It’s often said in certain circles that a high score on an IQ test means you’re really good at taking tests.
I’m pretty sure the tests measure something, although they don’t necessarily all measure exactly the same thing. I believe there’s a high correlation between scoring well on one of those instruments and being intelligent, but the opposite is not necessarily true—that is, to score high, you must have high intelligence (at least of a certain measurable kind), but a low score may not mean low intelligence. Too many other things can account for a low or average score.
(We’re not talking about little magazine or internet quizzes that are just for fun and have no science behind them. Those mean nothing.)
For instance, I always enjoyed taking standardized tests and treated them as a sort of game or puzzle; but my sister, a highly intelligent and resourceful person, suffered from test paralysis and just seemed to freeze up, so she never scored as well as she should have.
I also know a number of people that I consider brilliant in their own way but who are more right- than left-hemisphere types. They are never going to look their best on a measure that depends on verbal proficiency and logical reasoning. (And of course they don’t care.)
I think the standardized tests serve their uses. The danger comes in trying to attach more significance to them than they warrant in the scheme of things.
As has been noted, they say nothing about a person’s personality or character. And being intellectually well endowed is no blessing in itself; in fact, it can lead to a lot of pain.
I don’t see a role for suspicion here, though. Suspicion of what? If an instrument of any kind is misused, that’s the fault of the user, and not the instrument, wouldn’t you say?