I honestly don't think IQ tests are very meaningful. I know plenty of people who seem like they would have high IQs, but make stupid decisions or waste their time on meaningless shit. IQ is more about potential than actual intelligence.
Logical argument is also a test. You may not want to commit the fallacy you did above.
We're talking about differentiating between useless-stupid and useful, and you start talking about how some
people with high IQs are fuckups. Yes, we know. But stupid people cause far more damage than a few lab nerds.
The whole point of this argument is thus: when stupider people exist, they pull society down to its level, and destroy those above them if they can. The best solution is to raise the bar by eliminating the lowest.
People under 120 IQ points are generally best at following orders and causing problems for smarter people. There are a handful of exceptions, and anyone except a 4-bit machine would figure that out. You don't define the rule by the exceptions, however. You apply the rule and keep an eye out for exceptions.
I think this whole argument on this forum boils down to two groups: those who want to move ahead to a higher level of society, and those that are afraid so they invent moral reasons, questions about the validity of the IQ test (actually, not in scientific doubt; the IQ test is a powerful diagnostic tool, especially when you're cutting a line between the useful and the horde) and other bullshit. And really it's just bullshit. Say what you mean.
Personally, I've seen how in this era the proliferation of stupid people has made this society fat. It moves slowly. It waddles. Anytime there is need for some decisive action, thousands of slow voices call out in unison with different objections. So nothing changes and the decay goes on.
Do you want decay, or do you want a society that will actually do something that's not hellish? Maybe we should decide that question first