I've been reading a lot of things over this. There are many theories regarding what intelligence is.
The most commonly accepted standard defines it generally as the brain's capacity to process information, without regards to what types of information. The clock speed of the CPU so to speak. Under the same PC analogy, the GPU processes graphical information much better than the CPU. It can be argued that despite the numbers, each and every CUDA cores on a GPU is less powerful than one CPU core and therefore making the CPU more "intelligent" in it's most fundamental sense. IQ tests are designed specifically for this measurement, only picking the most appropriate question to measure one's raw brain potential, without regards to how that person will actually perform in a wide range of tasks. The assumption is if this person's "intelligent" in this sense, he will perform well on average of all the task throughout his life. He may not excel in any of them, but a jack of all trade can still have a high average. So in a sense, IQ tests are meaningful with an underlying assumption that this is the definition of "intelligence".
Other theories such as multiple intelligence breaks down the scope of intelligence to include a wide scope of different types of activities aside from the basic academic intelligence. Interpersonal, arts all have its own separate measure of intelligence. To me this is a more attractive and realistic definition of intelligence. In reality, what makes a person shine is specialization. By allocating a separate measurement to various different types of tasks we can then better measure how much and what area can a person contribute to the world. Under this definition of intelligence, IQ tests are simply too theoretical and general to be of any meaning. I think the downfall though, being divided means this view shifts attention away from the question "who can contribute more to the world as a whole?". A person who excels in one area and completely suck in others, will get more recognition in society for doing what he does best. Compare this to a jack of all trade person who does everything reasonably well, if can be quantified, has a higher average contribution to society, but under this sense of intelligence, he will not receive the recognition he deserves. More over if society has to choose between these 2 persons, logically it will be the jack of all trade who should be chosen.
Under general intelligence. I think it should be no surprise that intuitives will perform better on average. However everyone can have a fair chance to shine in other areas under the multiple intelligence. In this sense, those with high general intelligence are more suitable to lead because their decisions will likely to be of a higher quality, but it will be up to those with high scores in various multiple intelligence fields to go into the practical specifics or act as an adviser, neither more important than the other.