Ah the “no true Scotsman” of intelligence.

There's a difference between being well read and being able to do something with what you've read. I would argue a far more useful and pragmatic definition of intelligence is one that focuses on, given the same information, a more intelligent person can achieve more with that information. In such a scenario, doing nothing if the information is bad is obviously more than what is achieved by acting on it. The idea, I guess, is that intelligence is about how you wield information, not what information you have. Being able to swim long distances unassisted is fairly called having high endurance. Doing so with all manner of aids, assistance, and pre-planned routes, is less impressive. So in a space of information, intelligence is like strength, or endurance. It allows one to defend, to change, to build, to create, especially in areas where others might be limited.

So this is in no way a `no true Scotsman` fallacy. Being able to be well read is a product of having intelligent people in your society, people who make hard things accessible, make it learnable, but it does not itself make you intelligent.