Heh, what those probabilities do is show how weak the IQ test is to begin with. The original purpose of IQ tests was to indicate which children would be most likely to be successful as adults. As nemo points out P(Gifted | ESTJ) = 1.3%, second to last, which is funny because ESTJ as a type is naturally geared toward being successful. Hard work and diligence have a lot to do with long term success and ESTJ's have these traits in spades.
I think you could say that when comparing two people of the same type, then IQ is an indicator of success. An ESTJ of IQ 110 is more likely to succeed than an ESTJ of IQ 100. But when comparing two different types I think IQ results become less and less of an indicator of success. Is an ENFP of IQ 110 really as likely to succeed as an ESTJ of IQ 110? I don't think so. In fact I'd say an ESTJ of IQ 100 is more likely to succeed than an ENFP of IQ 110.
Then there is the argument people make that IQ is a measure of intelligence. How do you define intelligence? IQ tests only measure certain aptitudes. Mozart might not have done very well on an IQ test since most don't measure musical ability, even though when it came to music he was clearly a genius. Music is just one of many abilities not measured: mechanical ability, craftsmanship, painting, etc.... It's hard to argue that IQ tests measure all mental ability as a whole.
Overall what IQ tests seem to measure is the ability to do well on IQ tests. Sure doing well on an IQ test does indicate that a person is intelligent, but it should be weighted with the knowledge that it doesn't give the whole story of a person's intellect.
__________________
|