I guess people object to your post for moral reasons, but your position is also factually indefensible.

* First, intelligence is mostly cultural, not genetic. I know that's not a popular view in the US, but it's true nonetheless. There are multiple adoption studies that show how intelligence of kids rise as much as 20 points on the IQ scale, once they have a nurturing social environment. It's also pretty obvious once you think about the fact that european immigrants in the US were almost all analphabetic subsitance farmers, yet nowadays descendents of those people design neural nets and self driving cars.

* Intelligence (the difference between g and IQ is irrelevant, as both are pretty much defined by the same thing: an intelligence test) is not a good predictor for future work performance. Other personality traits like conscientiousness and neuroticism are, in combination, more important.

* Despite decades of research, there still are no language independent intelligence tests of comparable reliability to the language-dependent variants, so the actual measuring is not possible.

May your descendants regress to the mean.

>IQ testing

Excuse me for saying, but this alone suffices to reveal your character. IQ is an unscientific measure, full of holes, doesn't correlate in any meaningful way to success, let alone worth to society. IQ testing, really? Not success, not merit, not services to society, f*cking IQ testing. I mean, I take it you would rather have a 170 IQ shut-in doing nothing productive with his talents than a hardworking labourer or a celebrated NGO founder in your country?

I would venture further. If I had to wager I would say you got praised a lot for being smart when you were a child, maybe even got a good score in IQ testing at some point in your life. It skewed your view of things and now you reduce everything to that. But maybe I'm wrong.