IQ is not synonymous with intelligence, it is married to the 20th century philosophy of psychology and history of testing methods.

For IQ to simply mean the intelligence scale normalized so that average intelligence = 100 would take a big marketing effort amongst the education and psychology communities.

Even if it were divorced from the twists and turns of its historical development, it seems pretty clear that at it's best IQ can aggregate the values of creativity, lateral thinking, calculation, memory-retrieval, memory-storage, memory-organization, (even, despite tester's best efforts) domain knowledge together and replace them with one number.

I think that some of the "everybody learns differently!" stuff has jumped the fence and become an old wives' tale, but there has to be a happy medium between assigning someone a 40 column printout to summarize their intelligence and slapping one number on it.

[This is not to mention all of the shift in emphasis away from intelligence towards results and output based partially on Outliers, and partially on the idea that if you praise kids for an inherent trait that they have no control over that they will stop playing to win and start playing not-to-lose.]

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me? Yes of course there are various definitions and measurement methods of 'IQ' and 'intelligence' and one can define all of them in various ways. Exact definitions aren't interesting for the current purposes. What I said was, some people are smarter than others, even when considering orthogonal traits. If we hypothetically consider 'intelligence' as a combination of trait A, B and C, and we choose A, B and C carefully enough so that we can score or normalize each of them to a scale of 0-10, then Alice with a score of 8 on each of them is more intelligent than Bob who scores 4 on each of them. Now in the margin you can argue who is more intelligent when the scores are 5-8-4 and 5-4-8 but that doesn't take away from the point.

It's not like we're talking about one specific methodology for measuring IQ. The whole argument is in the context of the OP arguing that correcting for intelligence is necessary for making a meaningful comparison between wages earned (basically, it's discounting for opportunity cost). Which is totally reasonable and obvious.

I think we were agreeing

I don't think I made the argument that being functionally disabled is meaningless, but straw men live in all discussions at some point.

My argument is that above average and even extraordinary intelligence have no correlation to money making. Smart people live in poverty all the time. To say that expectations of earned income should be adjusted for IQ is meaningless in that context because the adjustment would be zero. Making money doesn't derive from general intelligence, but from how it is applied and luck. There are many smart technical people on this message board who are clearly lucky that the world is in the middle of a massive expansion of technically complicated economic areas like apps and programming in general. It allows them to achieve wealth that otherwise is not a predetermined given.

When I refer to IQ testing I refer to the concept of a universalized IQ test that can, without cultural bias, give an objective measure of intelligence.

"My argument is that above average and even extraordinary intelligence have no correlation to money making."

Well you're objectively wrong. Go to your national data office and look at income vs education (using education as a proxy for intelligence is not perfect but works OK enough for this purpose). You will see strong correlations between the two. (not perfectly linear, and not perfectly correlated, but strong enough to be not random). Look at any data set of reasonably stable and free countries that have these two data points, and you will find the same.

"Smart people live in poverty all the time."

Anecdote != data.