Something the IQ measurement is actually kind of helpful for is being able to tell if a person is likely to be able to mentally model, understand the abstract and hypotheticals, or empathize intellectually with others.
If you can model what someone else may think, what someone else thinks someone else may think, or understand "what ifs", your IQ will almost certainly measure higher than 80. An example of the opposite is asking, "had you done this instead, what would have happened?" and receiving a response like "that's not what I did".
I have encountered people in functional corporate roles whose ability to grasp beyond what is directly in front of them was exactly why they held their positions. They were highly competitive of and motivated by metrics, no longer or unable to see how things done differently might produce different results ("that's not how we do it"), and generally didn't have a grasp of how their or their department's work fit into the company - they just knew it did. However, they often had a few great interpersonal qualities, like projecting confidence or leadership, patience and self-control in arguments, not easily being flustered or becoming nervous, or having a consistently positive demeanor.
When I think about privilege and justice, I include the existence of people different from me, which means I have to be aware of and understand who they are and what they are like. There's more than one right way to be or live, and it often comes as a shock to some that their communities, classes, and societies are so effective at insulating them from what people different from them are like, only highlighting simple, shallow, or visual differences instead.
My takeaway is that if the number of people this was helpful to was a surprise, your standard of common is too narrow.
If you can model what someone else may think, what someone else thinks someone else may think, or understand "what ifs", your IQ will almost certainly measure higher than 80. An example of the opposite is asking, "had you done this instead, what would have happened?" and receiving a response like "that's not what I did".
I have encountered people in functional corporate roles whose ability to grasp beyond what is directly in front of them was exactly why they held their positions. They were highly competitive of and motivated by metrics, no longer or unable to see how things done differently might produce different results ("that's not how we do it"), and generally didn't have a grasp of how their or their department's work fit into the company - they just knew it did. However, they often had a few great interpersonal qualities, like projecting confidence or leadership, patience and self-control in arguments, not easily being flustered or becoming nervous, or having a consistently positive demeanor.
When I think about privilege and justice, I include the existence of people different from me, which means I have to be aware of and understand who they are and what they are like. There's more than one right way to be or live, and it often comes as a shock to some that their communities, classes, and societies are so effective at insulating them from what people different from them are like, only highlighting simple, shallow, or visual differences instead.
My takeaway is that if the number of people this was helpful to was a surprise, your standard of common is too narrow.