old school, and though I've only kept two friends from my schooldays, I still occasionally see former classmates on the street when I visit my parents. Unsurprisingly, given what all of our upbringings were like rough area, no expectations, few opportunities most of them look older than their years (we're early 50s), and have visibly had difficult lives without much money. I know one is serving a long jail sentence for drug dealing. And those were the leaders of the Darwinian pack from the ages of 5 to 18.