For the purposes of this discussion, "consciousness" per se is mostly irrelevant. Sentience is still important but has less to do with intelligence than with experience (though sentience is still very much involved in acts of reasoning).
There are different kinds of reasoning, and those are probably more relevant to the discussion at hand re intelligence: associative, deductive, inductive, abductive, etc.
In fact almost any game is such a measure, so given a spread of games of varying complexity you can get an idea of relative levels of consciousness all the way down to rats if not lower.
For instance, it was shown that GPT can play chess. I also just tried it on a tactical Dota question (not actual control), and that worked too.
IQ is not a reasonable metric for human intelligence.
The matter of fact is that it is a metric of human intelligence and of all known metrics of human intelligence it is one of the best. Considering you still gauge people on intelligence with something you came up internally that you consider reasonable, and that whatever is that that you use internally is almost certainly worse than IQ, I'd say you're full of shit and/or lack logic :)
It is a reasonable measure of intelligent-adjacent things, such as how good you are at taking tests. An IQ score does correlate pretty well with how well you'll do in college. But to say that it's measuring "intelligence" in any sort of strong way is misleading.
There are two questions:
Is it a measure? Undoubtedly.
Is it reasonable? Well, how'd you define reasonable? Would you say that if A is reasonable for something, and B is better than A for the same thing, then from "A is reasonable" follows "B is reasonable"? I would. So if you can claim a person to be a fool and another person to be smart based on some interaction and consider both statements to be reasonable, and if you concede that IQ would better (on average) predict that kind of stuff than you, therefore you should consider IQ a reasonable metric of intelligence. (But you don't, so I suspect you're not good at logical reasoning)
Perhaps I'm not, but at least I'm good enough at it to be able to have a discussion without resorting to insulting the person I'm talking with.
Everyone is stupid at times, question is if we are willing to learn from mistakes.
Like denying many years of research with good predictive qualities, which you could probably also see personally, should have made you suspect about your point of view.
Generally, the "overly emotional" push-back from the other party after one violates social norms is a cue to accomplish two things:
1) Alert others nearby that this was in fact a violation of social norms, and prepare them to potentially side against the violator.
2) Check to see if the offending party is generally in control of their social behavior, and this was just a transient "slip-up", or if the offending party is stuck in their anti-social modes and unable to recover negative social interactions. This acts to provide a stronger signal both to the offended party as well as to others nearby.
For the record, this is a topic I'm pretty well-versed in, and I am aware of the research. I'm also aware (as you should be) that there's a great deal of debate about what IQ tests measure and don't measure.
Your argument (ignoring the personal attacks) is not unreasonable. Neither is mine. This is not a settled matter, and is one where reasonable people can and do disagree. Including the experts in the field.
G-factor as a concept exists but can only be approximated by standard tests or equivalent.
IQ tests are imperfect and flawed, but it's the closest approximation to G factor we have.