I'd say top 2%... you're always going to sound exceedingly arrogant when you put yourself so high, but based on my academic performance that seems pretty fair. I went to a school that only takes the top quartile of the population (based on a test taken at age 11), and I got the highest grades by quite a margin in my year of about 150 people. I need to take a proper IQ test some time, all the online ones seem to be bunk. People are allowed to discuss me if they want. ;V

I'd very tentatively suggest that IQ and similar tests do measure something objective and crucial; namely your ability to recognise patterns, and create and manipulate several symbols for those patterns, which is what I think intelligence fundamentally is. There's a lot of politically correct dilly dallying about these days, always insisting that intelligence is multi-faceted and people who appear less intelligent are actually just 'gifted in different ways'. In my opinion that's a bit patronising really; at any rate it isn't borne out by studies, which show that people with higher IQs actually tend to be good at pretty much everything, not just more logical subjects. I was just as good at English, and I'm also artistic and musical; I just didn't pursue those career paths because I thought I could do something more altruistic and utilitarian with my allotted time via science. If intelligence is what I suggest it is, you can see why this is the case: recognising patterns and forming symbols are clearly indispensable to mathematics; in fact, that basically is mathematics. However, when reading a work of literature, this ability is just as central, even if not so ostensibly obvious; understanding metaphor for example, basically means identifying some kind of symbol for a pattern that you've recognised across the text. Manipulating these symbols well means understanding deeper and more complex meaning.