Veritasium made a video talking about IQ tests, their validity and so on. https://youtu.be/FkKPsLxgpuY

One of my key takeaways: IQ tests have some validity as a diagnostic tool for asessing cognitive disabilities or illnesses, but they should not be taken as serious and significant as many less informed people seem to do.

It's not completely pseudo-science, as there are a lot of correlations with things like academic success or job performance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations

[H]owever much all this soothes my vanity, and however much I appreciate being vice-president of Mensa, an organization which bases admission to its membership on IQ, I must, in all honesty, maintain that it means nothing.

What, after all, does such an intelligence test measure but those skills that are associated with intelligence by the individuals designing the test? And those individuals are subject to the cultural pressures and prejudices that force a subjective definition of intelligence. [...]

The whole thing is a self-perpetuating device. Men in intellectual control of a dominating section of society define themselves as intelligent, then design tests that are a series of clever little doors that can let through only minds like their own, thus giving them more evidence of "intelligence" and more examples of "intelligent people" and therefore more reason to devise additional tests of the same kind. More circular reasoning!

--Isaac Asimov, "Thinking About Thinking," 1975

I think that extreme upper and lower bounds do say something, but few point differences are entirely worthless. Scoring a 70 is rather significant, and 160 probably is too, but 100 vs 90 vs 110? Meaningless.

its better then getting a low score on a IQ test.