I only got tested professionally once when I was a little kid, they only gave percentiles in different areas and determined I was gifted. My parents never told me about the results (as far as I recall). I found the test ten years later and found I got 99.8th percentile in spatial visualization (or something like that) and 98th percentile in reasoning, which would be 146 and 133~ converted to IQ. I scored pretty bad in everything else though. I found a few sites with (relatively reliable) IQ tests for those who think theirs is 120+ (since traditional IQ tests are really bad at measuring outside of the 80-120 range).
https://iqhaven.com/ has free tests and seems decent enough, although the site got revamped and it looks like crap now. I did the Mathematricius test which is math-only (
https://iqhaven.com/matematricius-test) and scored 145. I think IQ tests are pretty bad though. If I hadn't gone through my Math and Algebra classes in university I would've probably scored much less.
Hmmm, this is pretty interesting. I also think training your math/verbal skills can get you (significantly) better scores in IQ tests, which is another reason why they're not so meaningful. There's also a big statistical discrepancy in small score differences: Consider someone of IQ 125, and someone of IQ 130, given a normal distribution with median 100 and SD 15. For every 10 people with 130 IQ you have 25 with 125 IQ, and yet the difference between one score and the other is usually just a few different questions answered correctly.
IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient (though largely a misnomer now), and it's supposed to measure something that is relatively unchanged over the course of one's life. Then why is it possible for people to get (greatly) varying scores? That means that the method of measuring isn't good enough, or that it's measuring something other than intelligence, or that intelligence actually does change with time.
In my opinion, IQ only gives you a rough measure of people's intelligence (as the ability to recognize patterns, solve novel problems, etc.) and a decent measure of mathematical ability, verbal ability, spatial ability, etc. Since these things are correlated with intelligence, someone who scores high in these factors (compared to other people) will likely be more intelligent than the median, but you can't "stack them up" with others in a normal distribution and say with certainty that they're smarter than XX.X% of the population, which is exactly what IQ tests do.