It's similar with the ASVAB (multisection test for determing qualification for military service). I scored the highest score available, a 99, because it seemed in each section they moved on once they established competence.

The few people who saw my score (I don't go around telling people) have asked if I was super smart or something (the recruiter called me "professor" and asked if I had a Masters), and I said no, I am just competent at anything I could do in the military. I'm honestly not excellent at any particular thing, and in any given task I'm unlikely to be the best one there for it. But I'm capable of doing any task adequately. As my old trombone instructor used to say, I'm a "jack of all trades, master of none."

But the test doesn't care if you're amazing at anything. It just wants to see if you're capable of doing anything.

Gardner’s “multiple intelligences” model is a nicer way to think about intelligence, but it’s not really quantifiable in the same way. (How would you measure how “ecologically” intelligent someone is?)

It’s very appealing to think that we have some sort of “int” stat like a Dungeons and Dragons character, but I don’t think it’s really that valuable. If the IQ/the “g factor” measures anything, it’s probably something about being able to quickly process visual information. I have a relatively high IQ and think that’s the trait I have that is being measured (from the testing they did in the teen torture facility I spent my adolescence in - my high IQ meant that I was a dangerous, manipulative liar of course.)

If you have two and a half hours to spare, I think this Shaun video is a masterwork of science communication.