I'm sorry, but anybody who thinks IQs tests "are the closest measure we have of intelligence" is (a) not very bright, (b) very ignorant, or (c) extremely insecure. Pick your option!Besides, I'm only using IQ because it is the closest measure we have of intelligence. I have already stated that IQ alone isn't enough to function "intelligently" in the real world, where personality governs the application of that IQ. Since personality and IQ are both necessary, I point out that INTJs are a personality predisposed to both applying their intelligence successfully and having higher intelligence as a result.
Fact is, you can train yourself to pass IQ tests, and get better results as a consequence. Does that mean your "intelligence" will have increased in the process? Not at all.
Plus, the purpose of IQ tests is to quickly understand what the test expects of you. It doesn't require accuracy, logic or depth, just the ability to quickly react to stereotyped, repetitive questions you should answer in a minimum amount of time.
I don't see where the intelligence lies in this act, and where it is "tested".
Let's say you write a thesis or a book. What will be more useful: to be a jack of all trade, to remain superficial but quick (what the test wants), or rather to design an entirely revolutionary idea, even if it takes you a lot time in the process -the test doesn't measure the true pertinence, the real relevance of the answers-?
So in the end, IQ tests only measure... our ability to successively pass other IQ tests! But academically or scientifically, the usefulness of its so-called predictions is close to zero.
Side note: Have you ever read "The Mismeasure of Man" (Stephen Jay Gould, New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1981)?