I think that most people would always like to use the lowest possible ISO value. If they could freeze motion at ISO100, they would use that ISO value.
If? How does that work, exactly? A scene has a given amount of light. At ISO 100 with the widest aperture usable for the required DoF (or the widest available on the lens), that means a given shutter speed. If that's not fast enough to freeze motion, one can add light (frequently not an option), raise ISO, accept a blurry shot, or give up and go home. Maybe your 195,000 € car budget could be used to buy a magic wand that alters optical physics?
... that's the reason why people can rather live with bad high ISO performance. It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.
Which people? You? Not me. I shoot indoors in ambient light a lot. Much of my outdoor shooting is birds/wildlife at dawn and dusk or under overcast skies, often at f/5.6 or f/8 (and please don't suggest a faster lens - I'm using a 600mm f/4L IS II with a 1.4xIII or 2xIII for the necessary reach). So for me, without access to that magic wand, the lowest ISO I can often get away with is 1600, and I'm usually at ISO 3200 - 6400. I can't live with bad ISO performance.
Your 'logic' seems to have a high level of personal bias...