I find it interesting because I did REALLY badly on oral tests. On the WISC-III I was doing extremely badly on the test until the examiner allowed me to write

I find it interesting because I did REALLY badly on oral tests. On the WISC-III I was doing extremely badly on the test until the examiner allowed me to write down my answers instead of giving them verbally and my measured IQ shot up like two standard deviations. I've been as far as 3 standard deviations apart in psychiatrist administered IQ tests, and my best and worst results in any given IQ test have also been about 3 standard deviations apart. My biggest theory is that I'm bottlenecked by how I both take in and communicate the information, I'm not very good at listening orally nor am I very good at communicating with my voice nor can I write very fast with a pencil. Not shockingly I was diagnosed with multiple learning disabilities and it's my opinion and the opinion of one psychologist I had that IQ testing is neither a reliable nor valid means of testing my intelligence. I think the point being made more generally about IQ tests testing the wrong things is very valid and I do agree with it, but it extends beyond just IQ testing, it also raises questions about standardised academic testing. What I will point out though that any rebalancing of IQ tests or standardised tests at this point is likely to become an intensely political affair because these tests are used to justify gatekeeping access to status and societal resources, and any new tests would necessarily be far worse researched than existing tests, so I wouldn't expect current IQ testing methodology to be upended any time soon.