A Proposal for Recognizing Nonstandard Intelligences

This exchange shows exactly the pattern I was talking about.

Yaroslav, while your tone is polite, you still judged the value of my post based on whether it fits a certain style or meets your idea of what’s “interesting” or “worth others’ time.” Then you said you’re just a newbie trying to be heard, like me. That’s not the same, and it misses the point. 

That is gatekeeping, even if you didn’t mean it that way.

That's why I am addressing this in length, nothing personal against you, just you happened to prove the point I am trying to make here.

When someone shares something in a form that doesn’t match the usual style, and it gets dismissed as too personal or not useful, we end up filtering out real insights just because they don’t look familiar. This isn’t about limited attention—it’s about a community culture that quietly excludes anything outside its default mold.

And when someone points that out, replying with “I’m struggling too” doesn’t engage with the critique. It shifts the focus and avoids the structural issue.

It’s like a president being questioned about a major policy failure, and instead of answering, he says, “Well, I’m tired too,” or starts blaming others for unrelated problems. It doesn’t address the issue, it just avoids responsibility while redirecting the spotlight. 

I believe this is similar in principle to what is called "Whataboutism".

The question isn’t whether I’m interesting. It’s whether this community can recognize signal even when it’s expressed differently. If not, then rationalism becomes more about a certain aesthetic choices than about truth-seeking.

If you’re genuinely new to this space and want to be constructive, and want your opinion to be hard maybe start by engaging with people’s ideas, even when they don’t fit your expectations. Instead of writing them off as too personal or uninteresting.

From your past comments, I get the sense that you’re well-educated and genuinely care about this field. But instead of engaging with the ideas here, you chose to flatten and dismiss them because they weren’t packaged the way you’re used to.

And just so you know, while I used my own experience as a starting point, I was also thinking of others when I was drafting the post: my cousin who has a cognitive disability, and many people I’ve seen sidelined because they think or speak differently.

(The following part is a personal experience, and if that disturb you, move on)

I grew up without a sibling, but has a cousin Jack (not real name) few months older than me. We are brothers, we grew up together and gradually I realized at a young age he is less gifted in the traditional way than I am. Eventually he was clinically diagnosed with an IQ less than 80. Which roughly put him in the bottom 10% among human population cognition ability. 

And I realized this when I was only about 10 year-old. Ever since then, I noticed how he was treated differently by other because he is not able to express in the way other kids or even adult would understand. So he was bullied, he was mistreated, he was abused. 

He was a kind soul, but he was only able to convey his thoughts and real emotions to me, the one person he grew up with and can actually trust. I watched him struggled while growing up the society ever since. But I cannot help him. 

To others, Jack is this foul-mouth overweight kid that has no humility and cannot make any friends. But to me, he is my kind big brother that would do anything to protect his little brother at all cost. 

I just hope other could see Jack like I do. That to me is a system level discrimination and misunderstanding towards him. If more people could understand Jack like I do, maybe he could make friends, maybe he could found some hiddent talents. 

The point is, no one will ever know, because they all refuse to really listen to Jack, beyond the surface.

(End of personal section)

So,

Would it have made a difference if the post was about them instead of me? 

What’s the real difference?

Just because I don’t have datasets or institutional backing, does that mean I shouldn’t speak at all?

I don’t have the clarity and capacity of being inside someone else’s head, living their life, seeing the world through their eyes, telling their story from their perspective. 

Even if that were possible—which it isn’t—how many data points would satisfy you? Thirty? A hundred? How do you ensure those recollection and opinions are not biased? 

So does that disqualify any opinion I have?

Even a single data point, while not statistically robust in anyway, is a data point none the less.

It might not be able to confidently help us get conclusion, but it is still an indicator.

Here is an analogy for you:

Pandas are rare. If a panda speaks, I would highly doubt anyone would find that "not interesting" "or "personal" or just "Not Robust Data"

I am not trying to claim I am a Panda, though I am also Chinese but that is beside my point.

I am just saying "singular" \= "not-interesting"

Additionally, if someone is truly struggling to communicate, or has been misunderstood their whole life, how would anyone with a biased mindset even hear their side of the story? Maybe to some, their way of expressing things seems “boring” or “irrelevant.”

But who gets to decide that? Why you? Why me? Why anyone for that matter?

The truth is, some forms of intelligence, pain, or experience aren’t immediately legible to others. That doesn’t make them less real. It makes them more vulnerable to being ignored, flattened, or erased—especially in communities that prioritize clean formats and familiar styles over unfamiliar truths.

I didn’t write to be interesting. I wrote to be honest.

If that’s not enough, maybe the problem isn’t the story, it’s what the audience expects to hear.

Thank you.