• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Ranting about how some cubers react to non-cubers


Jun 30, 2014
Probably my room
Visit Channel
One of the most popular threads on the forum is Non-Cubers say the darndest things, which is honestly not a topic I'm crazy about. When you stick with a hobby for a long time, I think it becomes really easy to lose sight of how much you knew before you became interested in it, and in turn I feel like that leads to unrealistic expectations of what everybody else would know. If you can solve a Rubik's Cube, that's a skill that not a lot of people have, so of course people are going to have a lot of questions and misconceptions about it. And with a puzzle so popular, plenty of people are going to come up with solutions like peeling the stickers off or taking it apart.

Here's a couple common ones I see people complain about

Calling a 2x2 a "4 cube" or something else involving the number 4
Before I started cubing, I didn't even know that the original cube could be referred to as a 3x3, so if someone doesn't know that "3x3" is a common term, chances are they won't know "2x2" either

Seeing you solve a big cube and guessing the number of layers wrong
If you're solving, say, an 8x8 or a 9x9, I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to see it and think it's got 10 layers at first glance. It's like if I handed you 12 grapes. I wouldn't expect you to immediately know there are 12, because by the time you have that many, chances are you'd have to lay them out and count them to know exactly how many there are. Same idea with big cubes. Once they get big enough, it becomes harder and harder to see how many layers there are without counting them 1 by 1.

Calling a Pyraminx a "Rubik's Triangle" or "triangle cube" or something
If I had never heard the name "Pyraminx" before and you asked me to guess its name, I wouldn't get it in a million years. People are just making their best guess based on what they know (the name of the Rubik's Cube) and what they can see (a triangular pyramid)

Thinking you're cheating when you twist a corner to make the cube solvable
It's not immediately obvious that corners might accidentally twist in the middle of a solve, and it's even less obvious that if that happens, the cube becomes unsolvable. How are people who have never solved a Rubik's Cube before expected to know what can be solved with normal turns and what can't?

"The 2x2 is too easy"
That's really not an unreasonable thing to think. It's only got 8 pieces, way less than a 3x3, so I don't blame anyone for thinking it's a waste of time. They're not gonna know that having fewer pieces allows for new methods and types of algorithms

Of course people aren't going to know this stuff if they don't cube. It's not common knowledge, and chances are you didn't know most of this stuff before you took an interest in cubing either. So I really don't think it's worth getting worked up over. I used to be the same way, but as I've gotten older I've realized how unreasonable I could be about this sort of thing.