I harbor the following notions.
(1)  That our hypergifted with IQ's of 150 (ratio IQ's of 160?) are inherently as much more capable than our superior adults with IQ's of 120 as our superior adults are above our dull-normal adults with IQ's of 80; and our hyperbright with IQ's of 174 (ratio IQ's of 200?) are as far above those with IQ's of 150 as the latter are above those with IQ's of 120.
(2)  That there are major problems that attend hyper-giftedness, such as the difficulty of focussing on one discipline, and upon one problem area within that discipline, difficulties in relating socially to the rest of the world (and to each other), and difficulties in accepting "common-sense" (traditional?) guidance in making life decisions
(3)  That society, while making all manner of efforts to cultivate athletic, artistic, and musical talents, makes little effort to encourage the giftedness that could, I would like to think, lead on to the solution of problems and/or the attainment of goals of the greatest importance to humanity. (I think there could possibly be a great unrealized opportunity here.)
(4)  That there appears to me to be some reason to believe that the teenage years are the watershed years that tend to determine success or failure. I base this upon my own experience, upon the stories of the stellar physicists who came from the Lutheran High School in Budapest, and the Physics Department at the University of Rome in the early years of the 20th century, and upon some of the stories coming out of the Johns Hopkins' Study for Mathematically Precocious Youth.
    Of course, the proof of the pudding must come in the eating. I'm betting that we haven't yet learned how to best-develop our hyperbright. I'd like to see experimentation with techniques to potentiate the capabilities of some of our very brightest. There would be, perhaps, 4 or 5 children in the United States with a 1-in-1,000,000 IQ at any given age. At any given time, here would be, perhaps, a total of 25 to 30 U. S. teenagers in the age range from 13 through 18, and, perhaps, 3 to 4 more in Canada. This isn't so many that you couldn't afford special attention for each of them. There would be about 850-to-1,000 U. S. teenagers at the 4 s+ level (deviation-IQ of 164 and above) , about 2,500 to 3,000 at the 1-in-10,000 level (deviation IQ of 160 and above), and 25,000 to 30,000 at the 1-in-1,000 level (deviation IQ of 150 and above).
    I realize that IQ is a crude measurement instrument in the face of the facts that some children have problems with IQ tests, that there are problems with IQ test ceilings, that there are variations in scores among different versions of the same test, and among different kinds of tests, and that scores can depend upon how one is feeling when they take the test. And this says nothing about the uneven distribution of abilities that require multiple measures of ability to properly evaluate.
    Turning now to adults, I'm speculating that motivation can be inspired. If you knew that you would receive a guaranteed $2,000,000 or great fame if you could..., you'd probably try very hard to deliver. But motivation is certainly a critical element--maybe the critical element--in exceptional productivity. Note in the paragraph below, describing Professor Bloom's study of leading mathematicians and concert pianists, the phrase "Fired by recognition and fueled by expert coaching".