I myself went to a gifted high school but never had my IQ measured. My wife is profoundly gifted and our children are both gifted, with our daughter's IQ highly gifted and our son profoundly gifted, even more so than my wife. I'm in tech and my wife is in finance.
For example, I've noticed in myself and others that in an area where I have a particular knack or an outsized "giftedness", it also comes with a corresponding lack or void somewhere else. This is not to mean that anyone is "less than", but rather, no one is good at everything all the time. We need each other, and where I may have weaknesses, you have may have strengths. I can either appreciate the difference that you're better at something than me, be humble, and ask for your help. Or I can hate you and degrade you and belittle you for being better than me, and spend my days trying to be equal or better than you at something you likely didn't "try" to be good at in the first place. You just are. So what?
In your definition, "giftedness" comes with the added responsibility of not being demeaning to those around you. Sometimes "intellectual giftedness" comes at the cost of "social giftedness". That's not bad. It's just different gifts.
Low IQ = gotta work hard and hope for luck to realize your dreams
Low or high doesn't give you any new actionable piece of information, but it is true that an official piece of paper claiming high IQ will open the door to some institutions, it remains to be seen how long it takes to fall out of love with such institutions.
I feel like a more serious/interesting question could be: do you think that IQ measures anything meaningful at all? Or not, I do believe that IQ is complete bullshit.
The Bell Curve author is just a guy, why take what he says at face value? Also in a world of low economic growth, EQ seems much more important, you know to have the ability and the pleasure to politic your way within existing organizations and societal structures as opposed to singlehandedly create new things from scratch which seems far fetched considering that the days of revolutionary inventions you could do singlehandedly such as the wheel or fire are well into the distant past. Nowdays it is more a race to call dibs and associate one's name on progress made by the collective effort of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, that's essentially what happens in corporate America, the ability to do that is very much correlated with being in position that command lots of power and compensation, much higher multiples than those who do the technical heavy lifting.
Case in point: The US couldn't build a particle accelerator because of lack of EQ and good PR production from those who really wanted the thing, maybe because they were already thinking about what to do with the experiments wrongly assuming that the public would blindly give a green light to a 20bn dollar project just to satisfy the peculiar priorities of a very restricted number of individuals.
I don't know if that's a low IQ or a low EQ mistake, but still it's a pretty gross mistake from those who are considered to be the best and the brightest and the smartest , whatever the fuck that means in practical terms.
Speaking of practicality it was Von Neumann who was very adamant about bombing the Soviets and reducing Moscow, SPB etc to nuclear wasteland. Had he be President or close advisor to the President during the Cuban Missile Crisis he'd have launched the attack thanks to the game theory and all his intricate reasoning.
JFK without any knowledge of any of game theory but with a healthy passion for cigars, whiskey, boats and hoes de-escalated the crisis and without firing a single firecracker.
You never know the kind of guy you want to have by your side in the trenches until you make it out of it in one piece.
Not so much as an example of balanced reasoned scientific examination of the full ANOVA spectrum of a domain.