"Intelligence" and not doing dumb things are related in the same way that money is the difference between a Chevy Aveo and an S-Class. Input and output are obviously related but it's nowhere a X:1 relationship (for small values of X). Just being "twice as intelligent" might make you more likely to be a successful parent but not twice as likely in the same way that spending 4x as much on some product doesn't get you something that's 4x better than the entry level item.

There's a correlation between rich/poor/smart/dumb and parenting effectiveness but there's so much noise that nobody's surprised when a rich smart couple has a deadbeat kid or vise versa.

Just being smart won't save her if she's a crap parent but people are resilient enough that unless she's really good or really bad it probably won't make a huge difference a decade down the road.

Very obviously, yes. Just try reading the article. I couldn't go more than 20 seconds at a time without thinking about how stereotypically psuedo-intellectual the mother sounded. You know the type, who think they're super smart but who behave like they have half a brain.

It sounds possible. If you have two parents who look down on unintelligent people, then your first order of business as a child is to make sure you seem intelligent to your parents. Actually developing general intelligence would be much lower on the priority list.

Intelligence is forged in the fires of necessity. When a child must struggle against reality to feel safe, they must learn how to predict the future accurately, which will create the learning context for developing intelligence.

A child who has plenty of family support to get things done, succeed in school, etc, but who is surrounded by social pressures to appear to be a certain kind of person will instead get good at appearing to be a certain kind of person.

No, I am saying she comes across as overbearing and this may not be the best way to help her child learn.