Long answer:
The g form of IQ is still valid. Based on context in which a test is taken, there may be some type 2 error (people scoring lower than actual IQ), but relatively little type 1 error (people scoring higher than actual IQ).
That said, many researchers have asked if g is the be all and end all of intelligence. Research suggests that g tends to focus on the analytic and verbal parts of our brains. Howard Gardner found through research on aphasia patients that there are areas of our brain that function largely outside of what g measures. Others have found that while IQ floors may exist for certain professions (e.g., 120 for lawyers), IQ is not always the strongest predictor for success -- things like EQ often have stronger predictive value.
Note that some of the derivative works of multiple intelligences, EQ, etc. are twisted interpretations of the original ideas, so be careful when reading the non-seminal works. Some people have co-opted the term "intelligence" in their derivative works in an effort to support a political agenda that may not necessarily be true to the original idea or even constructive.
- Optimizing EQ is probably far more valuable for society.
- I am not sure that EQ can be optimized for in genetics as easily as IQ can.
- On an individual level, putting a child on the right side of their potential IQ curve will probably make their lives easier or better assuming that relatively few of their peers have this same advantage.
- If every child is on the right side of their potential IQ curve, then optimizing IQ will largely just be a different state for society rather than a noticeable improvement. Most (all?) improvements would likely be seen on the high end in terms of theoretical developments.
- Note that if this switch is somehow flipped in a society, I personally believe that there will be a huge EQ intergenerational crisis such that EQ will be valued even more.
IQ points? Hasn't IQ long ago been discredited as a measure of intelligence?