Not sure if you read my post, but again the complexity of the question completely misses the point -- and anyone smart enough for MENSA should be able to understand this:
The IQ is a statistical
score, and scores are more or less normally distributed (not entirely normally, though, which I can explain). A normal distribution, as I'm sure you know, is a "bell curve", like with a Gaussian or a Poisson distribution.
Thus, the extremes
, i.e. the upper and lower tails of the curve, represent tiny tiny tiny fractions of the population. For normally distributed data, three standard deviations will encompass more than 99% of the population, and an IQ of 140 is roughly three standard deviations above the mean.
What this means is that to differentiate people within
that top 0.5% and to assign meaningful scores among them would require 1) a sample set of hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of people at this extreme level of intelligence
, and 2) thousands or tens of thousands of questions.
There's simply no other way to generate a score that has any meaning. And it would be very nice if people who are interested in this stuff would actually take the time to understand intelligence testing (useful and complicated) rather than writing upside down book reports (not useful, and a testimony only to concentration and not intelligence).
That's not to say that I doubt the extreme intelligence of many people or you in particular. But there is virtually no utility in designing tests to assign a score to it, because the tests will have very little meaning or predictive value.
Remember that there are many ways in which one can be intelligent. Mozart and Mendelssohn and Shoenberg were incomparable geniuses at music. James Joyce was an incomparable genius at language. Newton was a mathematical virtuoso. Einstein's genius wasn't rote intelligence, but it was an almost savant-like ability to visualize spatial relationships and understand them mathematically.
Furthermore, their accomplishments were not the sole product of intelligence. There are probably lots of people with extreme intelligence who never make a mark on history. There is the critical matter of context: recognizing and cultivating skills, and living in an environment in which one's skills have the greatest opportunity to change the world. Einstein might not have been a great physicist in the 17th century, and Newton might not have been a great physicist in the 20th century.