I agree, I am in fact an idiot. Thank you for reminding me.

> most people that take an IQ test come out as "geniuses"

This is by definition false.

When the test is designed, they use a wide variety of people.

But the only people I ever hear taking an IQ tests are people that already know they are smart. Why? Because it probably feels good. Because why else? Is there any actionable item out of that test?

They are usually taken when a child struggles in school. The actionable item is 1. IQ is low, they probably need tutoring or special education classes; 2. IQ is high, they are probably too bored and need harder classes or some other intervention; 3. IQ is normal, probably it's some other issue.

As an adult the actionable item may be to adjust your expectations of yourself. For example if I'm 90IQ and beating myself up about not being a 10x dev despite my efforts, or if I'm 150IQ and feel too unqualified for some intellectual endeavor, I could make adjustments after knowing the truth.

I took one as an adult and my impetus was that I am contrarian about a lot of things, i.e. there are a lot of things I believe that most people don't believe. I wanted to know if I was just a midwit being an idiot contrarian or if there's at least some reason to believe I might have a better idea about things than average people. In the end I scored very highly, so I can now feel more comfortable trusting my own judgement. If I had scored much lower, I would accept I'm probably wrong about a lot more things and stop having such strong opinions.

> The actionable item is 1. IQ is low, they probably need tutoring or special education classes; 2. IQ is high, they are probably too bored and need harder classes or some other intervention; 3. IQ is normal, probably it's some other issue.

And this is precisely why I took the test. The only 'official' IQ test I've taken in my life. Psychiatrist told my dad I didn't have enough grit to stick with things I found boring. Guilty as charged. Fortunately grit did eventually happen, about 5 years later.

Why did they need to do an IQ test though? Grit is a completely different dimension.

Answers the question: low IQ, or low grit?

OP said he was successful without ever studying. That directly shows higher IQ, low Grit. Not sure what extra information the IQ test added except the vanity and ego boost it gives someone.

I'd imagine the only people taking it are on either end of the curve - smart people who want a gold sticker, and not-smart people that need a sufficiently low IQ score to qualify for a government program.

yup exactly my observations as well. Either you are already smart and you know it and want to confirm to boost your ego (Because again? Nobody here was able to answer what are the action items out of this test). OP in this case is clearly very proud to be in that category.

Or you are so stupid someone else thinks its a good idea to have you tested to confirm you are challenged

The initial use was to ration advanced education (secondary or higher), so as not to lavish it on "morons" (at the time a technical term).

Similar in concept to the German Abitur, which originally tracked students into Gymnasium or vocational tracks. Today it comes at the end of a secondary education (high-school) programme, and is comparable to British A-levels.

<https://www.verywellmind.com/history-of-intelligence-testing...>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abitur>

Those standardized tests seem to mix grit and intelligence and are a way better predictor of success and "intelligence" than those IQ tests.

I have met a couple people that were boasting to me they were in the top 0.01% intelligence wise (as proven by the IQ test! Geniuses!). None of them were particularly successful or looked particularly outliers on intelligence based on what they achieved.

My point was less what the tests measure and more how they were applied: rationing higher education resources.