Though this thread is a few days old, I thought I'd chime in here.

I think your definition of intelligence is dangerous, in a way, because it fuels a lot of the anti-feeler mentality that I see around this sub. There are ways in which emotion can manifest itself in a way that behaviorally fits your definition, yet doesn't quite qualify as 'logic' in the way you have described. And yet you describe intelligence as some sort of behavioral biomarker, which lends itself toward contradiction.

For example, I am an INFP who, from a very young age, found out that I could 'emulate' the perspectives of others by observing them and then switching gears, so to speak, in order to 'think' like them. As a result, I am generally pretty good at getting people to believe that they've met a kindred spirit in me. Curiously enough, I am able to emulate this sort of logical standpoint that you describe, but the process in which I reach it must be purely an emotional one, given that the functional aspect of this mimicry stems from the insular cortex (responsible for regulation of outer homeostasis and, thus, the phenomenon of 'empathy'). For this reason, I am known as the 'smart' one in my area (even among the INTJs), but my process is no less a logical one than an emotional one. If anything, I would describe it as a holistic standpoint that allows me to incorporate all possible objective perspectives into one well-formed opinion. Given the contradictory nature of this phenomenon, I would have to disagree with your definition of intelligence, as well as your definition of wisdom. In fact, I'd describe the latter as something that balances between feeling and thinking, even to the point where it could be neither of them. I believe Jung himself said something along these lines, as well.

To be honest, I think that you should very little understanding of people with this post. People don't judge your intelligence by your grades, lest they confuse organization and task-related focus with intelligence. One's intelligence is judged in many ways, and is often a reflection of what a society deems 'intelligent' moreso than what is truly intelligent. I would describe intelligence as an ability to chart the course in a field or field(s) of interest, to the point where you can contribute novel insight in a way that advances the field further than it was before you came around. In broader words, intelligence can be seen as an individual's ability to correctly break the rules. I'd think that with more intelligent individuals comes more novel, yet viable thought, as it seems that any given field is built upon the knowledge that came before it.

You make a lot of blanket statements here that are kind of frustrating, because they are incorrect, and yet I don't know how resolved you are to them, so I don't know how worthwhile it would be to dissect them. It's late and I have to be up early, so I don't really care to add much more to this, but I'll end by saying that your last few paragraphs genuinely do not make sense. I also kind of find it interesting that you think an INFP is less motivated to learn than an INTJ. As you are probably young and have more to learn in general, I won't comment on that further.