penski said:
But, yeah - IQ tests test how good you are at taking IQ tests.
That might be going a little far, but in principle, I agree.
IQ tests can be revealing,
IF taken under controlled conditions, and ifthe results are interpreted by people that know what they're doing. What they don't, in my humble opinion, actually tell you is how intelligent someone is .... or isn't. There's too many variables for that, and the first is whether or not the test subject has ever seen a test like it before.
The first time I took one of these was decades ago, and administered by my university psychology department. I'm not saying what the result was, because it doesn't matter, but according to the staff setting it, it was seriously degraded if I'd ever sat one before. If you know what type questions to expect, if you know the pattern recognition principles, then you know what to look for and as a result, the tests don't show what they are looking for.
But if you have a population of peoplesitting a given test, then the results can lead to broad conclusions about the abilities of that group, and the distribution of those abilities. You'll get an insight into ability with words, vocabulary, pattern recognition, etc., and some comparative information about individuals. But you DON'T know how they relate to people sitting other, but similar tests.
IQ tests are useful, in general, for limited purposes but are widely abused. I'm inclined to agree that the best way to tell intelligence is to have a good consersation. Unfortunately, it doesn't give much help in quantify intelligence, or in establishing comparisons.