[blfr]

The fact that you can do poorly (by external measure) despite high IQ doesn't really mean much. It correlates well with a swath of positive outcomes and I'd still take legitimate 150 IQ (for myself, for my kids) over virtually any other real-world ability. I think only looks are even in the running here.

It's not just that IQ allows you to succeed. It allows you to navigate the modern world. I see people having trouble with pointers, simple abstractions, basic diagrams, or statistics and wonder: what am I missing? And I'm no von Neumann to not miss anything.

[erikerikson]

If I could choose for myself and family, I'd suggest something more like 120, maybe 125. More IQ is frequently worse for well being. The benefits from correlations with positive factors get overwhelmed by emergent negative factors. Consider the stupid statement many smart people make "people are so stupid" (when in fact they are normal and the smart person is saying that they are on the upper end of the distribution). It reflects a fact of aloneness; a lack of peers; exclusion from socially controlled circles of success; endlessly watching struggle and underperformance; being stuck in a world that is dysfunctional because making it more functional is "too hard" for others; unlocking "because you're smart you have to do it for them"; and so many more little tortures and asynchronous social bullshit.