Richard Feynman is one of the top scientific minds in modern history. He was invited to participate in the Manhattan Project, helping develop the first atomic bomb. When the Challenger shuttle tragically exploded, it was Feynman who figured out what went wrong to prevent future NASA disasters. He was even given the Nobel Prize for his work in physics for essentially remaking the concept of quantum electrodynamics. He was also riddled with self doubt, incredibly unsure of himself, and criticized people of high intelligence.

Why was this so? Well, because in his mind and in life, people who are highly intelligent tend to rely on their intelligence to the point in which they make mistakes in judgment. In trusting in their own smarts, something gets overlooked or a mistake is made—but it’s covered over in pride. They could also become too afraid of asking the right questions that could lead to the next answer. Some argue that Feynman’s greatest scientific finding wasn’t in physics, but in human ignorance and ego.

A quote from Feynman’s 1974 lecture sums up his philosophy on learning and scientific study:

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.”

In other words, he was arguing and warning that people of high intelligence tend to make more mistakes due to them relying on their intellect and judgment for answers rather than asking additional and bigger questions to obtain knowledge that could’ve been overlooked or underserved. They rely on the fact that they are smart to the point that they overlook the possibility that they could be mistaken, misguided, or just plain wrong. Some who are our most intelligent are less open to learning because they mistakenly thought they already learned it all, rather than asking questions and observing results. To put it plainly, the smartest person in the room is the person who doesn’t think they’re the smartest person in the room.

Feynman didn’t just preach this philosophy, but showcased it in practice. He publicly called himself a man of “limited intelligence.” While his IQ of 125 put him in the above-average range of intellect, it is definitely lower than the MENSA member requirements that many of his scientific peers fell into. It should be noted that the concept of IQs being an indicator of intellect are being put into question more and more in recent years. Also, while he appreciated the Nobel Prize, he didn’t really see the point in them, seeing the results of his work and his questions as the true prize itself—that, and the fact that there were other mysteries to unlock that could lead to even more mysteries.

True intelligence isn’t relying on what you believe you know, justifying mistakes you have made, or letting certainty cloud your judgement. It’s going into the unknown or knowing that there are known unknowns with an open mind. It’s never being afraid to ask questions and never relying on answers to be untested truths. In fact, it’s best to test those answers again and again from all angles to see where the next question lies.

It’s how Feynman changed what we believed about quantum electrodynamics and how he solved the Challenger problem: questions. Doubting everything in order to see if there were further questions within the provided answers. Finding deeper understanding and seeing something that was overlooked.

When it comes to intellect, don’t worry about test scores, degrees, or if you’re smart enough. While it might be good to take an expert’s word into account or into theory, it doesn’t mean that what they say shouldn’t be tested and scrutinized to make sure a bigger truth isn’t overlooked. Knowing yourself and your limitations can often move you further than believing that you’re already at the peak. If you think you’re at the peak, you might not see the other taller mountains around you because you’re too busy looking down from the smaller mountaintop you’re already on.

This quote from Feynman in The Character of Physical Law is an educational mantra to live by:

“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”

Stay curious.

This article originally appeared in May

  • Spanish zoo study suggests that giraffes can do basic math
    Photo credit: CanvaA study is showing giraffes could be using math.
    ,

    Spanish zoo study suggests that giraffes can do basic math

    These hoofed mammals can understand addition.

    The results of an experiment done in a Barcelona zoo suggest that giraffes are capable of doing basic mathematics.

    A group of researchers from the University of Leipzig, the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and the University of Barcelona published their study observing four giraffes at the Barcelona Zoo. The experiment involved the giraffes observing containers that had different amounts of carrot pieces inside.

    How did this experiment work?

    The researchers showed each giraffe the two yellow containers and the amount of carrots within each one. After a few seconds, they closed the containers, keeping the carrots out of sight. They then showed each giraffe a green container which had extra carrots inside. Researchers took the carrot pieces from the green container and placed them into one of the closed yellow containers. They then let each giraffe independently choose which of the two closed yellow containers they preferred, without them seeing the total number of carrot pieces within each box.

    The results found the giraffes would choose the container that had the most carrot pieces around 68% of the time. This suggests to the scientists that the giraffes were mentally adding the carrots up in each container before making their choice. After all, there have been past studies suggesting that other hoofed mammals, such as horses, had similar capability of basic quantity tracking.

    The researchers did the experiment again. Only this time they subtracted the amount of carrots in each container. The giraffes were mostly unsuccessful at finding the container with the most pieces. So while giraffes showed signs of knowing addition, they don’t quite process all forms of arithmetic.

    Math = Survival

    Scientists believe that this understanding of addition helped giraffes survive in the wild. They cite that acacia trees, a dietary staple for wild giraffes, can be spread far apart in Africa. Being able to figure out which area has the most trees and the most leaves can help them decide where to graze next.

    Giraffes also live in flexible groups that often change in size. One grouping can mix in with another group and then branch off or away. This means that the giraffes often have to keep track of those currently within their group and surroundings to survive.

    Can other animals do math?

    Giraffes are just the latest animal species known to have some form of mathematical skill. Chimpanzees displayed similar abilities to count as giraffes in a similar experiment that involved them picking the bowl with the most chocolate pieces rather than carrots. Chickens and black bears also showed aptitude in quantity tracking, too. 

    Scientists theorize that most of the animals that can do this basic math through evolutionary survival. After all, the animal that can deduce where more food is tends to live longer.

    One species that displays remarkable mathematical ability are Tunisian desert ants. An observation of their navigational skills of finding their way to food and back to their nest suggests they use the sun as a compass in combination with mentally keeping track of the number of steps they take in a three-dimensional space. In short, these desert ants possess basic geometric and trigonometry skills.

    While you wouldn’t want wild animals to calculate your taxes, it’s interesting to see how rudimentary math is a language that goes beyond species.

  • A bonobo’s make-believe tea party has scientists rethinking whether imagination belongs only to humans
    Photo credit: CanvaAn adorable baby bonobo.

    Childhood activities like playing house, superheroes and villains, the floor is lava, and the classic tea party all involve imagination. We create stories and worlds with rules and roles to play.

    Humans want to believe that our creativity and art make us unique. But a bonobo named Kanzi was part of research that has scientists wondering how different we really are. In three evolving experiments, Kanzi correctly identified pretend objects, demonstrating that he could understand and engage in make-believe situations.

    primate research, behavior, bonobo study
    Kanzi associates words and symbols with Sue Savage-Rumbaugh.
    Photo by William H. Calvin, Phd/ Wikimedia Commons (Cropped)

    Kanzi has a make-believe tea party

    Researchers developed a simple setup using cups, a pitcher, and actions that began as real pouring and gradually shifted into pretend play. The first experiment used real liquids. The second had a combination of real and pretend liquids. The final scenario had no real liquids and relied entirely on imagination.

    The scientists used gestures and make-believe to see if Kanzi would react differently depending on what he was being shown. He didn’t react the same way in each setup. His responses showed he was paying attention to more than just the objects, but also to the way the situation was presented.

    bonobo play, animal imagination, Kanzi bonobo, apes
    Kanzi participates in an indoor test.
    Photo by William H. Calvin, Phd/ Wikimedia Commons (Cropped)

    Animals engaging in fantasy

    The experiment revealed that non-human animals can understand and follow along with imaginary situations.

    “[It] shows that animals are capable of understanding pretence in a controlled experimental setting, which hadn’t been done before,” Dr. Amalia Bastos, first author of the research from the University of St Andrews, told The Guardian.

    Scientists involved in the research are careful about how they describe it. They don’t treat it as proof that bonobos imagine things the same way humans do. Instead, they suggest that animals are capable of responding to situations where meaning is implied rather than directly shown.

    Why scientists care about pretend play

    Albert Einstein, one of the greatest scientific minds in history, is often credited with the idea that logic gets you from A to B, but imagination can take you everywhere. This study suggests that the more we learn about animals, the more it seems the difference between us may not be as great as we once thought.

    Developmental research credits early social and cognitive growth in human children to imagining situations that aren’t physically present. A 2024 meta-analysis found that make-believe is not just entertainment but also directly linked to social understanding and real-world interpretation.

    Researchers now describe animal play as more flexible than once believed. A 2025 study of ravens revealed that play included the manipulation of sticks, stones, and other items, suggesting social awareness and responsiveness to context rather than simple instinctive behavior.

    Play and imagination may be versatile behaviors no longer seen as uniquely human traits. A broader cognitive toolkit shared across multiple species suggests the gap between humans and animals may be smaller than it once seemed. Things we’ve long believed to be uniquely human may instead exist along a spectrum of abilities expressed in different ways.

  • Humans nearly vanished 800,000 years ago, revealing a quiet truth: most family lines disappear
    Photo credit: CanvaA group of people hiking in the mountains.

    There was a moment in human history when our entire existence may have desperately clung to a thousand or so people. A DNA-based study found that between 800,000 and 900,000 years ago, our ancestors experienced a severe population crash.

    This wasn’t humans dealing with a giant meteor like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. It was a much slower stretch during which humanity teetered on the brink of disappearing completely. This bottleneck in the human gene pool, comprising roughly 1,280 breeding individuals, lasted about 117,000 years.

    population, genomes, Ice Age, Early-Middle Pleistocene
    Removing representation of a human population group.
    Photo credit: Canva

    Human population levels plummet

    According to Scientific American, the study analyzed modern human genomes to piece together what the early human population looked like. By constructing a complex family tree of genes from present-day humans, researchers were able to identify important evolutionary events.

    During the Early-Middle Pleistocene, a period within the Ice Age, humans faced severe weather and intense glacial cycles. Most human ancestors may have died out, clearing the path for a new human species to take their place.

    Focusing on Africa, the study showed that 813,000 years ago, human populations began to recover and grow again. With an estimated two-thirds of genetic diversity potentially lost, traits like brain size appear to have been among the important features that survived. “It represents a key period of time during the evolution of humans,” population geneticist and study co-author Ziqian Hao said. “So there are many important questions to be answered.”

    DNA, genomes sequence, human existence, heredity
    DNA genome sequences.
    Photo credit: Canva

    Understanding evolution and ancestry

    What we know about evolution reveals a different story than a simple, continuous line of human improvement. Over time, genetic lines disappear—not dramatically all at once. It’s a slow and steady change, generation after generation.

    Human existence isn’t inevitable. Species strength or technical advancement doesn’t guarantee the future or explain our past. It’s contingent on narrow, accidental circumstances. A 2021 study showed that human evolution is better seen as a continuous flow of incremental fragments over time. Categorizing people into races and groups oversimplifies human history.

    species strength, evolutionary improvement, genetic lines, technical advancement
    A diverse group of wooden figures.
    Photo credit: Canva

    What does the bottleneck study say about us?

    The study reveals humanity didn’t simply decline; it nearly collapsed. With over 98% of our genetic diversity erased, entire branches of the human family tree permanently ceased to exist.

    It’s quite possible that if even a few more of those genetic lines had ended, human history could have vanished with them. Most branches of life don’t continue. What we witness today reflects biological persistence and countless moments that could have gone another way.

    A 2024 study conducted five billion simulations, revealing that as a species’ population shrinks, its risk of extinction rises. Even stable groups can quickly collapse if their numbers suddenly drop low enough.

    A 2025 study found that small populations erode genetic diversity. Isolation increases inbreeding and elevates the risk of extinction. Once a lineage shrinks, recovery becomes vastly more challenging over time. Long-term survival is an exception, not the guiding rule.

    Humanity likes to think of itself as the result of an incredibly unique progression. Perhaps studies like these suggest that we are actually what remains when everything else disappears. The reason any of us live today comes down to a small group of ancient outlasters: persevering individuals whose genetic lines are the building blocks of every human living today.

Explore More Exploration Stories

Science

Spanish zoo study suggests that giraffes can do basic math

Science

A bonobo’s make-believe tea party has scientists rethinking whether imagination belongs only to humans

Science

Humans nearly vanished 800,000 years ago, revealing a quiet truth: most family lines disappear

Science

Researchers capture sperm whales headbutting on camera, validating what sailors have said for centuries