FWIW, I think there's been a genuine misunderstanding here. My impression is of two people intending to be helpful. I can learn a little something from either side of the discussion, so thank you both.
I don't think it's a matter of IQ. If another is better at something than I, that doesn't necessarily result from a higher IQ than mine (though in my own case it almost certainly does mean that — the "For Dummies" series was clearly written for those like me). It probably means that the other has more or different experience.
I think you're correct (from what I've read) with your first paragraph and I would "+1" your post for that paragraph...
However, the second paragraph is a little confusing: As it is most-commonly used (IMO), "IQ" is a number which indicates someone's "intelligence" (Intelligence Quotient, with average being 100 and many other words describing other ranges of IQ values). I think that's how you are using it. Anyway, the standard IQ test is pretty limited in scope and might result in widely-varying results for different people based only on how they cognitively interpret the questions (their method of attack or thought patterns while considering how to respond) and how well they can recall lists of items, for example. Some people who score in the 70s on IQ tests can thumb through a book in a few seconds and then tell you immediately on which page such-and-such event in the book occurs, or how many times a word is used in the text, etc. That's just one
example of how IQ might misrepresent one
aspect of the brain. (I'm thinking loosely of Kim Peek, the person on whose life the movie "Rain Man" was based.)
My second paragraph above is merely 'food for thought', since the thread's topic has mutated a few times already...