I feel unintelligent and it's severely interfering with my l

I.Q. tests are meaningless I think:
Paul Cooijman
"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 associative 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."

W.A.Mozart wrote:I'm 17 and I need help : I am a very lazy person yet I'm obsessed with genius at the same time.

Now my question is : how can I turn my life around to get the motivation to train cognitively so that I can reach an IQ of at least 160 on the Standford-Binet scale ?

Okay, so you're effectively a young adult, just starting out and you have decided to achieve the lofty goal of scoring 160 on the Stanford-Binet scale. Fair enough.

At age 17, Alexander the Great was conquering the world. Plenty of young adults have lofty goals, e.g. to get accepted to a top university, to be a professional athlete, to be the next Elon Musk, or to win a gold medal, etc. etc.

Most will never achieve the highest level they set, but that's normal. It is very normal to set a very difficult goal, and then as you proceed and then learn more about what it will take, most adults modify or revise their goals. They shift, adjust, and eventually figure out other goals they find more attractive, e.g. they find a life partner and suddenly things shift.

Your goal is pretty straight forward. Step 1: Take the Stanford-Binet IQ test. That gives you a starting point.

Until then, there is not much else to discuss.

Well, the validity of IQ tests is worth discussing as it seems to me it has little to do with success in the area of intellect. As Paul writes, intelligence and genius or associative horizon aren't the same thing. Had Einstein or Darwin dedicated hours to the passing of tests, where would it have taken us? Paul Cooijman designed a whole range of tests that made him quite famous and successful. Yet, they are just tests. You need lots of other factors such as imagination, association, obsessive drive and curiosity.

davidbanner99@ wrote:Well, the validity of IQ tests is worth discussing as it seems to me it has little to do with success in the area of intellect.

I agree. But it is a side discussion.

The OP, at age 17, has a goal to score 160 or over on a test designed to rank people on intelligence. That score will place the OP in the upper 0.03% of test takers. By a large segment of society he will be labeled and respected as a “genius”.

The extent to which IQ is a valid measure is a side discussion. It is measuring something related to mental abilities. There is a vast difference in mental abilities between those scoring below 70 and those scoring above 140. The label “intelligence” has general acceptance in explaining this difference. It isn’t a difference in physical abilities being measured. It is a difference in intellectual abilities.

That you, or I, or a significant segment of the population see other ways of defining “intelligence” is not necessarily relevant to the OP’s goal.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:Well, the validity of IQ tests is worth discussing as it seems to me it has little to do with success in the area of intellect.

I agree. But it is a side discussion.

The OP, at age 17, has a goal to score 160 or over on a test designed to rank people on intelligence. That score will place the OP in the upper 0.03% of test takers. By a large segment of society he will be labeled and respected as a “genius”.

The extent to which IQ is a valid measure is a side discussion. It is measuring something related to mental abilities. There is a vast difference in mental abilities between those scoring below 70 and those scoring above 140. The label “intelligence” has general acceptance in explaining this difference. It isn’t a difference in physical abilities being measured. It is a difference in intellectual abilities.

That you, or I, or a significant segment of the population see other ways of defining “intelligence” is not necessarily relevant to the OP’s goal.

Point taken. He could always take some of Paul Cooijmans tests. He specialises in such an interest.

Forget about IQ tests. As long as you aim for something, you are not fitting it as much as you want to. Everybody experiences a profound truth for themselves, regardless if it is insignificants to others. It is those revelations that our so-called IQ hits the roof.

You are trying to cram in what you don't love. Whenever we struggle with something, its because we are tense, and conditional, about it. Love is soft, gentle, easy, open-minded, open-hearted, and truthful. Every subject we ever 'loved' took an easy gentle path into our heart and mind. We remember those things.

So, forget about IQ values and just focus on what you love doing. Learning the things you love about is easy. If you are struggling to studying a certain subjects for a course, then first find something about it to love, then the subject matter becomes part and parcel towards that particular part you love. For instance, I struggled in sociology until I came across 'self-help groups', which I enjoyed going to at the time. Suddenly I realized how sociology became important to understand self-help groups even more so. I no longer struggled with that course subject.

It raises the question of intellectual development by IQ type tests. I truly believe that by doing maths every day, it helps me combat the stress of my neurological deviation. As Paul Cooijman once stated, geniuses like Einstein tended not to waste mental energy on negativity, such as paranoias or delusions or complexes. Einstein's focus was disciplined and productive. My problem is that lately I drift into depressive, emotionally based thoughts, which is why the maths tends to help me not lose balance. Many "mad geniuses" have a tendency to burn bright and then fall apart. Michael Jackson, for instance.
Also we need to be aware of how we process information. I discovered my strength is theoretical and not applied (say, engineering). I also lack systemised thought processes in the problem solving area. However, my associative horizon is freakishly developed. I will spot little inconsistancies or patterns - which isn't an intellectual trait and requires a less rigid, less precise thought process.
Knowing this helps me try and accept my limitations and utilise my assets.