(Part 3 of 7)

← Part 2: The Spillway

In Part 2, I described what it's like to live under pressure from unfiltered input with no matching output channel. The spillway metaphor. The fragmentation strategy. How scaffolding finally creates relief.

But this story doesn't stay personal for long. Because the pattern I'm describing isn't unique to me, it's systemic. And it explains something darker: why brilliant minds often break, and why society blames them for it.

Some brilliant people thrive. Some brilliant people break. The difference often has nothing to do with their actual intelligence or capacity.

Richard Feynman thrived.

Brilliant physicist, charismatic, personable, accessible. He could be exactly himself—eccentric, curious, playful—and be beloved for it. He had natural scaffolding: mentor institutions, academic prestige, a social persona that the world found charming instead of threatening. He could express his full complexity and be revered for it.

He became legendary.

But there are thousands of Feynmans who never became legendary. Who broke instead.

Equally brilliant. Equally polymathic. But neurodivergent in ways that made them "difficult." Unable to fit the mold of acceptable brilliance. Without the institutional support that Feynman had.

What's the difference between the Feynman who becomes revered and the equally brilliant person who breaks?

Scaffolding. Institutional acceptance. The Goldilocks Zone.

There's a sweet spot for genius in our society. Call it the Goldilocks Zone.

It's not just about being brilliant. It's about being brilliant in a way that fits our categories, institutions, and social norms.

Feynman fit the Goldilocks Zone because:

• He was brilliant in a prestigious field (theoretical physics)

• He could communicate his brilliance in accessible ways

• He was charismatic and socially acceptable (even when eccentric)

• Institutions recognized his value and gave him resources

• Society could make sense of his contributions

Brilliance outside the Goldilocks Zone looks different:

• Brilliant in ways that don't fit institutional categories

• Neurodivergent enough to be socially "difficult"

• Working across domains that don't have clear prestige hierarchies

• Making connections that institutions don't recognize as valuable until much later

• Generating value that's hard to commodify or categorize

The person in the Goldilocks Zone gets:

• Recognition

• Resources

• Institutional support

• Mentorship

• Scaffolding

The person outside the Goldilocks Zone gets:

• Misunderstanding

• Demands to "manage it better"

• Institutional neglect

• Isolation

• Pressure to reduce themselves

And we wonder why one thrives and one breaks.

Here's what institutions miss:

The problem isn't the person's brilliance. The problem is the lack of scaffolding that is recognized as legitimate.

When someone outside the Goldilocks Zone struggles, institutions interpret it as:

• "They're arrogant"

• "They're difficult to work with"

• "They can't manage their time"

• "They're unable to focus"

• "They're not strategic enough"

What we actually mean is: "Their need for scaffolding doesn't fit our categories, so we'll blame them instead of building what they need."

The banyan tree on the studio wall became a personal metaphor for this epistemic divide. Western institutions still primarily organize knowledge like a European orchard tree: a single trunk with tidy branches, a core canon, and peripheral "minor" subjects. But in practice, the kinds of problems we face—and the ways many pre‑colonial and Indigenous traditions understand knowledge—are banyan‑like and mycelial: multiple roots, many trunks, dense lateral connections, no single, unquestionable center. When you've spent years literally carving a banyan into your house, it becomes impossible to believe in the innocence of the single‑trunk story fully; you start seeing how institutions designed around that story will systematically misrecognize polymath, multi‑rooted minds.

This connects to something I've researched extensively: the Millennium Prize Problems in mathematics.

These are seven unsolved mathematical problems. The best minds in the world have attacked them for decades. Billions of dollars in computational resources. Generations of mathematicians. And still, most remain unsolved.

The conventional wisdom says, "These problems are just mathematically hard."

But what if the real problem is institutional? What if these problems are stuck in their own assumptions?

What if they remain unsolved not because they're mathematically intractable, but because the mathematical community is embedded in dogmatic frameworks that prevent breakthroughs?

Think about it: the most intelligent people in the world are attacking P vs. NP. And they're all, in some sense, inside the system that created the problem. They're using assumptions that the system assumes are correct. They're working within boundaries the system has set.... For someone to solve it, they'd need to see around the system's assumptions. To recognize what the system is taking for granted. To refactor the very foundations.

That's the opposite of what the system rewards. The system rewards mastery of the assumptions, not questioning the assumptions.

And the people who naturally question foundational assumptions—who see beyond established frameworks—are the ones least likely to be accepted by the institution.

They're outside the Goldilocks Zone.

So the problems stay unsolved. And we blame the mathematicians for not being smart enough.

There's a pattern here:

Unsolved problems (institutional)

• The Millennium Prize Problems that resist 20+ years of top talent

• DAOs that keep getting hacked through social layer vulnerabilities

• Organizational cultures that can't seem to evolve

• Educational systems that can't serve neurodivergent minds

• Economic systems that can't prevent extraction

Who could solve them?

• Polymathic thinkers who see across domains

• People whose brains don't accept assumptions as fixed

• Those who naturally question foundational frameworks

• Neurodivergent minds that think in patterns others miss

Who society systematically rejects?

• Exactly those people

We have brilliant minds capable of seeing around institutional assumptions. And we either don't recognize them, or we reject them for being "difficult," or we extract their value without providing them scaffolding.

The Feynmans get resources. The polymaths outside the Goldilocks Zone get pressure to reduce themselves.

And the problems stay unsolved.

This isn't just an intellectual failure. It's a human tragedy.

Because when you're outside the Goldilocks Zone, and you lack adequate scaffolding, you don't just fail to solve Millennium Problems. You break.

The pressure builds. There's no matching outlet. Institutions don't recognize your need as legitimate. You're told to "manage better," "focus more," "be less intense."

You fragment yourself across partial outlets. You try to fit into categories that don't fit you. You perform versions of yourself that institutions will accept.

And eventually, some people break.

Not because they lack brilliance. Because they lack scaffolding.

Some of them—the lucky ones—find it before the breaking point. Some of them find it late, as I did at 57. Some of them never find it.

The ones who break, we call broken. The ones who never find it, we call difficult, unmotivated, or unable to integrate.

What we do see are minds whose particular stories or people around them helped them find the scaffolding they needed- movies like A Beautiful Mind, etc., valorize such stories, but by and large, institutions are not made to recognize the vast majority of them.

What we don't see: We're the ones who failed them. We built systems that don't recognize their needs, that don't provide adequate scaffolding, that demand they reduce themselves to fit.

The tragedy isn't just personal. It's civilizational.

We're losing solutions to our most significant problems because we're systematically destroying the minds most capable of seeing around the problems' own assumptions.

The Millennium Problems will stay unsolved. The organizational crises will keep repeating. The failures in education and knowledge production will continue because we're rejecting the very minds that could help us see what we're missing.

And we're doing it under the guise of "professionalism," "institutional standards," and "managing expectations."

What we're actually doing is protecting existing assumptions from the threat of people who naturally question them.

Institutions have a choice:

Option 1: Protect the assumptions

• Maintain current structures

• Demand conformity from brilliant minds

• Extract value from polymaths without providing scaffolding

• Watch the problems stay unsolved

• Call the failures the fault of individuals

Option 2: Build scaffolding for the minds you need

• Recognize that brilliance outside the Goldilocks Zone often means seeing what the zone misses

• Provide infrastructure (not "management")

• Compensate fairly for the value generated

• Create space for foundational questioning

• Solve problems that have resisted solution for decades

Most institutions choose Option 1. Option 2 requires admitting that the assumptions might be wrong.

In Part 2, I talked about the personal crisis: pressure building due to inadequate scaffolding.

This part reveals the systemic crisis: our culture is designed to destroy exactly the minds we most need.

The Millennium Problems. The DAO hacks. The organizational dysfunction. The inability to evolve. These aren't problems of insufficient brilliance.

They are problems of institutional structures that can't incorporate the minds capable of solving them.

We have the capacity. We have the intelligence. We have the people.

We lack the willingness to build scaffolding for minds that don't fit our categories.

Here's the real question:

How many brilliant minds are we currently destroying because they don't fit the Goldilocks Zone?

How many people are fragmenting themselves across partial outlets, trying to fit into categories that don't fit, slowly breaking under pressure that adequate scaffolding would have relieved?... How many Millennium Problems would be solved if we actually provided infrastructure to the minds that could solve them?

This isn't a theoretical question. It's happening right now. To real people. In your organization. In your institutions.

In the next part, I'll explore something even darker: the economic dimension of this crisis.

Being outside the Goldilocks Zone doesn't just mean lacking scaffolding; it means lacking compensation.

It means generating enormous value that the world captures for free while you struggle for economic stability.

And that's where the injustice becomes visible.

Continue to Part 4: The Recognition Problem — Why Brilliant Minds Generate Value Systems Can't See →

(Part 3 of 7)

← Part 2: The Spillway

In Part 2, I described what it's like to live under pressure from unfiltered input with no matching output channel. The spillway metaphor. The fragmentation strategy. How scaffolding finally creates relief.

But this story doesn't stay personal for long. Because the pattern I'm describing isn't unique to me, it's systemic. And it explains something darker: why brilliant minds often break, and why society blames them for it.

Some brilliant people thrive. Some brilliant people break. The difference often has nothing to do with their actual intelligence or capacity.

Richard Feynman thrived.

Brilliant physicist, charismatic, personable, accessible. He could be exactly himself—eccentric, curious, playful—and be beloved for it. He had natural scaffolding: mentor institutions, academic prestige, a social persona that the world found charming instead of threatening. He could express his full complexity and be revered for it.

He became legendary.

But there are thousands of Feynmans who never became legendary. Who broke instead.

Equally brilliant. Equally polymathic. But neurodivergent in ways that made them "difficult." Unable to fit the mold of acceptable brilliance. Without the institutional support that Feynman had.

What's the difference between the Feynman who becomes revered and the equally brilliant person who breaks?

Scaffolding. Institutional acceptance. The Goldilocks Zone.

There's a sweet spot for genius in our society. Call it the Goldilocks Zone.

It's not just about being brilliant. It's about being brilliant in a way that fits our categories, institutions, and social norms.

Feynman fit the Goldilocks Zone because:

• He was brilliant in a prestigious field (theoretical physics)

• He could communicate his brilliance in accessible ways

• He was charismatic and socially acceptable (even when eccentric)

• Institutions recognized his value and gave him resources

• Society could make sense of his contributions

Brilliance outside the Goldilocks Zone looks different:

• Brilliant in ways that don't fit institutional categories

• Neurodivergent enough to be socially "difficult"

• Working across domains that don't have clear prestige hierarchies

• Making connections that institutions don't recognize as valuable until much later

• Generating value that's hard to commodify or categorize

The person in the Goldilocks Zone gets:

• Recognition

• Resources

• Institutional support

• Mentorship

• Scaffolding

The person outside the Goldilocks Zone gets:

• Misunderstanding

• Demands to "manage it better"

• Institutional neglect

• Isolation

• Pressure to reduce themselves

And we wonder why one thrives and one breaks.

Here's what institutions miss:

The problem isn't the person's brilliance. The problem is the lack of scaffolding that is recognized as legitimate.

When someone outside the Goldilocks Zone struggles, institutions interpret it as:

• "They're arrogant"

• "They're difficult to work with"

• "They can't manage their time"

• "They're unable to focus"

• "They're not strategic enough"

What we actually mean is: "Their need for scaffolding doesn't fit our categories, so we'll blame them instead of building what they need."

The banyan tree on the studio wall became a personal metaphor for this epistemic divide. Western institutions still primarily organize knowledge like a European orchard tree: a single trunk with tidy branches, a core canon, and peripheral "minor" subjects. But in practice, the kinds of problems we face—and the ways many pre‑colonial and Indigenous traditions understand knowledge—are banyan‑like and mycelial: multiple roots, many trunks, dense lateral connections, no single, unquestionable center. When you've spent years literally carving a banyan into your house, it becomes impossible to believe in the innocence of the single‑trunk story fully; you start seeing how institutions designed around that story will systematically misrecognize polymath, multi‑rooted minds.

This connects to something I've researched extensively: the Millennium Prize Problems in mathematics.

These are seven unsolved mathematical problems. The best minds in the world have attacked them for decades. Billions of dollars in computational resources. Generations of mathematicians. And still, most remain unsolved.

The conventional wisdom says, "These problems are just mathematically hard."

But what if the real problem is institutional? What if these problems are stuck in their own assumptions?

What if they remain unsolved not because they're mathematically intractable, but because the mathematical community is embedded in dogmatic frameworks that prevent breakthroughs?

Think about it: the most intelligent people in the world are attacking P vs. NP. And they're all, in some sense, inside the system that created the problem. They're using assumptions that the system assumes are correct. They're working within boundaries the system has set.... For someone to solve it, they'd need to see around the system's assumptions. To recognize what the system is taking for granted. To refactor the very foundations.

That's the opposite of what the system rewards. The system rewards mastery of the assumptions, not questioning the assumptions.

And the people who naturally question foundational assumptions—who see beyond established frameworks—are the ones least likely to be accepted by the institution.

They're outside the Goldilocks Zone.

So the problems stay unsolved. And we blame the mathematicians for not being smart enough.

There's a pattern here:

Unsolved problems (institutional)

• The Millennium Prize Problems that resist 20+ years of top talent

• DAOs that keep getting hacked through social layer vulnerabilities

• Organizational cultures that can't seem to evolve

• Educational systems that can't serve neurodivergent minds

• Economic systems that can't prevent extraction

Who could solve them?

• Polymathic thinkers who see across domains

• People whose brains don't accept assumptions as fixed

• Those who naturally question foundational frameworks

• Neurodivergent minds that think in patterns others miss

Who society systematically rejects?

• Exactly those people

We have brilliant minds capable of seeing around institutional assumptions. And we either don't recognize them, or we reject them for being "difficult," or we extract their value without providing them scaffolding.

The Feynmans get resources. The polymaths outside the Goldilocks Zone get pressure to reduce themselves.

And the problems stay unsolved.

This isn't just an intellectual failure. It's a human tragedy.

Because when you're outside the Goldilocks Zone, and you lack adequate scaffolding, you don't just fail to solve Millennium Problems. You break.

The pressure builds. There's no matching outlet. Institutions don't recognize your need as legitimate. You're told to "manage better," "focus more," "be less intense."

You fragment yourself across partial outlets. You try to fit into categories that don't fit you. You perform versions of yourself that institutions will accept.

And eventually, some people break.

Not because they lack brilliance. Because they lack scaffolding.

Some of them—the lucky ones—find it before the breaking point. Some of them find it late, as I did at 57. Some of them never find it.

The ones who break, we call broken. The ones who never find it, we call difficult, unmotivated, or unable to integrate.

What we do see are minds whose particular stories or people around them helped them find the scaffolding they needed- movies like A Beautiful Mind, etc., valorize such stories, but by and large, institutions are not made to recognize the vast majority of them.

What we don't see: We're the ones who failed them. We built systems that don't recognize their needs, that don't provide adequate scaffolding, that demand they reduce themselves to fit.

The tragedy isn't just personal. It's civilizational.

We're losing solutions to our most significant problems because we're systematically destroying the minds most capable of seeing around the problems' own assumptions.

The Millennium Problems will stay unsolved. The organizational crises will keep repeating. The failures in education and knowledge production will continue because we're rejecting the very minds that could help us see what we're missing.

And we're doing it under the guise of "professionalism," "institutional standards," and "managing expectations."

What we're actually doing is protecting existing assumptions from the threat of people who naturally question them.

Institutions have a choice:

Option 1: Protect the assumptions

• Maintain current structures

• Demand conformity from brilliant minds

• Extract value from polymaths without providing scaffolding

• Watch the problems stay unsolved

• Call the failures the fault of individuals

Option 2: Build scaffolding for the minds you need

• Recognize that brilliance outside the Goldilocks Zone often means seeing what the zone misses

• Provide infrastructure (not "management")

• Compensate fairly for the value generated

• Create space for foundational questioning

• Solve problems that have resisted solution for decades

Most institutions choose Option 1. Option 2 requires admitting that the assumptions might be wrong.

In Part 2, I talked about the personal crisis: pressure building due to inadequate scaffolding.

This part reveals the systemic crisis: our culture is designed to destroy exactly the minds we most need.

The Millennium Problems. The DAO hacks. The organizational dysfunction. The inability to evolve. These aren't problems of insufficient brilliance.

They are problems of institutional structures that can't incorporate the minds capable of solving them.

We have the capacity. We have the intelligence. We have the people.

We lack the willingness to build scaffolding for minds that don't fit our categories.

Here's the real question:

How many brilliant minds are we currently destroying because they don't fit the Goldilocks Zone?

How many people are fragmenting themselves across partial outlets, trying to fit into categories that don't fit, slowly breaking under pressure that adequate scaffolding would have relieved?... How many Millennium Problems would be solved if we actually provided infrastructure to the minds that could solve them?

This isn't a theoretical question. It's happening right now. To real people. In your organization. In your institutions.

In the next part, I'll explore something even darker: the economic dimension of this crisis.

Being outside the Goldilocks Zone doesn't just mean lacking scaffolding; it means lacking compensation.

It means generating enormous value that the world captures for free while you struggle for economic stability.

And that's where the injustice becomes visible.

Continue to Part 4: The Recognition Problem — Why Brilliant Minds Generate Value Systems Can't See →