The wording was *substantially* smarter.
Interesting question. Though my wife and I probably totaled ~300 in IQ at one point (I was half of that), she's a substance abuser and may be at a somewhat lower level now. OTOH her parents (now in their late 80s and both as sharp as tacks) are prominent academicians, esp. her father, and her brother is literally a rocket scientist--so if we're including in-laws, no way I'm "substantially" smarter.
My only remaining sibling was at a level similar to mine (she was val of her HS class, NM Scholar, etc.), but was seriously messed up in an auto accident quite a while back (two weeks in coma, yada) and currently survives on Disability, has difficulty leaving the house, and so on. She's still well above average, but may have lost 20 points of IQ (or more) via brain damage in the accident.
My kids? Only one was tested for IQ: she scored 14x, despite the test's not being scored to take her dyslexia and ADD into account. But she's a classic procrastinator/perfectionist who dropped out of college during her first year, and I doubt she'll ever have more than menial employment--so how smart can she be? The other, though never tested for IQ (as near as I know), did score 800s on her SAT; but she has some emotional problems (related to her mother's substance abuse) and may never achieve a whole lot in work or academics. Does all that mean the two kids aren't "smart"? How do we define the term?
To me, smart is as smart does (and can be distinguished from "intelligent"). By that criterion, except (perhaps) for her father, my wife is the smartest: she makes the most bank.