This essay basically explains me. This gives me the vocabulary to properly express the following thought: I have a genius-level associative horizon, subgenius intelligence and inferior conscientiousness. This identification explains why I seem to share qualitative characteristics with actual geniuses, but cannot show much of anything for real creative output, being hampered primarily by low conscientiousness (ADHD-Inattentive, executive function disorder, etc.) and secondarily by mediocre intelligence.
I could do a point-by-point of the article above, but there’d be no point. True on all counts. Action plan time, what to do?
Cooijmans suggests that conscientiousness is the best candidate for improvement by nurture, but my professional and personal diagnoses suggest that I can’t hope to improve conscientiousness much beyond “marginal” -> “below average but not the worst ever”. Which means that a career in music (conscientiousness plus associative horizon) is probably not a great plan (but could be maybe if I were on the right drugs?)
Instead, I should consider myself to fall somewhat into the associative horizon plus intelligence class. In which case there’s still basically no hope for me :-P. Except maybe as a marginal nothingperson working the parking lot attendant night shift and blathering on the internet in my spare time. Still, it is obvious that working on my weak conscientiousness is the key to increasing the quality and quantity of my creative output, so that continues to be the plan.
Also, apparently I should do more erratic humorist stuff. I thought the computer science one was pretty funny, but maybe that’s just me?