I don't think so, at least judging by the definition in the article

>"Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings-“catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do […]"

I'd say how we measure intelligence its what's potentially incorrect or misguided at least. It's hard to definitively measure someone's creativity, or adaptability into a metric compared to trying to measure someone's vocabulary, or command of language and maths.

In this case, the definition is good (intelligence = the ability to navigate and solve poorly defined problems that require creativity, insight, and adaptability). The problem is, we don't test for that. We test on well defined problems and academic exercises (like the vocab test mentioned in the article).

If we compensate for physical factors such as blood sugar, hemoglobin, pollution etc. and stress factors that disrupt concentration, I believe that we have all the same potential to train ourselves to be good at things that are called "smart". But they are just that: what people recognise as being smart.

As to stupidity... That is not a trait. That is not on a scale. That is a lifestyle choice — because it makes life easier.