Most tests can't reliably measure 155
To validate a 155, a publisher needs people who actually scored 155 in the norm sample. At 1 in 8,137, a typical sample contains none. Above about +3 SD the score is largely extrapolated from the curve's shape, mainstream instruments top out near 145–160, and two good tests can disagree by 10–15 points here. Read a 155 as "exceptionally gifted, near this test's ceiling", not a precise coordinate.
High-ceiling tests take 155 seriously, with their own caveats
If your 155 came from a ceiling-limited clinical test, your true level might sit higher; a high-ceiling test is the only way to see where discrimination stops for you.
Past Triple Nine, short of Prometheus
A base-rate problem, not a personal flaw
Leta Hollingworth, who studied profoundly gifted children directly, observed a "communication range": people relate most easily to others within roughly 20–30 points of themselves. Set a score and a window and see how big the pool is.
An extraordinary ceiling, and what you do with it
Each term is the previous one multiplied by its position: 1, 2, 6, 24, 120. A second sequence lists the differences between consecutive terms. What is its 4th term?
Percentiles, rarities, society cut-offs, norm-sample counts and pool sizes are computed from a normal distribution (mean 100, SD 15), which is least certain exactly here. Hollingworth, SMPY, Wai and Terman points summarise published accounts, not this site's data.