评论
打印
My own daughter's preschool class had this bubble-lettered, rainbow-colored sign in her classroom that says, "Fair is not everyone getting the same thing.
我女儿所在的学前班教室里有一个彩虹色的泡沫字母牌子，上面写着:“公平并不是所有人都得到一样的东西。
Fair is everyone getting what they need to succeed."
公平是每个人都能获得他们成功所需要的东西。”
Genetics is a tool for seeing, what do people need to move away from this idea of, 'We can achieve fairness just by treating every student exactly the same.'
遗传学是帮助人们看到自己需要什么的一种工具，抛弃这种想法：用完全相同的方式对待每个学生，我们就能实现公平。
Art Goldberger was an economist in the 1970s, and he was very critical of the idea that genetics meant that something couldn't be intervened on.
阿特·戈德伯格是20世纪70年代的一名经济学家，他对遗传学意味着某些东西无法干预的观点持批评态度。
And his classic example was eyeglasses- that if you have a genetic predisposition towards poor eyesight, we've invested in developing a technology
他的经典例子是眼镜——如果你有视力不好的遗传倾向，我们已经投资开发了一项技术，
that can help you see, and it's an environmental one, and we apply it for as long as people need.
它能帮你恢复视力，而且它属于环境因素，人们需要多久就可以用多久。
We don't give it to them for just one day and be like,
我们并不是只给他们用一天，就说，
"Well, you've had your intervention, like, why are you still complaining?"
“好吧，你已经接受了干预，怎么还在抱怨呢?”
People get to keep their eyeglasses.
人们可以把眼镜留着。
They get to have a sustained intervention.
他们接受的是持续的干预。
I love the Goldberger example because it both shows that genetically-influenced things can be changed by the environment, but also reminds us that the environments might need to be sustained.
我喜欢戈德伯格的例子，因为它既表明受基因影响的事物可以被环境改变，也提醒我们环境干预可能需要持续存在。
They might not be able to be these kind of one-time nudges.
可能并不是一次性推动就能解决的。
A lot of researchers, a lot of educators, a lot of policy makers have great intentions, and yet our ability to execute, our ability to actually pull off interventions that make a positive difference is really disappointing.
很多研究人员，很多教育工作者，很多政策制定者都有很好的初衷，但是我们的执行能力，我们实施干预并产生积极影响的能力却让人失望。
Most of the things that we try in education, even when they're very well-funded, make absolutely no difference in children's lives.
我们在教育方面所做的大多数努力，即使资金充足，也不会对孩子们的生活产生任何影响。
So that says that we need to improve our basic science.
这就意味着我们需要改善我们的基础科学。
All of our policies, all of our interventions are based on a model of:
我们所有的政策，所有的干预措施都是基于以下模式:
what causes what in the world?
世间万物的原因都是什么?
We have a model of how the world works, and then we tinker with it.
我们有一个世界运行的模型，然后对它进行修补。
If our tinkering doesn't work, that suggests that our model of the world is wrong.
如果我们的修修补补不起作用，那就表明这个世界模型是错的。
So I think genetics can be used as a tool to improve our understanding of the way the world works, which ultimately can improve our ability to intervene in that world.
所以我认为遗传学可以作为一种工具来提高我们对世界运行方式的理解，这最终可以提高我们干预世界的能力。
Auticon is this company that selectively recruits people with Autism spectrum disorders, and deliberately designs the physical environment and working environment to accommodate their neurodiversity.
Auticon是一家有选择性地招募自闭症谱系障碍患者的公司，并特意设计了物理环境和工作环境来适应他们的神经多样性。
So there aren't loud, fluorescent lights.
所以这里没有吵闹的荧光灯。
There isn't a workplace culture that depends on picking up on really subtle social cues- everything, all the feedback is given back very explicitly.
没有依赖于捕捉微妙的社交线索的职场文化——所有东西，所有的反馈都是非常明确地给出的。
I think this is a fascinating example of thinking about, how do you acknowledge differences in functioning, and create a space where people participate as equals?
我认为这是一个很有趣的思考例子，你如何承认功能上的差异，并创造一个人们平等参与的空间?
What if we thought about our educational spaces in the same way?
如果我们用同样的方式来思考教育空间会怎样?
If 90% of children had ADHD and only 10% of children could sit still in a desk, how would we design school?
如果90%的孩子患有多动症，只有10%的孩子可以安静地坐在座位上，那我们该如何设计学校呢?
Those are the sorts of thought experiments I want people to be engaged in.
这些都是我希望人们去参与的思想实验。
