Has anyone ever said this about any test? Are there any tests that are so general that anyone who does better on it is better at every single task than someone who does worse? Is such a test even possible?
I lack the skills to determine that, so I am limited to trusting the people who tell me the tests are "pretty good but not perfect".
For that specific example, athletics, there does appear to be a correlation. It may be any or all of A->B, B->A, and C->(A, B), but "healthy body, healthy mind" is a meme that appears to have a similar age as the concept of writing.
Finally, as I have been specifying IQ 85 as the "huh interesting" threshold rather than "high" IQ, I'll ignore your goalpost shift and say that your citation is me right now saying: I reckon IQ improvements in at least this zone (say +/- 0.5σ) is causal for better outcomes with regard to [avoiding injury, pushing performance limits, maintaining training regimes, learning techniques], all of which improve overall performance.
Only if you don't take IQ tests seriously — I think I've heard them dismissed as "only good at measuring your score on an IQ test".
If you do take them seriously, then by definition an AI which genuinely scores 85 (and isn't, say, just programmed to be good at that specific set of puzzles), then it must be able to do what a human of that IQ can do.
In this case I mean the latter, what with it being a thought experiment to demonstrate why we get problems well before having to ask if the AI can take over.
Practical issues like "a native speaker with IQ 85 is almost certainly more fluent than an IQ 160 polyglot on their 53rd, but for an AI they're all equal", or "we can easily hard-code in an algorithm for winning chess and another for doing calculus" likewise don't really matter.
> childcare / elder care, social work, basically anything that requires garnering trust and a lot of social interaction, but not necessarily complex skills
One of the problems right now with ChatGPT is that people trust it waaaay too much, and it's not really even trying.
> that doesn't necessarily make your skills worthless.
worthless != longer economically employable
The arts have significant social value, and I suspect may be to humans what tails are to peacocks; but at the same time, painters and novelists and musicians and actors and playwrights are infamous in their collective struggles to earn enough to get by on those careers alone.