This post explores what happens when someone reasons clearly but presents in a way that doesn’t match conventional academic or cultural expectations. I use myself as an example to highlight a broader issue: how many structured, high-capability minds are misread or overlooked because their signal doesn’t match the standard template.
The point is not to argue for exception. It’s to ask what else we might be missing, both in human systems and in how we train AI to recognize reasoning that shows up differently.
I’m not here for agreement. I’m here for honest critique, thoughtful discussion, and to understand if this is a real gap or just my own bias.
I am new to this forum and came from a demographic that is less common on this site, so if there’s prior work I should read or other perspectives I haven’t considered, I’d appreciate being pointed in the right direction.
TL;DR:
This post explores what happens when someone reasons clearly but presents in a way that doesn’t match conventional academic or cultural expectations. I use myself as an example to highlight a broader issue: how many structured, high-capability minds are misread or overlooked because their signal doesn’t match the standard template.
The point is not to argue for exception. It’s to ask what else we might be missing, both in human systems and in how we train AI to recognize reasoning that shows up differently.
I’m not here for agreement. I’m here for honest critique, thoughtful discussion, and to understand if this is a real gap or just my own bias.
I am new to this forum and came from a demographic that is less common on this site, so if there’s prior work I should read or other perspectives I haven’t considered, I’d appreciate being pointed in the right direction.
Thanks for reading.
–– Yates