Genius

Paul Coojimans

Genius .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Some remarks ................................................................................................................................. 3
Two out of three .............................................................................................................................. 8
Conscientiousness and associative horizon....................................................................................... 9
Intelligence and associative horizon ................................................................................................. 9
Intelligence and conscientiousness ................................................................................................... 9
Associative horizon ..............................................................................................................................11
Elements of associative horizon .......................................................................................................11
Divergent and lateral abilities ......................................................................................................... 12
Resistances to narrowing mammalian phenomena ......................................................................... 12
Vulnerabilities ................................................................................................................................. 13
Considerations................................................................................................................................. 14
Conscientiousness ............................................................................................................................... 16
Adjectives describing conscientiousness ........................................................................................ 16
Subdivision ability-fostering traits .................................................................................................. 16
Subdivision ego-strength................................................................................................................. 17
Subdivision ethics ........................................................................................................................... 17
Considerations................................................................................................................................. 18
S y n e r g y ......................................................................................................................................... 19
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 19
The synergy in creativity and genius ................................................................................... 20
Sharing between conscientiousness and intelligence ...................................................................... 21
Sharing between associative horizon and intelligence .................................................................... 21
The remaining non-shared matches ................................................................................................ 22
On the wholistic level ..................................................................................................................... 22
Subgroups of traits clarified by their low ends ......................................................... 23
Introduction and structure........................................................................................................ 23
The subgroups' low ends ........................................................................................................... 23
Ethics............................................................................................................................................... 23
Ego-strength .................................................................................................................................... 25
Ability-fostering traits ..................................................................................................................... 28
Abilities ........................................................................................................................................... 29
Divergent and lateral abilities ......................................................................................................... 32
Instinct-detachment ......................................................................................................................... 33
Rareness and discontinuity of genius................................................................................ 34
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 35
Rareness .......................................................................................................................................... 35
Discontinuity................................................................................................................................... 36
Inferiority - the opposite of genius ...................................................................................... 38
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 38
What inferiority is ......................................................................................................................... 38

Insensitive to beauty........................................................................................................................ 38
Other-directed ................................................................................................................................. 38
Unconscientious .............................................................................................................................. 39
Refusing responsibility ................................................................................................................... 39
Intolerant ......................................................................................................................................... 39
Lowly intelligent yet not deeply retarded ....................................................................................... 40
Aggressive ....................................................................................................................................... 40
Antisocial ........................................................................................................................................ 40
Violent against innocent .................................................................................................................. 40
Cruel ................................................................................................................................................ 40
Hating women ................................................................................................................................. 40
The possible evolutionary function of inferiority .............................................................. 41
Solar activity and behaviour A causal hypothesis................................................... 43
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 43
Sunspot activity as an influence on creative and destructive human behaviour 43
The influence of solar activity on weather and climate ................................................. 45
The influence of sunlight on human behaviour ................................................................ 46

Introduction
Below are some speculative remarks to
illustrate the development of my thinking
about genius in terms of personality; that
is, in intrinsic, predictive terms. It is easy
to define genius "after the fact", to say
that one is a genius who has made a
lasting contribution, has been of great and
lasting influence. That is true but also
gratis and free of obligations. The real
work is to predict genius, to describe it in
terms of observable personality features.
That is where the risk is run, where one
can go wrong or right, where insight is to
be gained, and where practical
applications lie in identifying
genius before the fact.
Genius does not depend on intelligence
alone and can therefore not be defined by
an I.Q. number. In other words, it is not
possible to name a single I.Q. beyond
which one is a genius. Although this
paragraph is superfluous, some require it.

Some remarks
Genius is the high end of the dimension of
creativity.
Creativity in turn is the expression (effect,
result, projection) of awareness.
Awareness is what the individual
experiences inside one's mind (the
experience of experience itself; the being
aware of the fact that one or anything
exists), while creativity is what others
perceive when observing that individual.

Awareness and creativity are the inner and

outer aspects of the same thing. One's
creativity is a measure of one's
awareness. A non-creative person is not
aware; a genius is the most aware of all.
Awareness is related to creativity not just
as in making a painting or writing a novel,
but also as in my philosophical hypothesis
"Only what can be verified by aware
beings exists". Awareness thus creates
existence itself. Without aware beings,
nothing would exist.
The components of creativity (and
therefore of awareness and of genius) are
intelligence, conscientiousness and associa
tive horizon.
Conscientiousness is the only aspect of
creativity that can be improved
significantly, permanently, safely and
purposely in an adult. This is probably so
because conscientiousness is not a unitary
trait, but comprises various traits, some of
which are independent, and not per se
correlated with each of the other traits
that make up conscientiousness.
Conscientiousness is a kaleidoscope of
good features, and it is possible to possess
different combinations thereof, and to gain
or lose some of them without affecting the
rest.
Associative horizon can probably not be
safely improved much; hallucinogenic
drugs widen it, but at the great risk of
psychosis, which causes permanent
damage to the mind and brain. Perhaps
studying the work of geniuses or doing

exercises in "lateral thinking" may improve

one's associative horizon a bit, but one
must ask if the result is worth the effort,
and realize that much more creativity can
be gained by improving conscientiousness.
Associative horizon is the "spark", it is
Edison's "2% inspiration", as opposed to
the "98% perspiration". There is a
tendency among people fascinated by
genius to focus on the 2% and neglect the
98%, the hard work that comes after the
"spark". A tendency to confuse creativity
with associative horizon. This is the
phenomenon of "wanting a champagne
taste on a beer budget"; the attraction of
being creative in a flash of insight, without
needing to do the hard work.
There is a critical tension between the
three components of creativity; each,
when exceeding a certain threshold, can
bring down the whole, destroying
creativity.
Associative horizon, when exceeding a
threshold, leads to psychosis and thus
destroys creativity. This has been pointed
out by Hans Eysenck and others. For
genius, one needs to be close to that
threshold.
Conscientiousness, when exceeding a
threshold, leads to obsessions and
compulsions (which in turn cause anxiety
and depression) and thus destroys
creativity (through neurosis rather than
psychosis), be it less drastically. This is
part of regular psychiatric knowledge. For

genius, one needs to be close to that

threshold.
Intelligence, when reaching the very
highest altitudes, somehow reduces the
frequency of genius; it has been pointed
out that geniuses tend to have high, but
not the highest intelligence; that those
with the very highest I.Q.s are typically
not geniuses. I do not know the precise
mechanism yet, but relevant is my own
finding that, in the high range, there is a
significant negative correlation between
I.Q. and 1) psychiatric disorders in
oneself; 2) psychiatric disorders in one's
parents and siblings (which reflect genetic
disposition); 3) disposition for psychiatric
disorders as measured by personality
tests.
Perhaps the very highest I.Q.s tend to go
with just a bit less than the needed
extreme conscientiousness and associative
horizon (both of which are forms of
disposition for psychiatric disorders)?
Perhaps those with the very highest I.Q.s
are too neurologically "normal"?
This possible limiting effect of the very
highest I.Q. levels is something I am less
certain of yet than of the other two
thresholds.
My current view on creativity (and
therefore genius) could be summarized
as:
Conscientiousness contributes to
creativity but disposes for neurosis;

Associative horizon contributes to

creativity but disposes for psychosis;
Intelligence contributes to creativity
but disposes for normality.
I have tried to express in a mathematical
model how the three aspects work
together to produce creativity, but to date
have no satisfactory version of such. What
I do suspect now is that the amounts of
conscientiousness and associative horizon
required vary with intelligence; that higher
intelligence levels need, and can tolerate,
higher amounts of the other two aspects
to result in creativity.
I imagine that for each intelligence level
there is a certain minimum and and a
certain maximum amount of
conscientiousness, and a certain minimum
and and a certain maximum amount of
associative horizon, above and below
which there is no creativity. Both of the
aspects have to be within these limits, and
there may be a single optimum between
those limits that is required for genius.
The limits and optimum as it were shift
upward with intelligence, are relative to
intelligence. Mathematically it might best
be something like:
G = g - ( (c - cg)2 + (ah - ahg)2 )
wherein G is creativity, g is intelligence (in
the sense of the general factor in mental
ability), and cg and ahg are the optimum
levels of conscientiousness and associative
horizon at the given g level (that is, the
levels beyond which debilitating levels of

neurosis and psychosis occur). G is thus

expressed on the same scale as g, and c
and ah use the units of that scale.
If c and ah could be expressed on the
same scale too, such that their values
always correspond to the optimum levels
of those traits for a person of the samenumbered g level, cg and ahg could both
be replaced by g, and the equation would
be:
G = g - ( (c - g)2 + (ah - g)2 )
Recently I have become somewhat
pessimistic about the possibility of
expressing associative horizon and
conscientiousness each on a scale similar
to intelligence and combining them
mathematically to obtain a measure of
creativity. Instead I have been thinking of
combining the three aspects at or under
the level of test items, so that the test's
raw score will directly reflect creativity.
This was actually what I attempted with
some of my very first tests, but I
concluded later that those tests were
measuring mainly intelligence and
probably not to a great extent creativity. It
may be a future challenge to design
problems or tasks that truly require
creativity as I define it.

Two out of three

Although all of the three aspects are
needed for creativity, it is tempting to
consider what results if one possesses
only two of them to a high degree, and
the third is depressed compared to those:

Conscientiousness and associative horizon

If intelligence is depressed, one might still
be a reasonable artist in a field without
high cognitive demands, provided one has
the specific talent; for instance, a sculptor,
dancer, painter, or musician. In cases like
these, the specific talent takes the place of
intelligence. However, many specific
talents are correlated with intelligence, be
it only lowly to moderately, so that it is
more common for such artists to have
relatively higher intelligence than to have
low intelligence.
If intelligence is markedly depressed, one
may appear as "stupid" to a casual
observer. However, this is merely one out
of three types of stupidity.

Intelligence and associative horizon

If conscientiousness is depressed, one
might still be a short-lived erratic
humorist, actor, or rock star, but one
would on the whole be consumptive rather
than creative.
If conscientiousness is markedly
depressed, one may appear "stupid". For
instance, missing important opportunities
through laxity or lack of punctuality is
considered "stupid", as is running into
accidents as a result of carelessness. This
is the second type of stupidity.

Intelligence and conscientiousness

If associative horizon is depressed, one
might still be a good bookkeeper, clerk,
banker, translator, corrector, editor, lawyer,

diplomat, politician, public servant, or

scholar in the "humanities". In fact one
might be good at any one of a whole lot of
things more, but show a lack of originality
and humour, tend to conformism and
socialization, and out of empathy and
humaneness put people-pleasing before
truth-seeking and truth-speaking. These
people are dangerous in science for they
will if needed corrupt their data to avoid
any outcome that would either violate the
ruling paradigm, or appear "inhumane".
For instance, if a person like this studies
handedness and finds that left-handers
are ten times more violent than righthanders, the person will corrupt or discard
those results to hide this fact, thinking "It
would be inhumane to stigmatize the
group of left-handers by making this
known". These people are so afraid to be
"against the grain" or to "hurt" others that
they will rather lie. Typical
pronouncements for them are "Some
truths can better not be told", "The effect
of what one says is more important than
whether or not is it true", and "Truth does
not exist". They feel less attracted to the
natural sciences (although they may be
intelligent enough for those) because of
the strictly empirical nature of those
disciplines, which requires one to change
one's point of view or paradigm whenever
the empirical data contradict one's
expectation. And persons with narrow
associative horizons are not able to
change paradigm as they are rigid. They
prefer the "alpha" sciences, which

traditionally employ ana priori paradigm or

model that is imposed upon reality and
not adapted empirically. Their high
intelligence enables them to argue or
debate endlessly in apparently logical
constructions of infinite complexity, while
their narrow associative horizon keeps
them from seeing the larger picture, the
road ahead, and therefore keeps them
from being goal-directed, so that their
apparent logic does not bring them any
closer to truth or righteousness in the end.
This paragraph is so long because this
group is important and tends to occupy
high positions in society and be of
influence; also, this group, contrary to the
other two mentioned, is likely to read this
article.
If associative horizon is depressed, this
too may make a "stupid" impression. For
example, not grasping subtle humour or
irony, not recognizing brilliant new ideas,
not getting "the bigger picture"; those are
all behaviours that make someone appear
"stupid" despite being of higher
intelligence. This is the third type of
stupidity.

Associative horizon
2005-2010 Paul Cooijmans

Elements of associative horizon

In my considerations about genius, I have
over the years realized one of the pillars of
brilliance is associative horizon (the other

are intelligence and conscientiousness). To

explain what I mean by this, here is a
somewhat structured list of its suspected
features:

Divergent and lateral abilities

Fluency in association: To see many
associations to any given concept;
To see connections or similarities
between remote concepts (this follows
from fluency in association);

Flexibility (ability to see things in

different functions, to switch from
motif to background).

Resistances to narrowing mammalian phenomena

Resistance to conformism;
Resistance to suggestion;
Resistance to conditioning;
Resistance to automating tasks;
preferring and inclined to "keep
thinking" even when performing
repetitive tasks;
Resistance to nonverbal
communication ("body language" and
the nonverbal components of speech);
that is, not intuitively and unawarely
interpreting or broadcasting such;
Resistance to socialization;
Resistance to empathy; that is, not
intuitively and unawarely sensing what
goes on inside the mind of the other
person one is communicating with;
not forming "theory of mind" when
communicating;

Resistance to "emotion"; able to use

ratio rather than emotion as the basis
for behaviour.

Vulnerabilities
High sensitivity for various types of
sensorial input or external stimuli
other than those of the
social/nonverbal mammalian kind; this
is not so much a quality in itself but a
property of the brain that forms an
underlying biological cause of wide
associative horizon (in particular of
the divergent and lateral abilities);
Disposition for the "placebo effect"
and therefore inclination to form
superstitions as one experiences firsthand that they "work"; this is a sideeffect of high divergent and lateral
ability (one may see associations and
connections that are not real through
mechanisms like hineininterpretieren),
and makes a person with wide
associative horizon vulnerable to
magical thinking, and potentially
inclined toward the occult as well as
toward art or science;
Disposition for psychosis; the
divergent and lateral abilities, when
pushed too far by one's sensitivity or
insufficiently controlled by the
intellect, produce false results: Unreal
associations and connections form
(often paranoid) delusions, overactive
flexibility causes (apophenic,
pareidolic, motif-background)
hallucinations.

Considerations
Summarized, the person with wide
associative horizon is primarily living one's
own mind, not letting one's mental state
be determined or strongly affected by
others. This is not a choice but a
personality feature outside of one's
control. Such a person may be seen as
unusual, isolated, original, bizarre,
detached from emotion, cold.
The most recent insight as to the cause of
having a wide associative horizon concerns
the intellect trying to make sense of the
world in the absence of mammalian
instincts like empathy and "nonverbal
communication" (facial expression,
intonation, and body language). This is
what one sees in Aspergoid, schizoid,
autistic, or some premorbid schizophrenic
persons. Such a condition widens
associative horizon, while also increasing
and advancing awareness. It is as if the
intellect can operate much more freely
when not held back by the ancient
mammalian biases of instinct. The level of
intelligence and the depth of the
disturbance of instinct both play a role in
determining the width of associative
horizon. It is a synergistic interaction;
Intelligence combined with the defect of
instinct first causes associative horizon to
be wide, and then intelligence and
associative horizon both contribute to
creativity (together with
conscientiousness).

A remark I wish to make is that what I call

"associative horizon" is by others often
mistaken for "creativity". But creativity is
a higher-level phenomenon, a synergy of
things, of which associative horizon is only
one. The idea that associative horizon
itself is creativity is of course attractive to
who do not possess much of the other
components of creativity. But it is not
true.
Another observation is that some think
they can measure associative horizon
(which they mistakenly call "creativity" as
just explained) with difficult pattern
recognition problems, sometimes called
"creative puzzles". But to my experience
(with item analysis), those who are best at
solving such problems are often simply the
ones with the highest I.Q.s, and not per se
creative. The "creative puzzles" are a
measure of intelligence at high levels, and
not per se of creativity or associative
horizon. On the other hand, I do not
exclude the possibility that associative
horizon is caught in as a side-effect, a
secondary factor, by certain types of
intelligence test problems, and keep
experimenting to find out.
I know of no good, usable way to measure
associative horizon currently. It seems
that whatever you try in the realm of
ability testing, you always end up
measuring intelligence above all. This has
less to do with the construction of the
tests than with the omnipresent nature of
intelligence, which typically blows all of

the other behavioural variables away

because it expresses itself in almost
everything a person does or says. Tests in
the realms of personality and mental
illness do catch in aspects of associative
horizon well, but are not robust as one can
manipulate them by answering
dishonestly.
To my most recent insights, possible
indicators of associative horizon are the
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms
(GAIA), the P.S.I.A. Aspergoid and Cold
scales, and several high-range intelligence
tests.

Conscientiousness
2005-2010 Paul Cooijmans

Adjectives describing conscientiousness

In my considerations about genius, I have
over the years realized one of the pillars of
brilliance is conscientiousness (the other
are intelligence and associative horizon).
To explain what I mean by this, here is a
first list of adjectives describing it. A few
of them may belong to a trait called egostrength. A few other lie in the field of
ethics. I consider both ego-strength and
ethics subdivisons of conscientiousness.

Subdivision ability-fostering traits

Accurate;
Careful;
Coherent;
Consistent;

Dependable;
Diligent;
Hardworking - that is, all day, every
day, as long as health permits,
without free time, holiday, vacation or
retirement;
Perfectionist;
Persistent;
Punctual;
Respecting detail;
Self-disciplined;

Tolerant to repetitive work (not easily

bored).

Subdivision ego-strength
Determined;
Driven by inner motivation;
Holding on to insights one knows are
correct even when the rest of the
world says one is wrong, for decades
if needed;
Insensitive to habituation - as in
drugs, spices, bad habits; habituation
means to need an ever higher dose for
the same effect; the conscientious
strong-egoed person does not take
that higher dose;
Impulse-controlling; able to delay
gratification;
Strong-willed;
Uncompromising.

Subdivision ethics
Ethical;
Fair;
Loyal - to who deserve it;
Respectful - to who deserve it;

Responsible - taking responsibility for

one's deeds and utterances (but not
for those pinned on to one by others);
Sincere;
Truthful - regardless of
consequences, otherwise it means
nothing;
Trustworthy.

Considerations
It should be noted most of these virtues
are severely impaired or destroyed by
certain serious psychiatric disorders, in
particular psychotic disorders. Such
disorders can therefore greatly reduce the
creative output of an otherwise talented
person. The importance of this lies in the
wide associative horizon that goes with
(disposition for) psychosis; it (associative
horizon) is good for creativity, but when
resulting in actual psychosis it backfires
and destroys creativity by attacking its
conscientiousness component. The
components of creativity, in this view, are
conscientiousness, intelligence and
associative horizon.
Also, conscientiousness itself, if driven too
far, may lead to disorders that reduce
creative output. This concerns primarily
disorders of the neurotic kind, involving
obsessions, compulsions, anxiety,
depression, and more.
Conscientiousness seems to be open to
improvement through practice, training
and study; that makes it probably the only
component of creativity and genius that

can be improved at will. Therefore the

most likely only key to improving your
creative output and contribution to
humankind lies on this page.

Synergy
July 2010 Paul Cooijmans

Introduction
Synergy is the phenomenon that, when
the parts of a whole share elements
between them through which they
interact, the whole becomes more than
the sum of parts.
This principle may be visualized by first
observing three triangles, made up of nine
matches in total:

The whole three triangles of three

matches each is equal to the sum of
parts (nine matches). Three times three
equals nine.
Then, observe three triangles that share
two matches between them:

Now, the whole three triangles of three

matches each is greater than the sum
of parts (seven matches). Three times
three is nine, which is two more than
seven. The sharing, as it were, produces
two extra matches on the wholistic level
that have not actually been laid on the
level of parts. There is a synergistic bonus
of two-seventh, thanks to the double
function performed by two of the matches.
And yes, an ever greater bonus can be
obtained by making a three-dimensional
figure consisting of four triangles with only
six matches in total; but for the sake of
demonstrating synergy, the above twodimensional analogy suffices.

The synergy in creativity and genius

The way in which conscientiousness,
intelligence, and associative horizon
interact may involve a synergistic process
similar to what is visualized above, so that
the resulting personality is greater than
the simple sum of abilities and traits of the
individual. Intelligence can be thought of
as being visualized by the middle triangle,
sharing a side with each of the other two
which stand for conscientiousness and
associative horizon.

Sharing between conscientiousness and intelligence

One may imagine
that conscientiousness contains a
subdivision of traits that are abilityfostering, that help one to use one's
intelligence, while on the other hand
intelligence itself is needed to be able to
make meaningful use of these traits in the
first place. These personality traits form
the interaction between conscientiousness
and intelligence; they lie just outside of
the cognitive domain, but allow and foster
cognitive functioning, or actually any use
of one's abilities at all. They add to both
conscientiousness and ability, count
double as it were. They perform the
double function that is essential to
synergy.

Sharing between associative horizon and intelligence

Associative horizon too includes a
subdivision of elements that border on the
cognitive domain, to wit the divergent and
lateral abilities. While these abilities are
not full aspects of intelligence in
themselves their output may be
nonsense as well as valuable they
provide the rational intellect with the
occasional good idea, the "spark of
inspiration", provided the intellect is able
to distinguish the rare "sparks" from the
constant stream of random noise and
delusions put out by an active lateral
mind.

The remaining non-shared matches

For completeness one may see the four
non-shared matches that point left and
right as the remaining subdivisions of
conscientiousness and associative horizon,
and the bottom match as representing
measurable ability, intelligence. One is
reminded there is no fundamental
difference between psychometric
intelligence (the general factor in mental
testing) and "other" types of ability; all
ability types can be thought of as part of a
pyramid or hierarchy shaped by their
intercorrelations, the concept of factor
analysis not being restricted to mental
abilities (hence the quotation marks
around "other" in this sentence).

On the wholistic level

The thus interactive parts
conscientiousness, intelligence, and
associative horizon together result in a
personality that awarely creates, not just
as in writing a novel or knitting a sock, but
also through verification of the world
whose existence depends on aware
individuals; they are the verificators who
create existence itself.
Although one should never take a visual
analogy too far to not let it curtail reality
which tends to be more complex than the
analogy, it is possible to visualize the
aware creative act as a fourth triangle
pointing downward from the middle one
and completing the fifth, larger triangle
that represents verification and therewith
existence.

Subgroups of traits clarified by

their low ends
August 2010 Paul Cooijmans

Introduction and structure

To further clarify the subgroups of traits
that make up genius and creativity, the
subgroups will be discussed in terms of
their low ends, their opposites. For
information, these subgroups and their
role in the whole are first shown in an
overview:
Creativity
Conscientiousness
Intelligence
Associative horizon
Ethics Ego-strength Ability-fostering Abilities
Divergence Instinct-detachment
The high ends of most of these subgroups
of traits have been described in the
articles Conscientiousness and Associative
horizon. Considering the below
clarifications one should keep in mind that
in reality a person has a position on each
of these groups of traits and is not fully
characterized by describing just one
extreme trait. The latter tends to create a
caricature. A real personality is a
combination of positions on many traits.

The subgroups' low ends

Ethics
To be unethical by nature, from within,
means to have no conscience; to feel no
inner resistance against lying, being
insincere, cheating, insulting, hurting
others, letting others down, or otherwise

treating others unfairly. Obviously, these

characteristics put one at risk of (although
in themselves do not suffice for) becoming
an evil person, an anti-social, a criminal, a
psychopath, an inferior who should better
not exist. Of all human features, the low
end of the Ethics scale is what the most
urgently must be reduced in its occurrence
frequency, or rather, must be cut off, after
which the then low end will be less low.
That not all of low ethics become evil is
because people in general have low
instinct-detachment as well, that is: are
highly driven by ancient mammalian
instincts. This means they are suggestible,
socializable, conformist, have herdmentality, can be conditioned into socially
desirable behaviour. It is a thin layer of
veneer and completely insincere, but it is
how human societies have stuck together
so far.
Socialization only works on the instinctdriven though; those with strong
resistance to these mammalian instincts
on the other hand - the ones with wide
associative horizon - can not be
brainwashed into social behaviour. If such
persons happen to be low in ethics as well,
this combination will tend to make them
anti-social or psychopathic. Wide
associative horizon therefore is something
that is shared between criminals and
creative persons; between psychopaths
and geniuses. In psychiatry, the
personality factor Psychoticism, discovered
by Hans Eysenck, is known to play a

similar role, to be high in both anti-socials

and creative people.
It will be clear from the above that the
only people who are genuinely useful
when it comes to the ethical spectrum are
those who have high ethics from within,
while also being highly instinct-detached,
that is, not being able to be influenced,
socialized by their environment, into
unethical behaviour. These people will not
lie, cross when the traffic lights are red,
steal, rob, kill, slaughter their neighbours
etcetera, just because "everyone does it";
they know from within what is right and
wrong and are immune to suggestion and
social pressure. Since ethical values are
rooted in logic, this superior state of being
requires intelligence (which logically implies
not that all intelligent have this state; yes, the
principle of "a cow is an animal but not all animals
are cows" can alas not be taken for granted but
has to be pointed out with each instance again for
the sake of part of the readers, as experience
shows one otherwise receives reactions like
"What!? So you are saying that all intelligent
people ...?!").

Ego-strength
The person low in ego-strength is
spineless and prone to
habituation(habituation: needing ever more of a
particular stimulus to obtain a given effect) . One
has no willpower or inner drive, can not
delay gratification, lacks the self-obvious
certainty or conviction of being right in
one's insights, views, the confidence of
being correct and objective in one's

observations or perceptions. As a result

and on the whole, such a person is
without initiative, passive, apathic,
indifferent, and indulges in bad habits.
In addition, ego-weak subjects may enjoy
self-pity, self-hatred, guilt, and "away with
me, the others are better" mentality. Note
the word "enjoy"; they do not suffer from
it, but rather derive their raison
d'tre from it, while at the same time it
keeps them from doing anything useful or
creative, for then they would lose what
keeps them going: the self-contempt they
so thoroughly derive pleasure from.
It is impossible to miss the similarity
between these features and those seen in
many abusers of drugs - perhaps most
particularly marihuana and hashish,
nowadays called "cannabis" - as well as
the similarity with especially male
members of the populations of countries
that have long suffered under Marxistoriented totalitarian systems of rule.
Regarding recreational drugs, it is logically
clear that being prone to habituation
disposes for addiction in the first place,
while secondly it is empirically observed
that many drug abusers lose ego-strength
over time as a result of their habit. This
sad vicious circle is hard to escape, and
therefore allowing or promoting
recreational drug use is an effective
political tool to destroy ego-strength in a
population, rendering people passive and
without initiative or strong opinions.

Regarding Marxist totalitarian systems of

rule, it is apparent that personal initiative
and having strong convictions of one's
own are not welcome thereunder, and that
individuals of high ego-strength are
eradicated in large numbers. Clearly, such
a system can only function with ego-weak
citizens. One may imagine that over
several generations this has a dysgenic
effect, resulting in destruction of egostrength at the genetic level. In this light
one must see the phenomenon that
women from former communist countries
want to marry men from the West,
typically complaining that those in their
own country are spineless alcoholics. That
this deterioration is observed in men
rather than in women may relate to the
possible fact that high ego-strength is
more prominent in men than in women, so
that the latter are less affected by a
curtailing of it.
Considering the two similarities explained
above, it makes sense that political
movements of Marxist orientation tend to
support the legalization of recreational
drugs, especially of cannabis. Such would
render citizens the way a Marxist system
of rule requires them. It may also help to
make clear why those movements
emphasize and promote feminine
characteristics and disapprove of
masculine ones, to thus feminize society;
why they want masculine men to
emancipate, become "soft", to behave like
women or feminized men. All of that fits

the reduction of ego-strength imperative

to achieve Marxist rule.
Furthermore, ego-weakness makes one
less suitable for verification purposes, as
such a person lacks the confidence that
one's perceptions, observations,
inferences, or notions are correct,
correspond to an objective reality. If a tree
falls in the forest and only ego-weak
witness it, the tree has not really fallen. In
fact, awareness of an objective reality
outside oneself is low or absent in these
subjects, which can therefore easily be led
to accept relativistic statements like "truth
does not exist" or "all truths are relative".
An inclination in the ego-weak that follows
from this is to, whenever something does
not suit one, simply deny or ignore it and
state it to be differently (such that it does
suit one), and subsequently and
delusionally believe it now is indeed as
one has stated it to be. The subjective
experience or desired state of being is the
only "reality" for the ego-weak, lacking as
they are in awareness of an actual reality
external to them. Attentive readers will
recognize this inclination on the macro
level in Marxist-oriented systems and
organizations, a classic and sublime
example being the work of Lysenko in the
former Soviet Union.

Ability-fostering traits
To be low in ability-fostering traits means
to be lax, sloppy, incoherent,
undependable, lazy, tardy, prone to give
up, short of attention span, postponing,

and easily bored. To "live by the

day",carpe diem, say maana maana. As
a result one can not do anything useful
with whatever talents or positive traits one
may otherwise have.
These people are by others often
perceived as "stupid", even though they
may be of normal or higher intelligence.
There exist several types of "stupidity",
and low intelligence is only one thereof
and not required in the other. There is
hope for the lax (as one may call them for
short): This subgroup of traits is likely the
only one that can be improved
significantly, and therewith the only aspect
of creativity - apart from ability itself that one can "work" on. Ability-fostering
traits may be increased in one of two
ways, depending on one's further
personality: If one possesses egostrength, willpower can be used to
overcome one's laxity through selfdiscipline. In the unfortunate other case,
discipline imposed by others, as in through
the cane, remains the only option.

Abilities
Abilities differ from most of the (nonability) personality traits in two ways: 1)
They intercorrelate positively, and 2) They
can in most cases be learnt, practised, and
improved.
The positive intercorrelations group the
abilities naturally in a hierarchy, with on
top the most general ones which have the
highest intercorrelations, and toward the

bottom the most specific ones which have

the lowest intercorrelations. There is no
fundamental difference between mental,
perceptual, motoric, physical, or whatever
kinds of abilities. In general, the more
specific an ability is, the greater the
extent to which it can and has to be
learnt, practised, and improved. The more
general abilities represent the components
or factors that are common to many or all
of the specific abilities, and can be
improved to a lesser extent, the more
general they are. The natural way to
improve one's ability level is to study and
practise the specific abilities needed for
whatever one is aiming to to undertake.
The general abilities, the common factors,
are developed in that bottom-up process.
They express themselves through the
specific abilities but can not be observed
directly, so without the hard work of
learning the specific abilities one will never
know one's potential and limitations.
A trap especially young people fall into
these days is to believe that their
intelligence - or general ability - is too low
for their aspired study and career, and
that this intelligence has to be "improved"
first in some magical way before beginning
their studies. They believe that certain
exercises, computer games, or pills can
raise their I.Q., so that then they will have
it easy and study and work will be a
breeze. It is the old phenomenon of
"wanting a champagne taste on a beer
budget" again. But of course, the
development of one's abilities lies in

exactly the hard labour they are thus

trying to avoid... a sad case of shooting
oneself in the foot.
Those low in abilities are often seen as
stupid, but as said this is only one of
several types of perceived "stupidity".
There are two basic causes of low ability:
1) Low general ability, which makes it hard
to learn any specific ability; 2) A
personality structure that hinders the
development of one's abilities, for instance
having low ability-fostering traits.
Psychological tests are helpful to
distinguish between these causes, and
intelligence tests were originally invented
for exactly this purpose; to separate the
stupid from the lazy, as one used to
phrase it.
Another matter regarding low ability is
that people tend to reach their peak well
into adulthood, and that the curve leading
to the peak differs per individual, and also
differs between the sexes, females having
greater parts of their curves before
puberty than have males. There exists
therefore a risk that young persons who
are late-bloomers are prematurely barred
from pursuing a study or profession
because they appear to lack the ability for
it, and this risk is greater for males than
for females. On the other hand there is
the corresponding risk of early-bloomers
being prematurely identified as "gifted"
(as one calls it) and subsequently
conspicuously lacking eminence as adults,

and this risk is greater for females than

for males.
Low general ability not only makes it
harder to become creative or to function
independently in life. Depending on one's
further disposition, it also increases the
risk of developing serious psychotic
disorders (if thus disposed) or criminal
behaviour (idem).

Divergent and lateral abilities

To be low in divergent and lateral abilities
means to have a mind which is not very
associative, and which is rigid, that is, can
not well see things in different functions
and switch therebetween, can not well
switch between motif and background, can
not see an object and note at the same
time its outline defines an entirely
different object (has a double function). It
must be greatly stressed that "see" here is
not restricted to visual matters but also
refers to patterns of any other sensorial,
linguistical, or abstract conceptual nature.
For such a person it is hard to "step out of
the system", "think out of the box", "jump
over one's own shadow". The person can
not fully understand self-reference but
gets caught in it, and does not see the
"extra" in a synergistic system where the
whole is more than the sum of parts (sees
only the whole or only the parts, but not
both). The contrast is not between
"wholists" and "reductionists", but
between who are only one of those (and
are equally impaired) and who are both.

These people too are perceived as

"stupid"; this is the third kind of stupidity.

Instinct-detachment
A person barely or not detached from
instinct lives under strong influence of
ancient mammalian drives. Such a person
is highly socialized, conformist,
suggestible, sensitive to conditioning, and
tends to act or carry out tasks without
thinking, once the novelty has worn off
(which occurs quickly with this type of
person as their orientation reflex weakens
rapidly). Although the person may master
language, it gives priority to hallucinatorily
perceived nonverbal aspects of interaction
such as "body language" and nonverbal
components of speech, and forms a
delusional emotion-oriented mental image
of the other's mind state based thereupon.
Unaware of this inner process, the person
may experience its mental image as
originating in clairvoyance or a "sixth
sense", and in any case respond in
emotion-driven ways rather than
rationally.
When receiving verbal information that
contradicts its mental image, the person
will instantly reject this data as insincere,
unable as the person is to let rational
verbal communication correct the alloverpowering emotion-based delusion.
This form of psychosis is known by names
as "empathy", "social intelligence",
"emotional intelligence", or "E.Q.", to who
understand not its nature. Those affected
by it are driven toward reproduction, their

heritage to posterity lying in their genes

rather than in their work.
Instead of being independent rational
thinkers, the instinct-driven conform to
dogmas and doctrines planted into them
by socialization and suggestion, and react
to violations of those beliefs with reflexes
acquired through conditioning, never
letting truth or ratio get in their way,
never using logical arguments. Their
behaviour is either emotion-driven or
conditioned, thus putting them on par with
many sub-human genera.
In their utterances they choose peoplepleasing and conformism over truth value.
They will rather lie than speak a truth that
might hurt someone or contradict dogma
or doctrine, and regard the effect of their
words the only criterion, the question
whether or not those words are true never
being a point of consideration. While
speaking, their faces and bodies suffer
repulsive twitches while their voices
undergo howling pitch modulations not
dissimilar to those heard in switched-on
vacuum cleaners, which - the twitches and
modulations - they in their mammalianpsychotic state of mind believe constitute
"expression".

Rareness and
discontinuity of
genius
2006 Paul Cooijmans

Introduction
It has been observed genius is rare and
discontinuous. Here are possible
explanations for both phenomena:

Rareness
Genius is so rare - about 1 in 5 to 10
million perhaps - because it requires a
combination of features, some of which
intercorrelate negatively. If two things
intercorrelate negatively, it will be rare to
find them both expressed strongly in one
and the same individual. What exactly
these features are is discussed elsewhere
in more detail, but in short it is on the one
hand intelligence and on the other hand
disposition for various psychiatric
disorders, which - the disposition, not the
disorders - provide associative horizon and
conscientiousness.
This negative correlation is found in the
high range of intelligence, where it
matters with regard to genius, as genius
requires high intelligence. It is not claimed
that the negative correlation holds over
the full range of intelligence, and that is
also irrelevant as geniuses are not found
over the full range. This negative
correlation in the high range of intelligence
makes it very unlikely and therefore rare
for someone to have extreme amounts of
all three of the components of genius:
intelligence, associative horizon and
conscientiousness. It explains the rareness
of genius.

Discontinuity
Discontinuity of genius means that parents
and children of geniuses are typically not
geniuses. Talented yes, often, but not
geniuses. Talent is inherited, genius is not.
Genius "emerges", that is, may occur in
relatively undistinguished families and to
leave relatively undistinguished offspring.
Talented yes, genius no.
This might be taken to suggest that at
least some of the features required for
genius are not strongly inherited, but
acquired or developed during life. In other
words, that some of the features have a
significant environmental component. That
they can be improved at will or through
circumstances or events.
Probably these are located in the realm of
conscientiousness, and probably it
concerns only part of the traits that make
up conscientiousness; most likely those
that are not related to ethics. My article on
conscientiousness gives a list of words
describing it, and those not residing under
"ethics" seem to be the best candidates
for a larger environmental influence.
This does not mean that everyone can
become a genius by improving his
persistence, determination and so on (see
the article on conscientiousness for all of
the terms). One needs the other aspects
too: intelligence, associative horizon, the
ethical part of conscientiousness; in short,
one needs talent too. But it explains why
children of geniuses are mostly not
geniuses; for while intelligence,

associative horizon and the ethical part of

conscientiousness are probably passed on
genetically, the non-ethical parts of
conscientiousness may have a smaller
genetic component and depend more on
aware decision, study, practice,
circumstances and (dramatic) events in
one's life, perhaps even education. They
do not come for free with one's D.N.A.,
but one has to work hard and suffer for
them, and that is where many talented
persons are lacking; that is why almost all
talented individuals are not geniuses.
Another reason for genius' discontinuity is
its extreme rareness. If the configuration
of traits needed for genius is as rare as
suggested in the section "Rareness", and if
some or most thereof are genetic, then in
sexual reproduction such a configuration
will inevitably be lost. Although a genius
has greater chances of conceiving a genius
child than has the average person, even a
genius may have to produce several
hundred, if not thousand, children to see
one genius emerge among them. To
reproduce genius, one needs to either
clone it, retaining the precise genetic
configuration, or use something like a
sperm bank (including careful selection of
females to be inseminated) to create vast
numbers of children with multiple mates.
Both of these reasons may play a role in
making genius discontinuous, although the
latter may have more weight than the
first.

Inferiority - the
opposite of
genius
2005-2009 Paul Cooijmans

Introduction
An inferior is a person who drags society
and mankind down and should better not
exist. Instead of contributing and being
creative, he takes away and destroys. He
causes suffering rather than joy.
The continuum genius-creativeprocreative-inferior is a scale of human
value and is not compatible with the
Marxist notion that all humans are of
equal value.
The below list is a first attempt to map the
components of inferiority. Note you are
not inferior if you have just one of these;
only if you have several (the exact number
will be estimated later) it is time to worry.
Not for you, but for your victims, that is.

What inferiority is
Insensitive to beauty
Insofar beauty can be objectively defined,
which is quite far.

Other-directed
That is, looking to others to know what to
approve and disapprove of; taking on the
moral values of others, because one does
not have inner values.

This is not the same as conformism; a

conformist adapts to others but need
not per se approve of what one adapts to,
and may still keep one's own values in
silence. But the other-directed derives its
actual sense of good and bad from others,
because it does not have any itself. It is a
sort of brain malfunction.

Unconscientious
Conscientiousness is such an important
and comprehensive topic that a separate
article is devoted to it.

Refusing responsibility
Refusing or neglecting to take
responsibility for one's deeds. In essence
a form of cowardice. The epitomy of this
are suicide bombings. Maximum suffering
caused, zero probability of being called to
account, so maximum responsibility
refused.

Intolerant
That is, disapproving of anyone who is,
thinks, believes or acts in different ways
than oneself, regardless if those other
ways are better (that last part of the
sentence is essential, as it is good to be
intolerant to ways that are bad). The
ultimate in intolerance is to threaten,
silence and kill those one disapproves of in
the manner qualified above, or even take
over their countries to submit them to
one's ways.

Lowly intelligent yet not deeply retarded

It is the I.Q. range from 60 to 100 that
contributes most to inferiority. Details of
this well-established fact can be found in
many other places. In short, most
criminals have I.Q.s between 60 and 100,
and violent crime peaks between 80 and
90.

Aggressive
That is, tending to respond to or approach
others in a hostile way.

Antisocial
This includes all forms of dishonesty,
posing, lying, stealing, fraud, vandalism,
robbing and so on.

Violent against innocent

The addition "against innocent" is
essential, as violence against guilty,
unfortunately, is sometimes needed and
as such does not contribute to inferiority.
This is explained in The Pacifist's Fallacy.

Cruel
In particular, deriving pleasure from
causing suffering to innocent. This does
not include sado-masochism (a form of
role-playing in sex) , although some cruel
people may in addition be sexual sadists
too.

Hating women
It may seem strange to include this
specific form of hatred with the list, but a
fact is that many inferiors have a deep

hatred of women, which makes it a

characteristic of inferiority. Just as with
geniuses, most inferiors are men. The
ultimate in this are feats like the burning
of widows, or demanding women to spend
their lives indoors or walk six metres
behind their husband, covered from head
to toe with their genitals cut up beyond all
repair.
In addition, rape is standard behaviour of
inferiors, typically resulting in the
conception of multiple children with many
different women. Relevant in this respect
is that imprisoned males in Western
countries conceive more children than do
males on average, mirroring the
phenomenon that in primitive huntergatherer societies the males with the most
offspring - as confirmed by modern D.N.A.
studies - are those who have made the
greatest number of kills in tribal warfare.

The possible evolutionary function of inferiority

With something so conspicuously negative
as inferiority, one wonders how evolution
has allowed it to survive. Could it perhaps
be serving humankind in some hidden
way, thus being fit for survival? I can only
think of one such service. To explain, we
will turn briefly to the diamond industry.
Diamonds light up the world with their
brilliance. They last forever and, despite
their elegant appearance, are harder than
rock. But they do not start out that way;
initially, they are rough and inconspicuous.

Their beauty is hidden. To bring it out, the

diamond has to be polished.
Now to polish something you need an
abrasive that is at least as hard. And
diamonds happen to be the hardest
substance on earth. So to polish
diamonds, one uses exclusively the very
hardest abrasive available; that is, one
uses other diamonds. Not those of gem
quality; only the inferior ones, which are
called "bort".
The bort has grip on the gem as long as it
is rough, and polishes it until it is perfectly
smooth and the brilliance comes out.
Then, the diamond can shine.
Many geniuses undergo great suffering
early in life through inferiors in their
environment; could it be inferiors are the
bort that polishes the rough gem to bring
out the brilliance? For a genius may be
born with high intelligence and wide
associative horizon baked into one's
D.N.A., but could the genius ever work up
the extreme persistence, willpower,
determination, self-discipline and diligence
without the unstoppable and perpetual
inner drive that comes from the
realization: I must be significant, for the
extreme torture cannot have been for
nothing? After all, one does not throw
away a half-polished diamond, nor does
one apply the hardest abrasives to a piece
of ordinary charcoal. Who undergoes the
severest trial is meant to arise purer and
achieve the highest; the advance of
humankind.

Inferiors, as we all see every day on the

news, have the inner drive to destroy all
that is good and pure; instinctively, they
are therefore drawn toward the genius.
And exactly that may be their evolutionary
edge. Their evil may just be the only
thing dark enough to build up the
diamond-hard, unyielding, immovable
willpower in the genius required for any
feat of significance in the light of
evolution.

Solar activity and behaviour A

causal hypothesis
April 2015 Paul Cooijmans

Introduction
This article provides a first rough sketch of
a possible explanation for an apparent
influence of the sun on human behaviour.
The hypothesis may be further refined and
documented later.

Sunspot activity as an influence on creative and destructive

human behaviour
The German psychologist S. E. Ertel has
extensively studied the possible relation
between solar activity and human
behaviour. His starting point was the work
of the Russian historian A. L. Chizhevsky,
who had suggested that high sunspot

activity promoted revolutions, mass

migrations, wars, and other negative or
destructive behaviours. Ertel extended this
hypothesis to culturally positive behaviour
such as achievement in science and art,
which were supposedly stimulated by low
sunspot activity.
Data used by Ertel included recorded
sunspot activity (and, further back,
analysis of C14 in trees), historical events
such as wars and revolutions, and
achievements of scientists and artists. The
historical and achievement data were
gathered or judged by others, and in
ignorance of the theory being
investigated. It turned out there was good
evidence in favour of the theory; negative
behaviours such as wars peaked within
plus or minus one year from a solar
maximum, while positive, creative
achievements occurred most during low
sunspot activity and were at their
mininum within plus or minus one year
from a solar maximum. The (positive)
effect was also found in long-term solar
minima like the Maunder minimum, and
occurred simultaneously in places as
remote as Europe and China, which is
what one would expect given an
extraterrestrial trigger. And, the effect
regarding positive behaviours appeared to
be an increase of the productivity of
eminent scientists and artists, not of
ordinary ones.
These outcomes are discussed by Hans
Eysenck in his book Genius The natural

history of creativity, with reference to a

number of publications by Ertel. Neither
Chizhevsky nor Ertel had an explanation
as to the causal mechanism behind this
apparent extraterrestrial influence on
human behaviour. A hypothesis regarding
that mechanism is briefly formulated
below.

The influence of solar activity on weather and climate

A first step toward understanding the
sun's role in modulating cultural and social
affairs on Earth is to consider how sunspot
activity may relate causally to the global
climate. There exist multiple theories of
solar influence on climate and weather;
particularly interesting and plausible is the
one associated with Henrik Svensmark,
which concerns the role of galactic cosmic
rays in cloud formation. In short, cosmic
rays entering the atmosphere supposedly
promote the formation of aerosols large
enough to serve as condensation nuclei for
clouds. Therefore, when much cosmic
radiation reaches the Earth, there is more
cloud formation, which has a cooling effect
as sunlight is blocked. When little cosmic
radiation reaches the Earth, the opposite
is the case, and more sunlight will be let
through.
The sunspot cycle enters into this because
high sunspot activity goes with a strong
magnetic field (of the sun). This deflects
cosmic radiation away from the Earth,
supposedly resulting in less cloud
formation as just explained. With low
sunspot activity, the opposite. Thus,

around a solar maximum, there will be

less clouds blocking the sunlight. During a
minimum, the opposite. It may be
relevant here that changes in the sun's
magnetic field do not coincide perfectly
with sunspot activity; the "magnetic
maximum" may occur a year after the
actual maximum in sunspot count. There
is some controversy about Svensmark's
theory, which is understandable given the
current dominance of the greenhouse
theory of global warming with which it is
to some extent in contradiction.

The influence of sunlight on human behaviour

Sunlight affects the levels of
neurotransmitters in the brain, while these
levels, in turn, affect behaviour. Important
neurotransmitters in this respect (without
claiming they are the only ones at play)
are dopamine, serotonin, and melatonin.
The levels of the first two rise when one is
exposed to light, the last drops. This
constitutes an activating impulse on the
whole. One feels better, confident and
inclined to undertake things, optimistic,
courageous, risk-taking, perhaps reckless.
One wants to be out and about, active,
and meet people, rather than to stay
indoors and work hard. While appearing
pleasant and beneficial, this is also the
state of mind that, in some classes of
persons, leads to aggression, violence,
and other negative behaviours. Thus it is
thinkable that, in a period when sunlight is
less hindered by clouds, one would see a

lower productivity in creative persons, and

more negative behaviour in general.
On the other hand, dark, cloudy weather
would result in relatively lower levels of
dopamine and serotonin, and a higher
level of melatonin; therefore in a less
outgoing, less daring mind state. In the
absence of the sun-induced impulse to "go
out and play", the creative and
conscientious focus their energy on work,
thus increasing their output. These effects
of bright sunny weather versus dark
cloudy weather on behaviour are probably
recognizable for many, and, presuming the
relation between solar activity and global
climate is real, they may explain the
statistical relation observed by Ertel and
Chizhevski. This explanation does not
depend on the exact correctness of the
current supposed mechanisms for the sunclimate relation (cosmic rays) and climatebehaviour relation (neurotransmitters),
but holds true even if the actual
mechanisms turn out to be different. Also
notice it concerns not a black-and-white,
on/off effect; creativity does not seize
completely under a sunspot maximum,
nor do aggression and uproar under a
solar minimum. Rather, it is a subtle
quantitative modulation of behaviour by
the variation in exposure to sunlight.