had this bubble-lettered, rainbow-colored sign

有這樣一個氣泡字的彩虹色標誌

in her classroom that says,

在她的教室裡，寫著。

"Fair is not everyone getting the same thing.

"公平是指不是每個人都得到同樣的東西。

Fair is everyone getting what they need to succeed."

公平是每個人都得到他們需要的東西，以獲得成功。"

Genetics is a tool for seeing, what do people need

遺傳學是一種看的工具，人們需要什麼？

to move away from this idea of,

擺脫這種想法的。

'We can achieve fairness just by treating every student

'我們可以通過對待每一個學生來實現公平

exactly the same.'

'完全一樣。

Art Goldberger was an economist in the 1970s,

Art Goldberger是20世紀70年代的經濟學家。

and he was very critical of the idea that genetics

而且他對遺傳學的觀點非常責備

meant that something couldn't be intervened on.

意味著不能對某些事情進行干預。

And his classic example was eyeglasses-

而他的經典例子是眼鏡--

that if you have a genetic predisposition

如果你有遺傳易感性

towards poor eyesight,

對視力不佳。

we've invested in developing a technology

我們已經投資開發了一項技術

that can help you see, and it's an environmental one,

這可以幫助你看到，而且是一個環境問題。

and we apply it for as long as people need.

而且我們在人們需要的時候就會應用它。

We don't give it to them for just one day and be like,

我們不會只給他們一天的時間，就像。

"Well, you've had your intervention,

"好吧，你已經有了你的干預。

like, why are you still complaining?"

比如，你為什麼還在抱怨？"

People get to keep their eyeglasses.

人們可以保留他們的眼鏡。

They get to have a sustained intervention.

他們得到了持續的干預。

I love the Goldberger example because it both shows

我喜歡Goldberger的例子，因為它既顯示了

that genetically-influenced things can be changed

遺傳影響的東西是可以改變的

by the environment,

由環境決定。

but also reminds us that the environments

但也提醒我們，環境

might need to be sustained.

可能需要維持。

They might not be able to be these kind of one-time nudges.

他們可能無法成為這種一次性的催促。

A lot of researchers, a lot of educators,

很多研究人員，很多教育工作者。

a lot of policy makers have great intentions,

很多政策制定者都有很好的意圖。

and yet our ability to execute,

然而我們的執行能力。

our ability to actually pull off interventions

我們實際完成干預的能力

that make a positive difference is really disappointing.

做出積極的改變，這真的令人失望。

Most of the things that we try in education,

我們在教育方面所嘗試的大多數事情。

even when they're very well-funded,

即使他們的資金非常充足。

make absolutely no difference in children's lives.

對兒童的生活完全沒有影響。

So that says that we need to improve our basic science.

是以，這說明我們需要改進我們的基礎科學。

All of our policies, all of our interventions

我們所有的政策，我們所有的干預措施

are based on a model of:

是基於一個模型的。

what causes what in the world?

世界上有什麼原因？

We have a model of how the world works,

我們有一個關於世界如何運作的模型。

and then we tinker with it.

然後我們對它進行修補。

If our tinkering doesn't work,

如果我們的修補工作不成功。

that suggests that our model of the world is wrong.

這表明我們的世界模型是錯誤的。

So I think genetics can be used as a tool

所以我認為遺傳學可以作為一種工具來使用

to improve our understanding of the way the world works,

以提高我們對世界運作方式的理解。

which ultimately can improve our ability

這最終可以提高我們的能力

to intervene in that world.

來干預那個世界。

auticon is this company that selectively recruits people

auticon是一家有選擇地招募人員的公司。

with Autism spectrum disorders,

患有自閉症譜系障礙的人。

and deliberately designs the physical environment

並刻意設計物理環境

and working environment to accommodate their neurodiversity.

和工作環境，以適應他們的神經多樣性。

So there aren't loud, fluorescent lights.

所以沒有嘈雜的熒光燈。

There isn't a workplace culture

沒有一種工作場所文化

that depends on picking up on really subtle social cues-

這取決於能否捕捉到真正微妙的社會線索 --

everything, all the feedback is given back very explicitly.

所有的事情，所有的反饋都是非常明確地反饋。

I think this is a fascinating example

我認為這是一個迷人的例子

of thinking about,

的思考。

how do you acknowledge

如何確認

differences in functioning, and create a space

功能上的差異，並創造一個空間

where people participate as equals?

在那裡人們平等地參與？

What if we thought about our educational spaces

如果我們對我們的教育空間進行思考

in the same way?

以同樣的方式？

If 90% of children had ADHD and only 10% of children

如果90%的兒童患有多動症，而只有10%的兒童

could sit still in a desk,

可以在桌子上坐著不動。

how would we design school?

我們將如何設計學校？

Those are the sorts of thought experiments

這就是那種思想上的實驗

I want people to be engaged in.

我希望人們能夠參與進來。