Michelle Dawson on Autism and Atypicality (Ep. 46)
Today we’re up in Montreal, and I’m very honored to be here with Michelle Dawson.
今天我们在蒙特利尔，我很荣幸能和米歇尔·道森一起来到这里。
Michelle is one of the people I admire most, actually.
事实上，米歇尔是我最敬佩的人之一。
She has become a very well-known and very influential autism researcher.
她已成为一位非常知名且非常有影响力的自闭症研究者。
Her background: she is herself autistic.
她的背景：她自己就是自闭症患者。
In some regards, you could describe her as self-taught, but she has become a kind of one-woman force advocating for more science, and .
在某些方面，你可以将她描述为自学成才，但她已经成为一种倡导更多科学的女性力量，并且……。
.
。
.
。
You’re shaking your head “no.”
你摇头说“不”。
I’m not an advocate.
我不是倡导者。
She is arguing for science and ethics being brought into the autism discourse and discourse more generally.
她主张将科学和伦理纳入自闭症讨论和更广泛的讨论中。
Would you accept that description of what you do?
您会接受对您所做工作的描述吗？
Good enough.
足够好了。
Good enough.
足够好了。
Okay.
好的。
So let me start with a very general question.
让我从一个非常普遍的问题开始。
If you ask what would be the most underrated, nonaccountable, and mysterious force controlling people’s lives, and I said that right now, it was actually something called the DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which influences a lot of issues in the law — what insurance companies do, what hospitals do, when people are institutionalized — what would your reaction be to that statement?
如果你问什么是最被低估、最不负责任、最神秘的控制人们生活的力量，我说，现在，它实际上是一种叫做《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》的东西，它影响着法律中的很多问题 ——“保险公司做什么，医院做什么，当人们被送进收容机构时”——“你对这种说法有何反应？
I think that the DSM could be a very bad big deal to people who, for instance, are denied basic human rights or standards in science.
我认为 DSM 对于那些被剥夺基本人权或科学标准的人来说可能是一件非常糟糕的大事。
For people who are not situated like that — and that would be most people — the shortcomings of the DSM-5 will be offset by people in research and practice who have good standards, who understand that their job is to benefit people more than they harm them, who know how to read the scientific literature, and so on.
对于那些不属于这种情况的人来说————这将是大多数人————DSM-5的缺点将被那些在研究和实践中具有良好标准的人所抵消，他们明白他们的工作是造福于人而不是伤害他们，他们知道如何阅读科学文献，等等。
So, it depends who you are and how you’re situated.
所以，这取决于你是谁以及你所处的位置。
Also, you have to consider the larger context of what people see as influential or not, which might be very arbitrary at any moment.
此外，你还必须考虑人们认为什么有影响力或没有影响力的更大背景，这在任何时候都可能是非常武断的。
What would be the best understanding of autism, from your perspective?
从您的角度来看，对自闭症最好的理解是什么？
The best understanding is seeing autism as atypical brain functioning, resulting in atypical processing of all information.
最好的理解是将自闭症视为非典型的大脑功能，导致所有信息的非典型处理。
So that’s information across domains — social, nonsocial; across modalities — visual, auditory; whatever its source, whether it’s information from your memory, information coming from the outside world, that is atypical.
这就是跨领域的信息 —— 社交、非社交；跨模式 — 视觉、听觉；无论它的来源是什么，无论是来自你的记忆的信息，还是来自外部世界的信息，这都是非典型的。
So that is very domain-general atypicality.
所以这是非常普遍的领域非典型性。
What autistic brains do with information is atypical.
自闭症患者的大脑对信息的处理方式是非典型的。
How it’s atypical, in my view, involves what I’ve called cognitive versatility and less mandatory hierarchies in how the brain works, such that, for example, an autistic brain will consider more possibilities, will nonstrategically combine information across levels and scales without losing large parts of it, and so on.
在我看来，它的非典型性涉及我所说的认知多功能性和大脑工作方式中较少强制性的层次结构，例如，自闭症大脑会考虑更多的可能性，会非策略性地跨层次和规模组合信息，而不会丢失大部分信息，等等。
And that applies to all information.
这适用于所有信息。
That is strictly my view.
这完全是我的观点。
I’m not sure anyone would agree with me.
我不确定是否有人会同意我的观点。
What autistic brains do with information is atypical.
自闭症患者的大脑对信息的处理方式是非典型的。
How it’s atypical, in my view, involves what I’ve called cognitive versatility and less mandatory hierarchies in how the brain works, such that, for example, an autistic brain will consider more possibilities, will nonstrategically combine information across levels and scales without losing large parts of it, and so on.
在我看来，它的非典型性涉及我所说的认知多功能性和大脑工作方式中较少强制性的层次结构，例如，自闭症大脑会考虑更多的可能性，会非策略性地跨层次和规模组合信息，而不会丢失大部分信息，等等。
And that applies to all information.
这适用于所有信息。
That is strictly my view.
这完全是我的观点。
I’m not sure anyone would agree with me.
我不确定是否有人会同意我的观点。
Do you think it’s true that autistic brains somehow take in or process more information?
你认为自闭症患者的大脑确实以某种方式吸收或处理更多信息吗？
They can.
他们可以。
That depends on what is available in the environment.
这取决于环境中可用的内容。
Not all autistics are well situated when it comes to access to information that they can process well.
并非所有自闭症患者都能很好地获取他们能够很好处理的信息。
Autistics are different in the kinds, quantities, and arrangements of information they process well.
自闭症患者在处理信息的种类、数量和安排方面有所不同。
Just having a huge quantity of information is not necessarily all that an autistic person needs.
仅仅拥有大量的信息并不一定是自闭症患者所需要的全部。
The atypicality is more complex than that.
非典型性比这更复杂。
But yes, an autistic person can process more information across levels and scales without losing it, or without a lot of the information being edited in sort of cognitive editing — various ways that information is made manageable in a typical brain.
但是，是的，自闭症患者可以跨层次和跨度处理更多信息，而不会丢失信息，或者不需要通过认知编辑（在典型的大脑中使信息变得易于管理的各种方式）进行编辑。
Autistic people don’t need to do that to get the information in a way that it can be processed and useful, that they can learn from it and use it.
自闭症患者不需要这样做来以可处理和有用的方式获取信息，他们可以从中学习和使用它。
On hyperlexia and other autistic strengths
关于诵读过度和其他自闭症优势
What’s an example of something an autistic person might be better at doing than a nonautistic person?
有什么例子可以说明自闭症患者可能比非自闭症患者更擅长做某事？
Again, with a lot of variation across autistics.
同样，自闭症患者之间存在很大差异。
You know, the problem here is that there’s a really long list of things that autistic people can do well, and given the opportunity .
你知道，这里的问题是，只要有机会，自闭症患者可以做好的事情有很多。
.
。
.
。
Give us, say, half a dozen.
比如说，给我们六打。
Just bullet points.
只是要点。
The almost classic example is hyperlexia, which you see starting with very early development.
几乎经典的例子是诵读过度症，你可以看到它从非常早期的发展开始。
You see this in very young autistic children, who have a spontaneous interest in printed materials.
你可以在很小的自闭症儿童身上看到这一点，他们对印刷材料有自发的兴趣。
It can be just text, but the information can include other kinds of printed materials: numbers, combinations of letters and numbers.
它可以只是文本，但信息可以包括其他类型的印刷材料：数字、字母和数字的组合。
And they use this information across different scales.
他们在不同的范围内使用这些信息。
So from individual letters like the alphabet, given the opportunity, they will order individual letters into the order of the alphabet, for instance.
因此，例如，从像字母表这样的单个字母中，如果有机会，他们会将单个字母按照字母表的顺序排序。
But they don’t just use single letters.
但他们不只使用单个字母。
They will also use complex arrays of texts, like newspapers.
他们还将使用复杂的文本数组，例如报纸。
These are very young children — that’s going to start at age two.
这些都是非常年幼的孩子——从两岁开始。
If they’re in a book-rich, text-rich environment and have free access to this, they will figure out how language is structured, and that happens even with very difficult orthographies like English.
如果他们处于一个书籍丰富、文本丰富的环境中，并且可以自由访问，他们就会弄清楚语言是如何构造的，即使是像英语这样非常困难的拼字法，也会发生这种情况。
English orthography is so difficult that typical children take an extra year or so to learn it because it’s wacky.
英语拼写法非常困难，以至于一般孩子需要多花一年左右的时间来学习它，因为它很古怪。
In a lot of ways it doesn’t make sense; the rules don’t make sense.
从很多方面来说，这没有意义；规则没有意义。
But autistic children, even starting, these very young children can work this out, and they figure out the irregularities.
但自闭症儿童，即使刚开始，这些年幼的孩子也能解决这个问题，并且找出不规则之处。
They figure out the irregularities using the sort of array of information from letters to words to phrases to sentences to paragraphs to entire text and arrays, and so on.
他们使用从字母到单词到短语到句子到段落到整个文本和数组等的信息数组来找出不规则之处。
They’ll figure it out, and typical children don’t really do this spontaneously.
他们会弄清楚的，而一般的孩子并不会自发地做到这一点。
My mother used to tell me that when I was two, I just taught myself how to read.
我妈妈曾经告诉我，当我两岁的时候，我就自学了如何读书。
For a very long time, I never took her seriously.
很长一段时间，我从来没有认真对待过她。
I just thought, “Well, mothers say things like this.” But when I learned about hyperlexia, it occurred to me that she had an actual, literal point.
我只是想：“嗯，妈妈们都是这么说的。”但当我了解到阅读过度症时，我突然意识到她有一个真实的、字面意义的观点。
So, if you’re a hyperlexic, and then you grow up, you keep some kind of special reading ability typically?
那么，如果你是一个诵读狂，那么当你长大后，你通常会保留某种特殊的阅读能力吗？
We don’t know nearly enough about how any autistic strength in processing information evolves over time.
我们对自闭症患者处理信息的能力如何随时间演变的了解还不够。
And again, you have to keep in mind that we start looking at this in children.
再次强调，你必须记住，我们是从儿童身上开始研究这一问题的。
You don’t know what kind of information is going to be available to them.
你不知道他们会获得什么样的信息。
We are not paying attention to that at all.
我们根本不关注这一点。
At the same time, now, in autism, one of the most common aspects of popular interventions is to really ration information, keep it away from autistic people.
与此同时，现在，对于自闭症患者，流行干预措施最常见的方面之一是真正定量分配信息，使其远离自闭症患者。
So you have to consider that in how an ability develops.
所以你必须在能力如何发展时考虑这一点。
What kind of access to information do they have in whatever context they’re in, whether it’s in their home, in their school, and so on?
他们在任何环境下（无论是在家里、在学校还是其他地方）可以通过哪些方式获取信息？
But it is not a dead end, that is for sure.
但这并不是死胡同，这是肯定的。
It’s been thought of wrongly as a dead end, and that’s been true of autistic abilities in general — that they are thought of as dead ends.
它被错误地认为是死胡同，对于一般自闭症能力来说也是如此——他们被认为是死胡同。
But it’s clearly not the case, even in situations which are very far from good for the autistic person as far as availability of information and their overall situation with respect to how resourceful they can be, how they can add to and build on their abilities, and so on.
但事实显然并非如此，即使在对自闭症患者来说信息的可用性和他们的整体状况（例如他们的足智多谋、他们如何增强和发展自己的能力等）方面都非常不利的情况下也是如此。
Now often, in popular discourse, you’ll hear autism or Asperger’s associated with a series of personality traits or features of personality psychology — a kind of introversion or people being nerdy in some regard.
现在，在流行的话语中，你经常会听到自闭症或阿斯伯格症与一系列人格特质或人格心理学特征相关——一种内向或在某些方面很书呆子的人。
In your approach, do you see any connection between personality traits and autism at all?
在你的方法中，你认为人格特质和自闭症之间有任何联系吗？
There is a small literature that shows some connection.
有一篇小文献显示了一些联系。
I think it’s very weak, and I say no, I don’t think autism is about personality.
我认为这是非常弱的，我说不，我不认为自闭症与人格有关。
Autism is sort of orthogonal to personality.
自闭症与人格有些正交。
The two are not related.
两者没有关系。
Whatever relation there is does not .
无论有什么关系都没有。
.
。
.
。
arises from some third factor, let’s say.
比方说，是由第三个因素引起的。
If there is one — and again, the evidence is, I think, very weak connecting autism to personality — so just say that maybe, if there’s something, let’s say that personality in autistics might be more high variance.
如果有的话——我认为，将自闭症与人格联系起来的证据非常薄弱——所以只是说，也许，如果有的话，我们可以说自闭症患者的人格可能有更高的方差。
That would be my totally wild guess, but I don’t think autism itself is about personality.
这完全是我的疯狂猜测，但我不认为自闭症本身与性格有关。
On biases affecting autistics
关于影响自闭症的偏见
One thing, if I think about your work in general, one thing it’s caused me to do is to see a new bias in how humans make judgment, and that is a bias to underrate atypical kinds of intelligence.
有一件事，如果我从总体上考虑你的工作，它让我做的一件事就是看到人类如何做出判断的新偏见，那就是低估非典型智力的偏见。
I view this as a common thread running through your work.
我认为这是贯穿您工作的一条共同主线。
Maybe this is what I’m reading in, rather than anything you’ve said explicitly.
也许这就是我正在读的内容，而不是您明确说过的任何内容。
But if you look at, say, issues of animal intelligence, there’s a growing body of evidence that animals feel pain, they’re intelligent, they lead social lives, they’re complex in ways maybe we hadn’t understood earlier.
但如果你看看动物智力问题，就会发现越来越多的证据表明动物能感受到疼痛，它们很聪明，它们有社交生活，它们的复杂性可能是我们之前无法理解的。
Still, a lot of people don’t absorb this knowledge very readily.
尽管如此，很多人还是不太容易吸收这些知识。
If you consider Down Syndrome individuals, when I was growing up, there was a common sense of a kind of hopelessness.
如果你考虑一下患有唐氏综合症的人，在我的成长过程中，有一种普遍的绝望感。
Now there’s a Down Syndrome individual who’s a lobbyist, people playing roles on TV, and so on.
现在有一个患有唐氏综合症的人是说客，在电视上扮演角色等等。
This would not have been expected by most people in the 1970s.
这是 20 世纪 70 年代大多数人都没有想到的。
Why do you think it is we have this bias to underrate atypical kinds of intelligence, or do you even agree with that characterization?
您认为为什么我们会存在低估非典型智力的偏见，或者您是否同意这种描述？
I would be careful about the sort of people in general.
一般来说，我会对这类人保持谨慎。
I would say that maybe it does seem to be something that if you take the median person, or you do this as a society, sort of collectively, not necessarily as individuals .
我想说，如果你以中间人为例，或者你作为一个社会，某种集体，而不一定是个人来做这件事，也许这似乎确实是这样。
.
。
.
。
it seems to be something that people are very bad at, to detect abilities and worth in highly atypical individuals.
人们似乎非常不擅长检测高度非典型个体的能力和价值。
For sure, you see this very much in autism with the whole notion of severity, and this is not defined.
当然，你在自闭症的整个严重性概念中看到了这一点，但这并没有定义。
There is no workable definition of autism severity.
自闭症严重程度没有可行的定义。
People use that word all the time.
人们一直使用这个词。
They use it to mean that somebody’s had a bad outcome, or that someone is badly behaved, or that somebody performs badly on an IQ test, and so on.
他们用它来表示某人的结果不好，或者某人的行为不好，或者某人在智商测试中表现不佳，等等。
There is something bad going on here, and it’s sort of the equation that the more atypical a person is, the worse they must be.
这里发生了一些不好的事情，就像一个等式一样，一个人越不典型，他们一定越糟糕。
They must not be intelligent.
他们一定不聪明。
There must be something extra wrong, more wrong about their behavior, and so on.
他们的行为一定有什么特别错误的地方，更错误的地方，等等。
Now, this is where I’m very familiar with the whole history of this, and it’s obviously problematic.
现在，这是我非常熟悉整个历史的地方，这显然是有问题的。
We don’t — I hope we don’t look at a blind person who is a successful lawyer and assume that he is only very mildly blind or barely blind at all, and then look at a blind person who has a very bad outcome and assume that they must be very severely blind.
我们不——我希望我们不要在看到一个成功的律师的盲人时，假设他只是轻度失明或几乎失明，然后看到一个结果非常糟糕的盲人，并假设他们一定是非常严重的失明。
We do make those kinds of judgments in autism, saying, “The more atypical the person is, the worse they must be in some sense.” That kind of bias has not only harmed a lot of autistic people, it really has impeded research.
我们确实对自闭症做出了这样的判断，我们说：“一个人越不典型，从某种意义上说，他们一定越糟糕。”这种偏见不仅伤害了很多自闭症患者，而且确实阻碍了研究。
I hope we don’t look at a blind person who is a successful lawyer and assume that he is only very mildly blind or barely blind at all, and then look at a blind person who has a very bad outcome and assume that they must be very severely blind.
我希望我们不要在看到一个成功的律师的盲人时，假设他只是轻度失明或几乎完全失明，然后看到一个结果非常糟糕的盲人，并假设他们一定是非常严重的失明。
We do make those kinds of judgments in autism, saying, “The more atypical the person is, the worse they must be in some sense.” That kind of bias has not only harmed a lot of autistic people, it really has impeded research.
我们确实对自闭症做出了这样的判断，我们说：“一个人越不典型，从某种意义上说，他们一定越糟糕。”这种偏见不仅伤害了很多自闭症患者，而且确实阻碍了研究。
We do not have a definition for autism severity, but it gets at that idea, that bias — very unhelpful and harmful bias that the more atypical an individual is, the more there must be wrong with them.
我们没有对自闭症严重程度的定义，但它传达了这样一种想法，即偏见——非常无益和有害的偏见，即一个人越不典型，他们的问题就越大。
And autism is almost the paradigmatic case of that happening, so if you want to make a case for that, autism would be where to do it.
自闭症几乎就是这种情况的典型案例，所以如果你想证明这一点，自闭症就是你可以做的地方。
Are there biases that nonautistic individuals have that autistics might have less, or maybe not at all?
是否存在非自闭症患者存在的偏见，而自闭症患者的偏见可能较少，或者根本没有？
Well, there’s a literature testing some of these biases, and yes, the short answer is yes.
嗯，有文献测试了其中一些偏见，是的，简短的答案是肯定的。
I think in all cases you would want a bigger literature; you’d want to wait for replications and so on.
我认为在所有情况下你都需要更多的文献；您需要等待复制等等。
What’s an example of a possible bias that’s weaker in autistics?
自闭症患者中可能出现的较弱偏见的例子是什么？
Well, noticing that two offers which are posed in different ways are actually identical, or being more likely to notice that the outcome will be identical, however it’s posed.
好吧，注意到以不同方式提出的两个报价实际上是相同的，或者更有可能注意到结果将是相同的，无论它是如何提出的。
Those are framing effects.
这些都是框架效应。
That’s been replicated once, where, in effect, the autistics are less likely to be fooled by the framing.
这种情况已经被重复过一次，实际上，自闭症患者不太可能被框架愚弄。
So, they detect when two situations are the same, whereas the typical group are biased such that they are fooled by the framing.
因此，他们会检测两种情况是否相同，而典型群体则存在偏见，以至于被框架所愚弄。
It’s not 100 percent, but autistics are just .
虽然不是 100%，但自闭症确实是这样。
.
。
.
。
They will still consider it.
他们还是会考虑的。
What about optical illusions?
视错觉又如何呢？
Is there evidence there?
那里有证据吗？
It’s very mixed, and it’s very picky about the task and the instruction.
它非常复杂，而且对任务和指导非常挑剔。
Some more than others.
有些比其他更多。
I’m trying to remember the Shepard’s table, or have I got the name of the table right?
我正在努力记住 Shepard 的桌子，或者我对桌子的名称是否正确？
The table illusion has been replicated.
桌子错觉已被复制。
The one with the line — now I’ve forgotten its name — has been replicated.
上面写着‘——‘现在我忘了它的名字了’——‘已经被复制了。
Others, not so much.
其他人则没有那么多。
It’s very mixed.
这是非常复杂的。
There’s a question of, can autistics see an illusion?
有一个问题，自闭症患者能看到幻觉吗？
They probably can.
他们可能可以。
Do they consider other possibilities?
他们会考虑其他可能性吗？
Yes, they do, and they will consider other possibilities that the typical population might not.
是的，他们会考虑，而且他们会考虑一般人群可能不会考虑的其他可能性。
So that produces some differences in results, depending on the task and so on.
因此，根据任务等的不同，结果会产生一些差异。
Are there examples of confirmed biases in autistics, where the bias is stronger in autistics?
是否有已证实的自闭症患者偏见的例子，其中自闭症患者的偏见更强烈？
I would say no. Keep in mind what I think here is not that autistics don’t have biases.
我会说不。请记住，我认为这并不是说自闭症患者没有偏见。
Because they can .
因为他们可以。
.
。
.
。
Well, they will process information atypically.
嗯，他们会以非典型的方式处理信息。
Within that range is the possibility of checking, you know, what is the typical hierarchy, even if it’s not .
在这个范围内，可以检查典型的层次结构是什么，即使它不是。
.
。
.
。
It won’t be mandatory, though.
不过，这不是强制性的。
That won’t be it.
不会的。
They will consider other possibilities.
他们会考虑其他可能性。
So, that will attenuate biases as opposed to strengthen them.
因此，这将减少而不是加强偏见。
And that, I think, is what you find in the literature, again, depending whether the task is sufficiently complex for that to show up, what the task demands are.
我认为，这就是您在文献中找到的内容，再次取决于任务是否足够复杂以使其显示出来，以及任务的要求是什么。
My favorite of these is .
其中我最喜欢的是。
.
。
.
。
It’s a bit dodgy because it comes from a couple of different papers, but it shows where .
这有点狡猾，因为它来自几篇不同的论文，但它显示了哪里。
.
。
.
。
A Penrose triangle.
彭罗斯三角形。
Credit: illusionsindex.org
图片来源：illusionsindex.org
A bit of my background, going way back in perception and finding that autistic people were better at drawing impossible figures.
我的一些背景知识，追溯过去的认知，发现自闭症患者更擅长画出不可能的图形。
Impossible figures are like Penrose triangles.
不可能的图形就像彭罗斯三角形。
They are things that you can’t build.
它们是你无法建造的东西。
So this was interpreted as a couple of possible deficits.
因此，这被解释为一些可能的缺陷。
They are not — failing to see the global structure, for instance.
例如，他们并不是没有看到全局结构。
Yet, if you ask autistic people whether the impossible figure is impossible, they know it’s impossible.
然而，如果你问自闭症患者这个不可能的数字是否不可能，他们知道这是不可能的。
So autistics can have both the possibilities.
所以自闭症患者可以有这两种可能性。
They understand that an impossible figure is a sort of possible drawing.
他们明白不可能的图形是一种可能的图画。
On social intelligence
关于社交智力
There are a variety of claims that autistics either have difficulties processing social information or lack certain kinds of social intelligence — why they’re awkward in particular social situations.
有多种说法认为，自闭症患者要么难以处理社交信息，要么缺乏某些社交智能——这就是为什么他们在特定的社交场合会感到尴尬。
In your framework, how do you make sense of these claims?
在你的框架中，你如何理解这些主张？
And how would you describe or redescribe the phenomena people are talking about?
您将如何描述或重新描述人们正在谈论的现象？
Actually, how autistic people perform in social tasks is high variance.
事实上，自闭症患者在社交任务中的表现差异很大。
It is very hard to pull out specific deficits where you can’t point out areas where autistics have performed at least as well as typical people on the task.
如果你无法指出自闭症患者在这项任务中至少表现得与普通人一样好，那么很难找出具体的缺陷。
There is an exception, which is the most replicated autistic deficit.
有一个例外，那就是最常见的自闭症缺陷。
I believe there’s one finding in the contrary direction.
我相信有一个相反方向的发现。
But all the rest — and there’s a lot, especially for the autism literature — show what is considered an autistic deficit.
但其余的一切——还有很多，尤其是自闭症文献——都显示了什么是自闭症缺陷。
This is the task of attributing deep mental states to geometric shapes.
这是将深层心理状态归因于几何形状的任务。
Usually they are triangles.
通常它们是三角形。
They will be animated.
他们将被动画化。
They sort of move around, and it goes beyond simply attributing agency to the triangles, which autistics can do.
他们有点四处走动，这不仅仅是自闭症患者可以简单地将代理归因于三角形。
You must attribute mental states to them, profound mental states, like they are jealous or they’re flirting.
你必须将精神状态归因于他们，深刻的精神状态，就像他们在嫉妒或调情一样。
And autistics are very bad at this task.
自闭症患者在这项任务上表现得非常糟糕。
And this has been replicated quite a lot, even at a population-based level, which is not something you necessarily see a lot of.
这种情况已经被重复了很多次，即使是在基于人口的水平上，这不一定是你经常看到的。
So, is this a social deficit?
那么，这是社会赤字吗？
Autistics are definitely bad at this task.
自闭症患者绝对不擅长这项任务。
Now, why might that be if you look at things in my own biased way?
现在，如果你以我自己的偏见方式看待事物，为什么会出现这种情况呢？
It may not necessarily be that autistics don’t notice that these interactions between geometric shapes, or among geometric shapes, resemble something social that involves mental states.
自闭症患者不一定没有注意到几何形状之间或几何形状之间的相互作用类似于涉及心理状态的社会事物。
But they are less likely, and they are not going to totally get rid of the accurate information that these are just freaking triangles.
但它们的可能性较小，而且它们不会完全摆脱这些只是奇怪的三角形的准确信息。
They will only go so far.
他们只会走这么远。
They are not going to lose that possibly important information that these are just triangles.
他们不会丢失这些可能只是三角形的重要信息。
And you would think that this would quite reasonably produce a bit of caution in assuming that you know quite a lot about their profound mental states.
你可能会认为，假设你对他们深刻的心理状态了解很多，这会相当合理地产生一点谨慎。
Is the following a fair description?
以下描述是否公平？
Let’s say that many autistics are taking in more information than would be typical.
假设许多自闭症患者吸收的信息比一般情况下要多。
So sometimes those autistics will end up confused, or they will feel confused or act as if they appear they’re confused.
所以有时这些自闭症患者最终会感到困惑，或者他们会感到困惑，或者表现得好像他们很困惑。
But other times, if they develop procedures for processing that information — rules — they become better at interpreting the information.
但其他时候，如果他们开发出处理这些信息的程序——“规则”——他们就会更好地解释这些信息。
Maybe they have to become better because they face this more difficult task.
也许他们必须变得更好，因为他们面临着这个更艰巨的任务。
So, you will have autistics show unusual mastery of social situations.
所以，自闭症患者会表现出对社交场合不同寻常的掌控力。
Even if they appear awkward, they’ll see much more detail than nonautistics would in some cases.
即使他们看起来很尴尬，在某些情况下，他们也会比非自闭症患者看到更多的细节。
But then in other cases, they’ll be more confused.
但在其他情况下，他们会更加困惑。
And that’s where this high variance comes from that you mentioned earlier.
这就是你之前提到的这种高方差的来源。
Well, there’s a huge literature in autism about how autistics judge facial expressions of emotion in other people.
嗯，关于自闭症有大量关于自闭症患者如何判断他人情绪面部表情的文献。
And what you have in the autism literature is, you haven’t only just turned autistic people into stereotypes and cartoons, you’ve done that to the typical population.
在自闭症文献中，你不仅把自闭症患者变成了刻板印象和卡通人物，而且还对普通人群做了同样的事情。
This is really at odds with the nonautism literature on facial expressions, which is much more complicated.
这与关于面部表情的非自闭症文献确实不一致，后者要复杂得多。
In the autism literature, it’s assumed that you can just read people’s inner emotions and mental states.
在自闭症文献中，假设你只能读懂人们的内心情绪和心理状态。
Mental states are not necessarily well defined, that it’s a simple matter, that it is sort of written all over somebody’s face, or even you can read it just from looking at a photo of their eyes.
心理状态不一定是明确定义的，这是一个简单的问题，它有点写在某人的脸上，甚至你可以通过看他们眼睛的照片来解读它。
Smiles of frustration or delight?
是沮丧还是喜悦的微笑？
Credit: Hoque et al.
图片来源：Hoque 等人。
And things are far more complicated than that in the literature, in the nonautism literature.
事情远比文学、非自然主义文学中的复杂。
For example, MIT — their affective computing group, Rosalind Picard did these fantastic studies showing that people smile in frustration, and those are real honest-to-goodness Ekman-type smiles.
例如，麻省理工学院——他们的情感计算小组罗莎琳德·皮卡德（Rosalind Picard）做了这些出色的研究，表明人们在沮丧时微笑，而这些是真正诚实的埃克曼式微笑。
You have the whole facial action coding thing going on.
整个面部动作编码工作正在进行中。
Those are real, genuine smiles that people smile in frustration when they are genuinely frustrated.
这是人们在真正感到沮丧时在沮丧时微笑的真实、真诚的微笑。
They don’t do it when they’re acting out frustration.
当他们表现出沮丧时，他们不会这样做。
And there are many other examples like that.
类似的例子还有很多。
People smile for many different reasons, and that is acknowledged to some degree in the literature in the typical population, not in the autism literature, where things are completely simple.
人们微笑的原因有很多，这一点在典型人群的文献中得到了一定程度的承认，但在自闭症文献中却没有，因为在自闭症文献中事情是完全简单的。
They’re just very caricatured and cartoonish.
它们只是非常讽刺和卡通化。
Now, what you find is that the typical population can decipher their way through this.
现在，你会发现，一般人都能破译这一点。
They know what these facial expressions are supposed to represent, even if they don’t look like that in real life.
他们知道这些面部表情应该代表什么，即使它们在现实生活中看起来并不像那样。
Autistics are — maybe because their experiences are quite complex with how people respond to them starting early in life, and I’m just wildly speculating here — but autistics are going to notice that things are more complex and uncertain than that.
自闭症患者 ——也许是因为他们的经历非常复杂，人们从生命的早期就开始对他们做出反应，我只是在这里疯狂推测 ——但是自闭症患者会注意到事情比这更复杂和不确定。
Again, it’s the considering more possibilities, and that will very much hamper their task performance if what you are looking for is this automatic certainty that these acted expressions are all there is, which is not accurate.
再说一次，这是考虑更多的可能性，如果你正在寻找的是这种自动确定性，即这些行为表达都是存在的，那么这将极大地妨碍他们的任务表现，这是不准确的。
And that leads to many problems because we’re actually training autistic people to ignore the complex, real, important information in favor of the caricatured, stereotyped, simplified, probably wrong information, and we should really think about that.
这会导致很多问题，因为我们实际上是在训练自闭症患者忽略复杂的、真实的、重要的信息，而倾向于讽刺的、刻板的、简化的、可能是错误的信息，我们应该认真考虑这一点。
But that gives you an idea of looking at social deficits, thinking about how autistics process information, and also actually looking at the literature itself.
但这让你了解社会缺陷，思考自闭症患者如何处理信息，以及实际研究文献本身。
On chord disembedding and other cognitive skills
关于和弦脱嵌和其他认知技能
Let me mention a few cognitive skills, and we’ll just run through them briefly, but tell me what you think we know about autistics and nonautistics.
Let me mention a few cognitive skills, and we’ll just run through them briefly, but tell me what you think we know about autistics and nonautistics.
Chord disaggregation: you hear a chord and you want to figure out what are the notes inside the chord.
Chord disaggregation: you hear a chord and you want to figure out what are the notes inside the chord.
What do we know?
我们知道什么？
Autistics are good at chord disembedding, and that’s what that ability is called.
Autistics are good at chord disembedding, and that’s what that ability is called.
Now, this is a great way to bring in the importance of the literature on autistic savants.
Now, this is a great way to bring in the importance of the literature on autistic savants.
Autistic savants are .
自闭症专家是。
.
。
.
。
The best way to think of them is autistics who are very obvious.
The best way to think of them is autistics who are very obvious.
They can multiply large numbers in their head, they can do the so-called .
他们可以在头脑中乘以大数，他们可以做到所谓的。
.
。
.
。
It’s very obvious that they are processing information atypically.
It’s very obvious that they are processing information atypically.
That makes them very obvious autistics.
这使得他们有非常明显的自闭症。
They are very obviously high variance in their range of abilities.
他们的能力范围明显存在很大差异。
There can be quite drastic contrast between things that they are bad at and things that they are excellent at, and this, again, makes them very, very obvious people.
There can be quite drastic contrast between things that they are bad at and things that they are excellent at, and this, again, makes them very, very obvious people.
Their abilities are extraordinary for anybody.
他们的能力对任何人来说都是非凡的。
They have difficulty doing quite basic things.
他们很难做一些非常基本的事情。
So, they’re very obvious.
所以，它们是非常明显的。
They’ve been extremely important in research in spite of the literature on them being tiny.
They’ve been extremely important in research in spite of the literature on them being tiny.
It’s disproportionately contributed to what we know.
它对我们所知的贡献不成比例。
Yet this extraordinary contribution of these individuals gets denigrated all the time.
然而，这些人的非凡贡献却一直受到诋毁。
That’s awful to see.
这真是太糟糕了。
So, this is how we know.
所以，这就是我们所知道的。
Because autistic savants can disaggregate chords, this was then studied in less obviously talented autistics, who it turns out are better at disaggregating chords, chord disembedding.
因为自闭症专家可以分解和弦，所以随后在不太明显有天赋的自闭症患者中进行了研究，结果证明他们更擅长分解和弦、和弦脱嵌。
Pamela Heaton did work in this area.
帕梅拉·希顿（Pamela Heaton）确实从事这一领域的工作。
My favorite bit in this literature is in a book chapter by Linda Pring, where they tested Derek Paravicini.
My favorite bit in this literature is in a book chapter by Linda Pring, where they tested Derek Paravicini.
He is blind and autistic, outstanding musician.
他是一位盲人、自闭症患者，杰出的音乐家。
He’s considered intellectually disabled, developmentally disabled, however you want to put it.
他被认为是智力障碍、发育障碍，不管你怎么说。
So, as they do it in the savant literature, they test these savants against people who are experts, so expert musicians, and they conk out pretty quick after five or six notes.
因此，正如他们在专家文献中所做的那样，他们将这些专家与专家（即专业音乐家）进行测试，并且在五六个音符后很快就得出结论。
They’re getting in a lot of trouble, they can’t disembed these chords, they can’t tell you which notes they consist of.
他们遇到了很多麻烦，他们无法分解这些和弦，他们无法告诉你它们由哪些音符组成。
And Derek Paravicini kept going.
德里克·帕拉维奇尼继续前行。
He could do the first chord in “Hard Day’s Night,” perhaps, right?
He could do the first chord in “Hard Day’s Night,” perhaps, right?
Well, exactly, but you know what?
嗯，确实如此，但你知道吗？
What they said in this, what the researchers here didn’t anticipate — and it’s just awful that this isn’t reported in a formal paper, this is in a book chapter — but that it didn’t occur to them that they would run out of fingers.
What they said in this, what the researchers here didn’t anticipate — and it’s just awful that this isn’t reported in a formal paper, this is in a book chapter — but that it didn’t occur to them that they would run out of fingers.
They attempted a 10-note chord, and he could still disembed it.
They attempted a 10-note chord, and he could still disembed it.
And they had not anticipated that they would need someone with more than 10 fingers to properly test the limits of this autistic person’s ability.
And they had not anticipated that they would need someone with more than 10 fingers to properly test the limits of this autistic person’s ability.
This is somebody who is a creative, fantastic musician in every sense.
从各个方面来说，他都是一位富有创造力、出色的音乐家。
But to know that he can do this, it’s almost by accident that we know this, and we have not managed to get to the limit of his abilities here because they just didn’t anticipate.
但要知道他能做到这一点，我们知道这一点几乎是偶然的，而且我们还没有在这里达到他能力的极限，因为他们只是没有预料到。
What do you think of the hypothesis that virtually all autistics are in some logical way savants, but there’s a socially constructed category of savant that some things, such as multiplying large numbers or doing the calendar trick, whether a particular day far in the future is a Monday or a Wednesday, that is regarded as being a savant.
What do you think of the hypothesis that virtually all autistics are in some logical way savants, but there’s a socially constructed category of savant that some things, such as multiplying large numbers or doing the calendar trick, whether a particular day far in the future is a Monday or a Wednesday, that is regarded as being a savant.
But if you have a quite ordinary skill that you’re very good at, like making managerial decisions, no one will call you a savant, but in essence, you’re doing the same thing.
But if you have a quite ordinary skill that you’re very good at, like making managerial decisions, no one will call you a savant, but in essence, you’re doing the same thing.
Agree or disagree?
同意还是不同意？
I’m not going to answer that.
我不会回答这个问题。
I’m going to totally answer a different question, which is .
我将完全回答一个不同的问题，那就是。
.
。
.
。
what people should notice first off is that savant skills are sort of conglomerated in specific areas.
what people should notice first off is that savant skills are sort of conglomerated in specific areas.
Why might that be?
为什么会这样？
Say, music, hyperlexia, drawing in three dimensions, calculation, calender calculation.
比如说，音乐、阅读过多、三维绘图、计算、日历计算。
Why?
为什么？
Because this is information that tends to be available in most environments, and that’s often quite hard to take out of those environments.
因为这些信息往往在大多数环境中都可用，而且通常很难从这些环境中取出。
Now, you have to think about that .
现在，你必须考虑一下。
.
。
.
。
So the people can’t take it away from autistics.
所以人们无法将其从自闭症中剔除。
You can always look at calendars, think about calendar .
你可以随时查看日历，思考日历。
.
。
.
。
Well, they do now.
好吧，他们现在这样做了。
They try.
他们尝试。
This taking that information away is a feature of many, if not most, popular autism interventions.
消除这些信息是许多（如果不是大多数）流行的自闭症干预措施的一个特点。
That’s awful.
那太糟糕了。
So I’m answering the question, why are some people considered savants and some not?
所以我要回答这个问题，为什么有些人被认为是学者，而有些人则不然？
We don’t know anything!
我们什么都不知道！
We are not interested in what kinds of information autistics have available to them starting development.
We are not interested in what kinds of information autistics have available to them starting development.
I’m trying to get other people interested in that.
我正在努力让其他人对此感兴趣。
It’s very uphill.
这是非常艰难的。
Because autistics may be specific on how they start to figure out how to work with the kinds, quantities, and arrangements of information they process well.
Because autistics may be specific on how they start to figure out how to work with the kinds, quantities, and arrangements of information they process well.
Let’s say an autistic will have access to, say, music.
假设一个自闭症患者可以接触音乐。
And they will have access to good music and so on.
他们将有机会听到好的音乐等等。
And they will figure that out.
And they will figure that out.
And they have access to a piano, which seems a particularly good array of information for autistics.
他们还可以使用钢琴，这对于自闭症患者来说似乎是一个特别好的信息。
The musicians aren’t all pianists, but an awful lot of them are.
这些音乐家并不都是钢琴家，但他们中的很多人都是。
And the piano — all the information is there, right?
还有钢琴 ——所有信息都在那里，对吧？
It’s in front of you.
它就在你面前。
It’s complex.
这很复杂。
It’s all there.
一切都在那里。
So this tends to be the kinds of information that autistics will start with.
So this tends to be the kinds of information that autistics will start with.
Now, let’s say you have somebody, and they figure out music.
现在，假设你有一个人，他们擅长音乐。
They figure it out at all levels, from a single note to complex compositions, and this is what savants do.
They figure it out at all levels, from a single note to complex compositions, and this is what savants do.
What if they realize then, and it’s in their environment, that they can apply this to something else?
What if they realize then, and it’s in their environment, that they can apply this to something else?
And you do get savants that have multiple abilities.
And you do get savants that have multiple abilities.
That used to be considered — wrongly — not what happened, but it is what happens.
That used to be considered — wrongly — not what happened, but it is what happens.
The idea of an autistic polymath has just not been explored at all.
The idea of an autistic polymath has just not been explored at all.
So you get a paper where the autistic person .
So you get a paper where the autistic person .
.
。
.
。
You’re just exploring specific aspects of their extraordinary music ability.
您只是在探索他们非凡音乐能力的具体方面。
You will only mention in passing that they are an outstanding chess player.
你只会顺便提到他们是一位杰出的棋手。
And we don’t know .
我们不知道。
.
。
.
。
We don’t know anything more about that.
我们对此一无所知。
That’s just an example that is actually in the literature.
这只是文献中实际存在的一个例子。
True or false?
是真是假？
Autistics often have a weaker episodic memory, and they’re less likely to think in terms of stories.
自闭症患者的情景记忆通常较弱，他们不太可能用故事来思考。
And when they watch movies or read books, they will pick out very different pieces of information and have very unorthodox readings relative to the mainstream.
当他们看电影或读书时，他们会挑选出非常不同的信息，并且相对于主流有非常非正统的阅读。
I would say that’s very well established, though it is not interpreted that way.
I would say that’s very well established, though it is not interpreted that way.
The way to interpret it is that autistics do not organize information in memory typically — that should not surprise anybody.
解释它的方法是，自闭症患者通常不会在记忆中组织信息——这不应该让任何人感到惊讶。
They do not use narratives to edit things, to organize things.
They do not use narratives to edit things, to organize things.
And that means that they perform very differently on episodic memory tasks and in related tests that require people to organize information into common or popular narratives.
这意味着他们在情景记忆任务和相关测试中的表现非常不同，这些测试要求人们将信息组织成常见或流行的叙述。
On measuring IQ
关于测量智商
There are at least two kinds of IQ tests, and autistics do better on one than on the other.
智商测试至少有两种，自闭症患者在其中一种上的表现要好于另一种。
And some of your best-known research is in this area.
你们最著名的一些研究就是在这个领域。
Tell us the basic finding.
Tell us the basic finding.
There are very different approaches to measuring intelligence.
测量智力的方法有很多种。
One is a battery of tests, as in Wechsler Scales of Intelligence.
One is a battery of tests, as in Wechsler Scales of Intelligence.
You are trying to get at general abilities by using an array of different specific tests, so you’re trying to get at something latent.
你试图通过一系列不同的特定测试来获得一般能力，所以你试图获得一些潜在的能力。
These are specific abilities, but through those, you come up with some kind of latent general ability that we call intelligence or full-scale intelligence.
这些是特定的能力，但通过这些，你会产生某种潜在的一般能力，我们称之为智力或全面智力。
Or you can take one test with one format that is sufficiently complex and difficult that it gets at the same thing, just with one test.
Or you can take one test with one format that is sufficiently complex and difficult that it gets at the same thing, just with one test.
That would be Raven’s Progressive Matrices, a test that has been extremely influential in the entire intelligence literature.
这就是瑞文渐进矩阵，这是一项在整个情报文献中极具影响力的测试。
It’s a very .
这是一个非常.
.
。
.
。
What do those questions look like?
What do those questions look like?
Just give us a very direct intuitive sense.
就给我们一个非常直接的直观感受。
It’s a matrix of entries.
它是一个条目矩阵。
The number varies, and you have the last one in the matrix — the last item in the matrix is missing, and you choose the right one from an array of offered answers.
数字各不相同，矩阵中的最后一项 - 矩阵中的最后一项缺失，你从一系列提供的答案中选择正确的一项。
So, that’s it.
所以，就是这样。
It sounds too simple or easy, but it is a very complex test and a very difficult one.
听起来太简单或太容易，但这是一项非常复杂的测试，也是一项非常困难的测试。
And, in effect, it’s played a large role in defining what general intelligence is.
事实上，它在定义一般智力方面发挥了重要作用。
And which test do autistics tend to do better on and why?
And which test do autistics tend to do better on and why?
Autistics do better on Raven, quite a bit better.
自闭症患者在 Raven 身上表现得更好，好很多。
In some individuals, the discrepancy is spectacular — it’s a lot.
In some individuals, the discrepancy is spectacular — it’s a lot.
So, how they would be judged — again, go to the savant literature, and this was what influenced me to pursue this.
那么，他们将如何被评判——再次，去查阅学者文献，这就是影响我追求这一点的原因。
You’ll have an individual on the savant literature who really cannot perform other tests, would be judged as very intellectually disabled on other tests, effectively can’t perform a receptive language test, much less produce language.
在学者文学中，会有一个人确实无法执行其他测试，在其他测试中会被判断为智力严重障碍，实际上无法执行接受性语言测试，更不用说产生语言了。
And the score is very high on Raven — I mean, better than most of the typical population, all but 1 percent or 2 percent.
Raven 的得分非常高——我的意思是，比大多数典型人群都要好，除了 1% 或 2% 之外。
And again, he had to have the opportunity to do that for us to find that out.
再说一遍，他必须有机会这样做才能让我们找到答案。
There’s a lot of interesting things about that because if you look at the kinds of deficits that have been assumed that autistics have in processing complex information, in executive functioning, in working memory, in all kinds of complex processes, this is what Raven actually demands.
这有很多有趣的事情，因为如果你看看自闭症患者在处理复杂信息、执行功能、工作记忆以及各种复杂过程中所存在的缺陷，就会发现这正是雷文真正需要的。
And what was your role in discovering this differential between the two kinds of IQ tests?
在发现这两种智商测试之间的差异中，您扮演了什么角色？
Your personal role as a researcher?
Your personal role as a researcher?
There was a paper in 2004, and it was one of the first ones I actually looked at in an editing capacity after it was accepted provisionally, and it did find, but very tentatively, that autistics were possibly performing better on Raven than these other tests.
2004 年有一篇论文，这是我在临时接受后以编辑身份实际查看的第一篇论文之一，它确实发现，但只是暂时的，自闭症患者在 Raven 上的表现可能比其他测试更好。
The interpretation in the paper was that Raven wasn’t a good test for autistics.
论文中的解释是，Raven 并不是一个很好的自闭症测试方法。
It must overestimate autistic intelligence.
It must overestimate autistic intelligence.
I thought first that there are other possibilities, and also, I looked around at how Raven was being .
我首先想到了还有其他的可能性，同时我也环视了一下雷文的情况。
.
。
.
。
First off, I had to look at what Raven was and how it was being interpreted in the autism literature, which is that when autistics performed well, it was almost denigrated as a test: “This is just visual-spatial abilities,” and so on.
首先，我必须看看 Raven 是什么，以及它在自闭症文献中是如何解释的，也就是说，当自闭症表现良好时，它几乎被贬低为一种测试：“这只是视觉空间能力”，等等。
And you look in the intelligence literature, and you have this test that is really central in defining human intelligence that is very important and requires all these abilities that autistics supposedly don’t have.
你查看智力文献，你会发现这项测试对于定义人类智力来说非常重要，它非常重要，并且需要自闭症患者所不具备的所有这些能力。
And I thought, “Well, isn’t this worth pursuing?” And it did take a lot of persuasion to go in that direction, to sort of question the commonplace and typical.
我想，“好吧，这不值得追求吗？”确实需要大量说服才能朝这个方向前进，对常见和典型的事物提出质疑。
And this is typical of the autism literature.
And this is typical of the autism literature.
Autistics perform well on the test?
Autistics perform well on the test?
There must be something wrong with the test.
There must be something wrong with the test.
On how autistics process information
On how autistics process information
Before, you offered an understanding or conception of what autism is, a definition.
之前，您提供了对自闭症的理解或概念，以及定义。
But if we get to the nitty-gritty question of what’s the core mechanism or the core difference in autistic brains, some people have suggested there’s some kind of weaker or disabled or maybe more optional form of top-down processing.
但是，如果我们触及自闭症大脑的核心机制或核心差异是什么这一本质问题，一些人认为存在某种较弱或残疾或可能更可选的自上而下处理形式。
So there’s maybe more direct access to smaller bits of information or greater optionality, as to the level at which information is accessed.
因此，就信息访问的级别而言，可能可以更直接地访问较小的信息或更大的选择性。
If you’re characterizing what you think autism actually is, in terms of how the information is processed, what do you think of that hypothesis?
如果您根据信息处理方式来描述您认为的自闭症实际上是什么，您如何看待该假设？
And how would you best articulate how you understand it?
您如何最好地表达您的理解？
Well, it’s my hypothesis, the optionality anyway, that’s me.
好吧，这是我的假设，无论如何，这就是我。
So I’m maybe not the person you should ask.
所以我可能不是你应该问的人。
No, you are the person I should ask.
No, you are the person I should ask.
Now, how do I answer that?
Now, how do I answer that?
These things don’t happen in the proper order if you look at the literature.
如果您查看文献，这些事情不会按正确的顺序发生。
So this came out of, actually, a lovely study done by Isabelle Soulières, who is a PhD student at the time, and she was looking at categorization.
事实上，这是由当时的博士生 Isabelle Soulières 所做的一项可爱的研究得出的，她正在研究分类。
Her field is categorization, and she was looking at how autistic people categorize ellipses.
她的领域是分类，她正在研究自闭症患者如何对省略号进行分类。
The interesting thing about categories is that they distort perception.
类别的有趣之处在于它们会扭曲认知。
People will form a category boundary, let’s say wide ellipses versus skinny ellipses, and where they put the boundary will mean that they distort how they see those things that are just one side or the other of that boundary, even though the difference isn’t any greater than those who are both on one side and both on the other.
人们会形成一个类别边界，比方说宽椭圆与细椭圆，他们把边界放在哪里意味着他们扭曲了他们对边界一侧或另一侧事物的看法，尽管差异并不比那些既在一侧又在另一侧的人大。
The difference between the two is actually the same, but because there’s been this division into two different categories.
两者之间的区别实际上是相同的，但是因为存在分为两个不同的类别。
This is called a discrimination peak.
This is called a discrimination peak.
And you notice that, because it’s found in the typical population, it’s not considered a deficit or biased, it’s considered a peak — something good.
你会注意到，因为它存在于典型人群中，所以它不被认为是赤字或偏见，它被认为是一个峰值 —— 一些好的东西。
So the question was, “Do autistics have this peak?” They’re asked to do two things: Classify these ellipses, which is, in effect, categorize them.
所以问题是，“自闭症患者有这个高峰吗？”他们被要求做两件事：对这些省略号进行分类，这实际上是对它们进行分类。
So can they categorize these ellipses as wide or skinny?
那么他们可以将这些椭圆分类为宽椭圆还是窄椭圆吗？
And you can look and see whether they’re doing this.
你可以看看他们是否正在这样做。
Then, do they produce the discrimination peak?
Then, do they produce the discrimination peak?
The autistics produce this completely typical classification curve.
自闭症患者产生了这条完全典型的分类曲线。
They formed typical categories when this was the task.
当这是任务时，他们形成了典型的类别。
But when they’re asked to discriminate one from another — tell them apart — they did not show a discrimination peak.
但当他们被要求区分彼此时——“区分他们”——他们并没有表现出歧视峰值。
That is to say, they were not biased by the category boundary.
也就是说，他们没有受到类别边界的偏见。
I leapt in on this because this was considered to be a deficit in category formation.
我加入进来是因为这被认为是品类形成的缺陷。
I said, you can’t say that because the autistics, when you ask them to form categories, formed typical categories.
I said, you can’t say that because the autistics, when you ask them to form categories, formed typical categories.
You can’t form more typical categories than that.
你无法形成比这更典型的类别。
The classification curve was identical.
The classification curve was identical.
Then you asked them to discriminate.
Then you asked them to discriminate.
They performed that task.
They performed that task.
That doesn’t mean that they forgot how to categorize.
这并不意味着他们忘记了如何分类。
It means that bias was not useful in performing the discrimination task accurately.
这意味着偏见对于准确执行歧视任务没有用处。
So there came the idea of autonomy.
So there came the idea of autonomy.
This means that discrimination was autonomous in the autistics.
这意味着自闭症患者的歧视是自主的。
It was autonomous from categorization.
It was autonomous from categorization.
In the typical population, even when it wasn’t useful, they formed categories — they had to.
在典型人群中，即使它没有用，他们也会形成类别——他们必须这样做。
So there you have these non-optional categories.
So there you have these non-optional categories.
They form categories even when it produced biases, even when it wasn’t useful for the task.
即使它产生偏见，即使它对任务没有用，他们也会形成类别。
They had to; they had no choice.
他们必须这样做；他们别无选择。
In the autistics, it was optional.
In the autistics, it was optional.
The processes were more autonomous.
这些流程更加自主。
I’ve also called this cognitive versatility.
I’ve also called this cognitive versatility.
It doesn’t mean that autistics can’t do this.
这并不意味着自闭症患者不能做到这一点。
It doesn’t mean that they can’t do what might be thought of as top-down processing, what might be thought of as using priors, or what might be thought of as predictive processing, or whatever.
这并不意味着他们不能做可能被认为是自上而下的处理、可能被认为是使用先验的事情、或者可能被认为是预测处理的事情，等等。
It’s not that they can’t do it.
并不是他们做不到。
It’s that it is not so mandatory or automatic.
It’s that it is not so mandatory or automatic.
It is more optional and more versatile.
It is more optional and more versatile.
With this optionality, does that mean that, on average, autistics are somehow more different from each other than nonautistics are?
有了这种选择性，这是否意味着，平均而言，自闭症患者之间的差异比非自闭症患者之间的差异更大？
You see this fairly striking in the literature.
You see this fairly striking in the literature.
You can see this in the whole predictive processing literature, where there’s one optimal way to process everything, which is amazing.
您可以在整个预测处理文献中看到这一点，其中有一种处理所有内容的最佳方法，这是令人惊奇的。
This is how .
就是这样。
.
。
.
。
supposing, not only within one person but across the entire population, there’s the premise that there is this optimal predictive inference, that there is one optimal way to process everything.
假设，不仅在一个人内部，而且在整个人群中，都有一个前提，即存在这种最佳预测推理，即存在一种处理一切的最佳方法。
So if you have a hierarchy of information processing that is similar across typical people — and I do believe you have that.
因此，如果你有一个与典型人相似的信息处理层次结构 ——我相信你也有这个。
There is some variation, but the hierarchy works in about the same way, so you would get much more similarity .
虽然存在一些差异，但层次结构的工作方式大致相同，因此您会获得更多相似性。
It doesn’t mean that everyone’s similar.
It doesn’t mean that everyone’s similar.
They’re brought up in different places, they have different experiences, they have different genetics, they have different on and on.
他们在不同的地方长大，他们有不同的经历，他们有不同的遗传，他们有不同的东西。
But they have that greater similarity in what they do with information that will make them more similar in what they do with information and that will give them much more in common.
但他们在处理信息方面有更大的相似性，这将使他们在处理信息方面更加相似，这将使他们有更多的共同点。
Autistics do not have that, which makes them not just different from typical people, but quite different from each other.
Autistics do not have that, which makes them not just different from typical people, but quite different from each other.
So this is, I think, being slightly recognized now, that autistic people may be more idiosyncratic.
所以，我认为，现在人们已经稍微认识到，自闭症患者可能更加特殊。
This is where it has popped into the literature.
This is where it has popped into the literature.
There’s a fairly new literature with respect to autism and rare copy variants and de novo copy variants in the genetics of autism.
关于自闭症和自闭症遗传学中的罕见拷贝变异和从头拷贝变异，有相当新的文献。
What do you think we’re learning from these articles?
您认为我们从这些文章中学到了什么？
That we should be less hasty in deciding things about autistic genetics.
我们在决定有关自闭症遗传学的问题时不应该那么仓促。
I think that’s the main message.
I think that’s the main message.
We’re doing this seesaw between .
We’re doing this seesaw between .
.
。
.
。
The de novo rare variant story was just a very big deal.
The de novo rare variant story was just a very big deal.
So you have an entire collection.
所以你有一个完整的收藏。
You have the Simons Simplex Collection, which was really designed to find these, which were assumed to .
你有 Simons Simplex Collection，它实际上是为了找到这些被假定为.
.
。
.
。
If we find these, we will crack autism genetics.
如果我们找到这些，我们就能破解自闭症遗传学。
And just to clarify, you’re saying the literature has shown that autistics are quite different from each other in their mutations?
And just to clarify, you’re saying the literature has shown that autistics are quite different from each other in their mutations?
No, that’s not what I’m saying.
No, that’s not what I’m saying.
I’m saying autistics will be quite different from each other in .
我是说自闭症患者彼此之间会有很大不同。
.
。
.
。
Those are two different issues: how autistics process information and the sort of genetics that may lead to brains that work like autistic brains.
这是两个不同的问题：自闭症患者如何处理信息，以及可能导致大脑像自闭症患者一样工作的遗传学。
I’m not a genetics person.
I’m not a genetics person.
I do cognitive stuff.
我做认知方面的事情。
But I think the genetic stuff is really a cautionary note of leaping to conclusions that .
But I think the genetic stuff is really a cautionary note of leaping to conclusions that .
.
。
.
。
For instance, you have these rare de novo variants that are the real big deal, and even looking for them in the most favorable circumstance possible — that is, you’re looking in families that only have one autistic person — they did not find much.
例如，这些罕见的从头变异才是真正的大问题，即使在尽可能最有利的情况下寻找它们——也就是说，你在只有一个自闭症患者的家庭中寻找——他们也没有找到太多。
But that was the leading story for a long time.
But that was the leading story for a long time.
The seesaw is back to common variants, and we are getting slightly more complicated views — that if you have a rare variant, that doesn’t mean you don’t also have common variants that contribute to how atypically your mind works.
跷跷板又回到了常见的变异，我们得到了稍微复杂的观点——如果你有一种罕见的变异，这并不意味着你没有常见的变异，这些变异会导致你的思维方式异常。
So it’s been this long slog, but it is a cautionary note against any simplistic explanation for autistic genetics.
So it’s been this long slog, but it is a cautionary note against any simplistic explanation for autistic genetics.
I think there has been some progress, but I do think we have real problems in where we’ve looked and how we’ve looked.
I think there has been some progress, but I do think we have real problems in where we’ve looked and how we’ve looked.
Some of that mirrors what has happened generally in genetics.
Some of that mirrors what has happened generally in genetics.
In percentage terms, is autism becoming more common or more frequent over time?
In percentage terms, is autism becoming more common or more frequent over time?
No, autism has not become more prevalent, and there is no reason to believe that it has.
No, autism has not become more prevalent, and there is no reason to believe that it has.
The idea that it has become more prevalent has been very destructive for us in research and to actual autistic people, since the premise .
自前提以来，它变得更加普遍的想法对我们的研究和实际的自闭症患者来说都是非常具有破坏性的。
.
。
.
。
Really, what you’re saying when you say that there’s been a large increase in autism prevalence is, you are saying older autistics don’t exist.
事实上，当你说自闭症患病率大幅上升时，你是在说老年自闭症患者并不存在。
That means we can’t learn anything from them, including from their early development, from their outcomes, from their achievements.
这意味着我们无法从他们身上学到任何东西，包括他们的早期发展、他们的成果、他们的成就。
We just have totally erased them and write them off.
We just have totally erased them and write them off.
So, maybe autistics are being treated worse over time, at least in their roles as children.
So, maybe autistics are being treated worse over time, at least in their roles as children.
Is that possible?
这可能吗？
That is possible.
这是可能的。
It is possible.
这是可能的。
Again, very hard idea to test.
同样，这个想法很难测试。
And it’s one that I wouldn’t even think that I would ever say, but I’ve said it, and I’ve even presented about it, is asking whether an autism diagnosis is more beneficial than harmful.
这是我什至认为我不会说的一个问题，但我已经说过了，我什至已经提出过这个问题，即自闭症诊断是否利大于弊。
Very hard question to investigate.
很难调查的问题。
When there is an actual purpose-built study that does that — obviously has a lot of flaws, but found that the probable autistics who weren’t diagnosed were better off.
当有一项实际的专门研究做到这一点时，“显然有很多缺陷，但发现那些没有被诊断出的可能的自闭症患者的情况会更好。”
And in population-based studies like the one in Korea, the autistics who had not been diagnosed — did not have an existing diagnosis — were much better off.
在像韩国这样的以人群为基础的研究中，那些没有被诊断出来的自闭症患者——没有现有的诊断——情况要好得多。
You often find that autistics who are diagnosed at older rather than earlier ages are better off.
You often find that autistics who are diagnosed at older rather than earlier ages are better off.
This is contrary to everything you’ve ever heard, probably, and so on.
这可能与你听过的一切相反，等等。
I don’t think that those things are being taken seriously enough.
I don’t think that those things are being taken seriously enough.
We definitely are getting data from autistic people who are diagnosed as adults, who seem to be better off than what you find in longitudinal studies of autistics who were diagnosed as children.
我们确实从成年时被诊断出的自闭症患者那里获得了数据，他们的情况似乎比在对儿童时被诊断出的自闭症患者的纵向研究中发现的要好。
All very, very hard to interpret, but the question is raised, and the fact that it is out there.
All very, very hard to interpret, but the question is raised, and the fact that it is out there.
I’m not trying to discourage or encourage anything or give advice in the least, but it speaks to my own concerns — maybe they’ve been futile — about standards, basic standards in research and practice, standards of science, ethics in medicine.
我并不是想劝阻或鼓励任何事情，或者至少提供建议，但它表达了我自己的担忧——“也许它们是徒劳的”——关于标准、研究和实践的基本标准、科学标准、医学伦理。
And these are things I see as human rights issues.
And these are things I see as human rights issues.
They are, to me, a big deal, and we should be very concerned that we are doing things to autistic people that we know produce bad outcomes in anyone.
对我来说，这是一件大事，我们应该非常担心我们对自闭症患者所做的事情，我们知道这些事情会对任何人产生不良后果。
One of my striking takeaways from your work — and just to be clear, I don’t think you’ve ever said or written this in general terms — but just to see the extent to which parents do not necessarily have the actual interests of their children at heart, that parents seem to have a strong bias for children who will be a lot like they are.
我从你的作品中得到的一个显着的收获 ——需要澄清的是，我认为你从来没有笼统地说过或写过这一点 ——只是为了看看父母不一定把孩子的实际利益放在心上，父母似乎对那些与自己非常相似的孩子有强烈的偏见。
And they will take a lot of steps to try to make their children more like them, even if that, in some ways, harms the child from the point of view of the child itself.
他们会采取很多措施，试图让孩子变得更像他们，即使从孩子本身的角度来看，这在某些方面会伤害孩子。
I think a diagnosis is a kind of segregation, and in most other settings, we’re morally very reluctant to segregate.
I think a diagnosis is a kind of segregation, and in most other settings, we’re morally very reluctant to segregate.
But somehow, when it comes to children, we seem really quite willing to segregate.
但不知何故，当涉及到孩子时，我们似乎真的很愿意隔离。
This is a moral split, so to speak, possibly not always for any good reason.
This is a moral split, so to speak, possibly not always for any good reason.
First, I’m going to totally disagree about the parents.
First, I’m going to totally disagree about the parents.
Keep in mind, in autism, you have very, very loud people — loud advocates, loud influential advocates.
请记住，在自闭症方面，有非常非常大声的人——大声的倡导者，大声的有影响力的倡导者。
And those are autistics and nonautistics, professional organizations, people selling services, whatever — very loud advocates.
And those are autistics and nonautistics, professional organizations, people selling services, whatever — very loud advocates.
They are not necessarily representative.
他们不一定具有代表性。
But they are the most influential group, right?
但他们是最有影响力的群体，对吗？
Sure, but you can’t extrapolate from that to parents in general.
Sure, but you can’t extrapolate from that to parents in general.
You just absolutely can’t.
你绝对不能。
The literature is different from what you get from the very loud advocates, and, of course, you have a lot of autistic parents of autistic offspring.
The literature is different from what you get from the very loud advocates, and, of course, you have a lot of autistic parents of autistic offspring.
This is still very poorly studied, but this definitely happens.
This is still very poorly studied, but this definitely happens.
The reproductive fitness, as they call it, of autistics has been wildly underestimated, I think.
我认为，自闭症患者所谓的生殖健康被严重低估了。
This is, again, my own views, a nongenetics person.
This is, again, my own views, a nongenetics person.
So, you have that, but I think you have to be very careful not to confuse advocacy and autism with any group in particular, like parents, or autistics for that matter, their views.
所以，你知道了，但我认为你必须非常小心，不要将倡导和自闭症与任何特定群体（例如父母）或自闭症患者的观点相混淆。
I think that’s a real problem.
我认为这是一个真正的问题。
Now, the segregation thing.
现在，隔离的事情。
I have a massive bias against segregation.
我对种族隔离有很大的偏见。
See, this may be one place where I’m — as an autistic, I have not just a bias, but I have a profound segregation deficit, and anybody who’s tried to segregate me is going to run into that.
看，这可能是我的一个地方——作为一个自闭症患者，我不仅有偏见，而且我有严重的隔离赤字，任何试图隔离我的人都会遇到这种情况。
If you try to segregate me, I’m not going to go there.
If you try to segregate me, I’m not going to go there.
So, it should not be segregation.
所以，不应该是隔离。
DSM should not be segregation, DSM-5 autism, DSM autism is segregation.
DSM不应该隔离，DSM-5自闭症，DSM自闭症就是隔离。
Why?
为什么？
Because the diagnosis segregates autistic people into lower standards of science and ethics than would be acceptable for anybody else.
Because the diagnosis segregates autistic people into lower standards of science and ethics than would be acceptable for anybody else.
That’s what your diagnosis does.
这就是你的诊断的作用。
DSM should not be segregation, DSM-5 autism, DSM autism is segregation.
DSM should not be segregation, DSM-5 autism, DSM autism is segregation.
Why?
为什么？
Because the diagnosis segregates autistic people into lower standards of science and ethics than would be acceptable for anybody else.
因为该诊断将自闭症患者隔离在比其他人可接受的更低的科学和道德标准中。
That’s what your diagnosis does.
这就是你的诊断的作用。
Now, you may be lucky anyway.
现在，无论如何你可能很幸运。
You may encounter extraordinary individuals who know you’re autistic and who will apply good standards of science and ethics to you.
You may encounter extraordinary individuals who know you’re autistic and who will apply good standards of science and ethics to you.
That certainly happens, but you must be lucky.
这肯定会发生，但你必须幸运。
Now, you may be lucky anyway.
现在，无论如何你可能很幸运。
You may encounter extraordinary individuals who know you’re autistic and who will apply good standards of science and ethics to you.
You may encounter extraordinary individuals who know you’re autistic and who will apply good standards of science and ethics to you.
That certainly happens, but you must be lucky.
这肯定会发生，但你必须幸运。
It will not be the more taken for granted, where the exception is that you’ll be denied these standards, and if you are, there will be recourse.
这不会被认为是理所当然的，例外的是你将被拒绝这些标准，如果你是，将会有追索权。
In autism, that is not the case.
自闭症患者的情况并非如此。
So, to me, that is a segregation.
所以，对我来说，这是一种隔离。
I can’t speak to the other diagnoses.
我无法谈论其他诊断。
I’ve looked very hard and have not found a situation like you have in autism, where you have these unacceptably low standards that are universally advocated for, and that there was no advocacy in the other direction, and the influence of advocacy is just completely determinative.
我查得很仔细，没有发现像自闭症那样的情况，普遍提倡的标准低得令人无法接受，而另一个方向却没有倡导，而倡导的影响完全是决定性的。
On autistics in the workforce
关于劳动力中的自闭症
As you know, there’s a Danish firm called Specialisterne, right?
你知道，有一家丹麦公司叫 Specialisterne，对吧？
And they make a point of hiring autistic people to do things such as programming.
And they make a point of hiring autistic people to do things such as programming.
Is that, in your view, an instance of possibly unjust or harmful segregation?
在您看来，这是否是一个可能不公正或有害的种族隔离的例子？
If you’re autistic and you want to be in the workforce in a way that is not very potentially harmful to you, you would be wise to seek out enterprises like this because they are .
If you’re autistic and you want to be in the workforce in a way that is not very potentially harmful to you, you would be wise to seek out enterprises like this because they are .
.
。
.
。
First off, obviously, they shouldn’t be necessary.
First off, obviously, they shouldn’t be necessary.
Obviously, autistics should be able to go into the workforce like everybody else, be respected for their abilities.
显然，自闭症患者应该能够像其他人一样进入劳动力市场，并因其能力而受到尊重。
Not be discriminated against due to their job-unrelated atypicalities, job-irrelevant atypicalities.
不因与工作无关的非典型性、与工作无关的非典型性而受到歧视。
That is not the case, so you have autistic people who, as employees, are being very much underappreciated and undervalued.
That is not the case, so you have autistic people who, as employees, are being very much underappreciated and undervalued.
So you have these organizations.
所以你有这些组织。
And it’s massive.
而且规模很大。
You have these huge efforts to get autistics employed under the umbrella of these.
You have these huge efforts to get autistics employed under the umbrella of these.
“We will test these autistics.
“我们将对这些自闭症患者进行测试。
We will hire them out to firms.
我们将把他们雇佣给公司。
We will get the firms used to having autistics around.
我们会让公司习惯自闭症患者的存在。
We will coach people through things.” And so on.
我们将通过事情来指导人们。”等等。
This allows autistics to be in the workforce in a much less precarious way than they would if they simply went out in the world and then had to face this sort of problem of being denied basic rights and standards, which is just a very precarious situation.
This allows autistics to be in the workforce in a much less precarious way than they would if they simply went out in the world and then had to face this sort of problem of being denied basic rights and standards, which is just a very precarious situation.
You may be lucky, but you would have to know it’s only luck.
你可能很幸运，但你必须知道这只是运气。
No matter how hard you work, no matter how good your work is, your situation is very precarious.
无论你多么努力，无论你的工作多么出色，你的处境都是很不稳定的。
Whereas under them .
而在他们之下。
.
。
.
。
You know what?
你知道吗？
I’m trying to think of the right term.
我正在努力想出正确的术语。
You’re almost endorsed.
你几乎已经被认可了。
You’re an endorsed autistic, or you have this stamp of approval.
你是一个被认可的自闭症患者，或者你有这个认可印记。
And that indicates to the employer that they should treat you in a certain way.
这向雇主表明他们应该以某种方式对待你。
That will improve your chances greatly and make you in a much less precarious situation.
这将大大提高你的机会，并使你的处境不再那么危险。
And yes, it is a form of segregation, of saying “Yes, this is what we should do to get autistics employed.” Now, it’s very hard to argue against that in the current situation.
是的，这是一种隔离形式，是说“是的，这就是我们应该做的事情来让自闭症患者就业。”现在，在目前的情况下很难反驳这一点。
If you think of the United States, there has been such a thing as gay identity politics.
如果你想想美国，就会发现同性恋身份政治这样的事情。
Those groups have fought for the legalization of gay marriage, and they achieved that.
这些团体为同性婚姻合法化而奋斗，他们实现了这一目标。
I would say that’s a very good thing.
我想说这是一件非常好的事情。
It’s spread to many parts of the world, often before the United States.
它已传播到世界许多地方，通常先于美国。
Should there be some kind of comparable identity politics for autistics, given that in some ways it has helped gay individuals?
鉴于自闭症在某些方面帮助了同性恋者，是否应该为自闭症患者制定某种类似的身份政治？
Oh my goodness.
哦，我的天啊。
So, no. No.
所以，不。不。
Why not?
为什么不呢？
I’m not even sure .
我什至都不确定。
.
。
.
。
Well, first off, I’m going to say that what helped gay individuals is having human rights and the benefit and protection of basic standards in science and ethics.
好吧，首先，我要说的是，对同性恋者有帮助的是拥有人权以及科学和道德基本标准的利益和保护。
I think that’s what autistics are missing, not identity politics.
我认为这就是自闭症患者所缺少的，而不是身份政治。
On the Michelle Dawson production function
关于米歇尔·道森生产函数
Michelle and I have a coauthored piece on Alan Turing.
米歇尔和我合着了一篇关于艾伦·图灵的文章。
Maybe we’ll get to that next time.
也许我们下次会讨论这个问题。
My last question is on what I call the Michelle Dawson production function.
我的最后一个问题是关于我所说的米歇尔·道森生产函数。
You know a great deal about autism.
你对自闭症了解很多。
How is it that, given your history — you were not trained as an autism researcher in the formal sense — but how is it that you learn about autism?
考虑到你的历史，你并没有接受过正式意义上的自闭症研究者的培训，但你是如何了解自闭症的呢？
I had to.
我不得不这么做。
It came out of my situation being terrible, so I was quite motivated.
因为我的处境很糟糕，所以我很有动力。
I had been told over and over again that I was too stupid — no other way to put it — to understand autism research.
有人一遍又一遍地告诉我，我太愚蠢了——“没有其他方式可以这么说”——无法理解自闭症研究。
I tried other avenues.
我尝试了其他途径。
I was in a very difficult situation legally .
我在法律上处于非常困难的境地。
.
。
.
。
everything, really.
一切，真的。
Because I had to address these legal issues and questions, I did actually look at the autism literature, and suddenly I had information I could really work with.
因为我必须解决这些法律问题和疑问，所以我确实查阅了自闭症文献，突然间我有了可以真正使用的信息。
Suddenly there it was, this information that I was supposed to be too stupid to work with.
突然间，我被认为太愚蠢而无法处理这些信息。
And I can tell you that view continues onwards, that I’m still too stupid to work with the literature.
我可以告诉你，这种观点仍在继续，我仍然太愚蠢，无法与文学打交道。
But what I’ve found is that the information I really needed was in these papers, so I read a lot, a lot of papers.
但我发现我真正需要的信息就在这些论文中，所以我读了很多很多论文。
I read a lot of papers.
我读了很多论文。
I have not been taught how or what or where to read or anything.
没有人教我如何阅读、阅读什么内容、在哪里阅读等。
I read a lot of papers.
我读了很多论文。
I read associated information, like a trial registration, grant information, to get the information as complex and as useful as possible.
我阅读相关信息，例如试用注册、拨款信息，以获取尽可能复杂且有用的信息。
Michelle Dawson.
米歇尔·道森。
Thank you very much.
非常感谢。
Thank you.
谢谢。