It is interesting that IQ numbers back in the day seemed to correspond to grades at school. For example a C corresponds to about about 75% and a 110 on the IQ test. It is as if they shifted 10 points to take in the fact that people on the very low scale would be mentally challenged. Next a 115 on the IQ test corresponded to about an 85% which is a B in school and an 120 which corresponded to about a 90% or an A. Here a 120 IQ (A) is about where they start calling students gifted.
But playing the devil's advocate, what if the Intelligent Quota is actually an achievement test and what it measures is not innate but learned. It would still create a Bell curve. It could still help diagnose people who were mentally challenged. It could still to a degree predict success at school and success in life. And since it could measure how much you have learned "how" to learn and "how" to think abstractly it could act as a G factor or general applitude across several disciplines.
What if what they call fluid intelligence is almost impossible to measure and what they are actually measuring is what they call crystallized intelligence?
What if what they call Intelligent Quotion is mostly dependent on "Emergence" in early home life, with discipline, structure, "self reliance", and especially dialogue.
What if IQ can never be fixed by Social Engineering or remedied with the dogmatic philosophy of innate IQ.
What if IQ shifts with certain learning at certain times in life and is not a constant.
What if fluid intelligence approaches crystallized intelligence and our IQ test is just an achievement test.