>>12850818IQ is a pretty poor way of measuring intelligence, and it comes with so many issues - some of them philosophical = like 'what is intelligence?'
The reasoning why it's a poor way of intelligence is because you'll always need to weight various faculties of intellect, which is often a very subjective task, like does working memory matter more than pattern recognition when it comes to intelligence, should we treat all faculties the same?
Another massive issue is simply that someone with high verbal intelligence (for example), but low intelligence everywhere else, could still be super successful in a field that requires high verbal intelligence, and thus many people who work with said person would say '(s)he is intelligent', and arguably they're right. This heavily relates to the definition of intelligence, and is true intelligence something we recognise in people, or we measure in people by looking at all factors.
