Intelligence is never measured linearly. “g”, the symbol for general intelligence, is highly fluid and made up of many sub-measures. “g” is also virtually useless, as IQ has never been successfully equated to any standard of success. This not only indicates that psychologists, who founded this concept and its system of measure, have basically no grasp of what they are trying to measure, but that “g” itself is a highly inaccurate and misunderstood concept. In effect, we have as little grasp of intelligence as we do of consciousness.
“g” is made up of many subscores. The WAIS, one of the more reliable IQ tests for adults, measures around 20 subscores. The subscores apply to specific things and therefore have more utility than “g”. If a person measures high in a visual-spatial subscore, I know that person will probably excel at tasks involving visual arts or professions involving the making of things.
But is it fair to apply human subscores to other creatures? A human would absolutely flunk at turning soil minerals and sunlight into food, but a tree or even a humble alga would be brilliant. A human would flunk at olfactory interpretation of the environment, but a bloodhound would be a super-genius.
Wolves exceed human subscore measures in many areas, and have many other areas that humans cannot even approach. Of course, humans would excel at verbal communication, abstract thought and pattern recognition–our three major strengths. But wolves would far exceed us environmental adaptation, clan social skills, olfactory interpretation, environmental sustainability, and a host of other areas. We especially are not the equal of the wolf in capacity for empathy, for having observed and known wolves, I know that wolves present far greater empathy, given they don’t kill for pleasure or destroy entire ecosystems for greed.