Having a clear picture where you fall with regards to a broad population is indeed very hard, particularly if we consider all the different dimensions of intell

Having a clear picture where you fall with regards to a broad population is indeed very hard, particularly if we consider all the different dimensions of intelligence: mathematical ability? musicality? problem solving? negotiation? emotional intelligence? planning ability? lateral thinking?. At best, by working in a team all you can achieve is to (rightly or wrongly) estimate your level within the team itself, but only with regards to the type of intelligence which is most used in the given context. And, given that the team members have most likely been selected for or were motivated to join because of their relevant abilities, the team is subject to selection bias. As a result, on average, you are most likely to be very close to the perceived "average" intelligence of the teams to which you belong. Hence why impostor syndrome is so common in highly skilled professions — as a milder version of the Peter principle [0], people tend to climb to the level where their skills are average. It is only when comparing the intelligence (or other abilities) of team members that are not relevant to their task, usually when socialising in another context, that you may become aware of broad differences and maybe get a better idea of where you fall in that specific dimension. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle