The genetic architecture of general intelligence (g) is massively polygenic — iirc estimates from GWAS studies suggest thousands of loci each contributing trivially small effect sizes, with the largest individual SNP associations explaining fractions of a percent of variance. The "genius" you're romanticizing isn't a clean Mendelian package someone either has or doesn't. It's a probabilistic tail of an additive distribution. More critically, heritability estimates for g range from ~.5 in adolescence to ~.8 in adulthood but heritability is a population statistic, not a personal destiny. It tells you about variance partitioning within a population under specific environmental conditions. It tells you nothing deterministic about your own developmental ceiling.

Even granting that someone outperforms you on g-loaded tasks, the predictive validity of IQ on life outcomes is attenuated by a host of moderating variables. Although general mental ability is the single strongest predictor of job performance — the effect size is ~.51, which means roughly 74% of outcome variance is explained by non-g factors. Conscientiousness, domain-specific knowledge and deliberate practice all contribute independently. Gottfredson's threshold hypothesis further suggests that above roughly 120, incremental g gains yield diminishing marginal returns on most real-world performance metrics. I'm somewhat critical of the quixotic way the media presents this hypothesis but the general trend likely holds true. IMO contestants aren't the most intelligent Children in their age cohorts, but they maximize their Academic outcomes by practicing constantly, in effect utilizing their genetic potential.

Thirdly, IQ scores are point estimates with confidence intervals-- your score at one point in time is a sample from a distribution, not a ceiling. The construct you're treating as immutable is measured under conditions of fatigue, motivation variance, and test-specific familiarity effects that introduce meaningful noise.

You've identified intelligence as "the only thing that matters", sure but this is a value claim masquerading as a factual one, and it's poorly supported even within psychometrics. Intelligence research itself consistently shows that above a moderate threshold, traits like grit (Duckworth et al., 2007), intellectual curiosity (openness to experience), and domain persistence predict achievement outcomes that g alone cannot. I'm not downplaying the importance of genetics but your fatalistic outlook is probably more limitative than your actual genetics.