Perhaps this is the wrong place to point this out, but the entire concept of "IQ" is deeply flawed. If "intelligence" could be boiled down to a single number it wouldn't be much good, would it? Human cognition is a very complex process and despite what psychologists like to believe, no test or battery of tests can describe it. We all possess a wide array of skills that reflect both our genetics and our interests and experience.

Although I don't agree with all of it, this is an interesting link: http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Correlation/Intelligence.pdf
I also recommend Stephen Jay Gould's "Mismeasure of Man." Quick read and a very interesting book.

The fact that all of these tests are reported to be "reliable" -- i.e. there is consistency with scores early in life and later in life, is primarily a function of the fact that most "IQ" tests and their ilk test similar skills, not that the tests are "valid" and actually measure "intelligence." I will eat my words when someone demonstrates that these tests show high consistency with jazz improvisation, or creative writing, or the ability to reduce a complex process to a simple mathematical description.

"Success" is far more varied than testing, or academics for that matter, can really capture.

Moreover, I would argue that one should think carefully about labeling a child "gifted" or "intelligent." On the one hand, it could serve as a form of encouragement and that's not all bad. But the downside is that it is inherently a relative term -- i.e. "you are in the top 97%" and may foster a sense of entitlement and lack of empathy with others. It could also be a burden --setting out a specific form of achievement as a goal. It is not necessarily helpful for all children to be saddled with these types of goals.

The entire issue of a "gifted" label also makes no sense to me, as in my estimation the strategy for raising a child should be the same regardless of what you might label them (of course, I don't think this applies to major issues such as autism spectrum, etc.). If your son is interested in math and reading, then by all means encourage those interests and find the best environment to give him what he wants and needs. But bear in mind that much of these skills are just that -- skills that children develop by interest and practice, and not necessarily inherent abilities that set them apart from other children. Other kids are more interested in soccer or swimming or music and devote their time to these activities. They do these things more and practice them and get good at them. At this young age, this certainly doesn't mean that they will be academically limited in the future...

I always consider with some bemusement programs like "your baby can read" -- which claims to teach children at very young ages to read. I don't doubt their claims -- surely you can teach children many things early on as they are very smart. However, they cannot make a claim (and there is no evidence for) long-term improvements to reading. Simply because a child is precocious in one aspect of development does not mean that it will persist or transfer to the much wider skillset necessary for future life.

Sorry for waxing so abstract. The upshot, in my opinion, is that I wouldn't put too much stock in the scores of these tests. Even less in the subscores. Based on his environment (which probably IS in the top 90% in terms of stability and economics), you should expect to see scores on the "high" range. Your son could easily just be a normal kid who likes reading and math.

I will eat my words when someone demonstrates that these tests show high consistency with jazz improvisation, or creative writing, or the ability to reduce a complex process to a simple mathematical description.

Moreover, I would argue that one should think carefully about labeling a child "gifted" or "intelligent." On the one hand, it could serve as a form of encouragement and that's not all bad. But the downside is that it is inherently a relative term -- i.e. "you are in the top 97%" and may foster a sense of entitlement and lack of empathy with others.

The entire issue of a "gifted" label also makes no sense to me, as in my estimation the strategy for raising a child should be the same regardless of what you might label them
...

But bear in mind that much of these skills are just that -- skills that children develop by interest and practice, and not necessarily inherent abilities that set them apart from other children.

However, they cannot make a claim (and there is no evidence for) long-term improvements to reading. Simply because a child is precocious in one aspect of development does not mean that it will persist or transfer to the much wider skillset necessary for future life.

The upshot, in my opinion, is that I wouldn't put too much stock in the scores of these tests. Even less in the subscores. Based on his environment (which probably IS in the top 90% in terms of stability and economics), you should expect to see scores on the "high" range. Your son could easily just be a normal kid who likes reading and math.

Madonna's IQ is 140 and Shakira's is 140. Neal Pert's is 150.

Stephen Hawking's is 160. Most top mathematicians are >160.

However, may I ask where you are getting these numbers? I see a lot of IQ numbers thrown around on the internet for celebrities and politicians. I don't know that any of these individuals have actually ever taken an IQ test let alone shared the #s publically. I also don't know that any person's IQ is an exact # so much as a range.

I know that most of these people have stated their IQ in interviews. Many are members of Mensa as well.

Simply going faster doesn't necessarily imply going farther.

As a member of Mensa myself I do also have access to the online searchable member directory. All current members names are listed there. They may omit all other details (address, etc.) but I believe that their names would be there at least. No one with the first name Shakira is listed as a member. There are a very few Madonnas but I am quite certain based upon last names, ages, and addresses they they aren't the Madonna. There is also no Steven Hawking or Neal Pert.

Perhaps this is the wrong place to point this out, but the entire concept of "IQ" is deeply flawed.

The other big issue is that it's not clear to me that early, rapid learning necessarily implies what people seem to be arguing that it implies. Simply going faster doesn't necessarily imply going farther. If this were the case, then we would now all likely be working for Asian companies, where students progress very rapidly along regimented, academic curricula. My own experience is that products of these educational systems think differently, yes, but there are costs as well.

Development is not a simple, linear race but a number of interacting processes that proceed at their own rates in different people.

The reason I am unmoved by many of the guides and descriptions is that it seems like the very elaborate world of diamond grading -- the four "Cs.'

The other big issue is that it's not clear to me that early, rapid learning necessarily implies what people seem to be arguing that it implies.

Simply going faster doesn't necessarily imply going farther. If this were the case, then we would now all likely be working for Asian companies, where students progress very rapidly along regimented, academic curricula. My own experience is that products of these educational systems think differently, yes, but there are costs as well.

Development is not a simple, linear race but a number of interacting processes that proceed at their own rates in different people. Trying to force a "gifted" identity onto this, it seems to me, is not true to the process and could actually limit, instead of expand, the possibilities for the individual children.

Here is one source. The * indicate "confirmed member of Mensa."

http://knol.google.com/k/iq-scores-of-famous-people-past-and-present#

Note that none of the scores of mathematicians and physicists on

http://knol.google.com/k/iq-scores-of-famous-people-past-and-present#

are confirmed. I am an academic and I know Hawking personally (very well). The IQ often quoted and quoted here is not the result of any IQ test he has ever taken.

I also find the attempts to estimate and compare the IQs of scientists who lived in different historical periods somewhat ridiculous, and not even in line with modern assessments of their work.