Daniel Tammet is author of two books, Born on a Blue Day and Embracing the Wide Sky, the latter of which came out in January. He is also a linguist and holds the European record for reciting the first 22,514 digits of the mathematical constant pi. Scientific American Mind contributing editor Jonah Lehrer chats with Tammet about the way his memory works, why the IQ test is overrated, and a possible explanation for extraordinary feats of creativity.

Scientific American Mind: Your recent memoir, Born on a Blue Day, documented your life as an autistic savant. You describe, for example, how you are able to quickly learn new languages and remember scenes from years earlier in cinematic detail. Are you ever surprised by your own abilities?

Daniel Tammet: I have always thought of abstract information—numbers, for example—in visual, dynamic form. Numbers assume complex, multidimensional shapes in my head that I manipulate to form the solution to sums or compare when determining whether they are prime or not.

For languages, I do something similar in terms of thinking of words as belonging to clusters of meaning so that each piece of vocabulary makes sense according to its place in my mental architecture for that language. In this way, I can easily discern relations between words, which helps me to remember them.

In my mind, numbers and words are far more than squiggles of ink on a page. They have form, color, texture, and so on. They come alive to me, which is why as a young child I thought of them as my “friends.” I think this is why my memory is very deep, because the information is not static. I say in my book that I do not crunch numbers (like a computer). Rather I dance with them.

None of this is particularly surprising for me. I have always thought in this way so it seems entirely natural. What I do find surprising is that other people do not think in the same way. I find it hard to imagine a world where numbers and words are not how I experience them!

Mind: In Embracing the Wide Sky, you criticize the IQ test as a vast oversimplification of intelligence. You write: “There is no such thing as proofs of intelligence, only intelligence.” Could you explain what you mean by that?

Tammet:When I was a child, my behavior was far from being what most people would label “intelligent.” It was often limited, repetitive and antisocial. I could not do many of the things that most people take for granted, such as looking someone in the eye or deciphering a person’s body language, and only acquired these skills with much effort over time. I also struggled to learn many of the techniques for spelling or doing sums taught in class because they did not match my own style of thinking.

I know from my own experience that there is much more to intelligence than an IQ number. In fact, I hesitate to believe that any system could really reflect the complexity and uniqueness of one person’s mind or meaningfully describe the nature of his or her potential.

The bell curve distribution for IQ scores tells us that two thirds of the world’s population has an IQ somewhere between 85 and 115. This means that some four and a half billion people around the globe share just 31 numerical values (“he’s a 94,” “you’re a 110,” “I’m a 103”), equivalent to 150 million people worldwide sharing the same IQ score. This sounds a lot to me like astrology, which lumps everyone into one of 12 signs of the zodiac.

Even if we cannot measure and assign precise values to it in any “scientific” way, I do very much think that intelligence exists and that it varies in the actions of each person. The concept is a useful and important one for scientists and educators alike. My objection is to thinking that any “test” of a person’s intelligence is up to the task. Rather we should focus on ensuring that the fundamentals (literacy, etcetera) are well taught and that each child’s diverse talents are encouraged and nourished.

Mind:You also describe some recent scientific studies on what happens inside the brain when we learn a second language. Do you think this research should change the way we teach languages?

Tammet:Thanks to the advances in modern ­scanning technology, we know more today than ever before just what’s happening inside the brain when we’re learning a language. That we can speak at all is nothing less than an astonishing cognitive achievement.

Learning a second language, particularly when that language is not one that the person has to use on a regular basis, is an extremely difficult task. I think it is a mistake to underestimate the challenges of it. Students should be aware that the difficulties they will face are inherent in what they are doing and not any failing on their part.

One of the most interesting scientific discoveries about how language works (and how it could be taught) is “phonaesthesia”—that certain sounds have a meaningful relation to the things they describe. For example, in many languages the vowel sound “i” is associated with smallness—little, tiny, petite, niño, and so on—whereas the sound “a” or “o” is associated with largeness—grand, gross, gordo, etcetera. Such links have been found in many of the world’s languages. These findings strongly imply that learners would benefit from learning to draw on their own natural intuitions to help them understand and remember many of the foreign words that they come across.

Another finding, by cognitive psychologists Lera Boroditsky, Lauren A. Schmidt and Webb Phillips, might also offer a useful insight into an important part of learning a second language. The researchers asked German and Spanish native speakers to think of adjectives to describe a range of objects, such as a key. The German speakers, for whom the word “key” is masculine, gave adjectives such as “hard,” “heavy,” “jagged” and “metal,” whereas the Spanish speakers, for whom “key” is feminine, gave responses such as “golden,” “little,” “lovely” and “shiny.” This result suggests that native speakers of languages that have gendered nouns remember the different categorization for each by attending to differing characteristics, depending on whether the noun is “male” or “female.” It is plausible that second-language learners could learn to perceive various nouns in a similar way to help them remember the correct gender.

Regardless of how exactly a person learns a second language, we do know for sure that it is very good for your brain. There is good evidence that language learning helps individuals to abstract information, focus attention, and may even help ward off age-related declines in mental performance.

Mind:You advocate a theory of creativity defined by a cognitive property you call “hyperconnectivity.” Could you explain?

Tammet:I am unusually creative—from visualizing numerical landscapes composed of random strings of digits to the invention of my own words and concepts in numerous languages. Where does this creativity come from?

My brain has developed a little differently from most other people’s. Aside from my high-functioning autism, I also suffered from epileptic seizures as a young child. In my book, I propose a link between my brain’s functioning and my creative abilities based on the property of hyperconnectivity.

In most people, the brain’s major functions are performed separately and not allowed to interfere with one another. Scientists have found that in some brain disorders, however, including autism and epilepsy, cross-communication can occur between normally distinct brain regions. My theory is that rare forms of creative imagination are the result of an extraordinary convergence of normally disconnected thoughts, memories, feelings and ideas. Indeed, such hyperconnectivity within the brain may well lie at the heart of all forms of exceptional creativity.

Mind:How were you able to recite from memory the first 22,514 numbers of pi? And do you have advice for people looking to improve their own memory?

Tammet:As I have already mentioned, numbers to me have their own shapes, colors and textures. Various studies have long demonstrated that being able to visualize information makes it easier to remember. In addition, my number shapes are semantically meaningful, which is to say that I am able to visualize their relation to other numbers. A simple example would be the number 37, which is lumpy like oatmeal, and 111, which is similarly lumpy but also round like the number three (being 37 × 3). Where you might see an endless string of random digits when looking at the decimals of pi, my mind is able to “chunk” groups of these numbers spontaneously into meaningful visual images that constitute their own hierarchy of associations.

Using your imagination is one very good way to improve your own memory. For example, actors who have to remember hundreds or even thousands of lines of a script do so by actively analyzing them and imagining the motivations and goals of their characters. Many also imagine having to explain the meaning of their lines to another person, which has been shown to significantly improve their subsequent recall.

Here is another tip from my book. Researchers have found that you are more likely to remember something if the place or situation in which you are trying to recall the information bears some resemblance—color or smell, for example—to where you originally learned it.

題記：丹尼爾.塔曼特是《誕生于憂郁日子》和《擁抱廣闊天空》這兩本書的作者，后者是一月才出版的。他是個語言學家，擁有驚人的記憶數字能力，能將圓周率背誦到小數點后面第22514位。《科學美國人》心智欄目特約編輯約拿.萊勒爾給塔曼特做了一個訪談，他們聊了他記憶的方式、為什么對IQ測試作用被高估了以及他非同尋常創(chuàng)造力產生的可能原因。

約拿.萊勒爾：你最近的回憶錄——《誕生于憂郁日子》——描述了你作為孤獨癥天才的生活，比如，你怎么能快速學會新語言以及怎樣記住很早以前看過的電影場景的細節(jié)。你還會因自己的天賦感到驚奇嗎？

丹尼爾.塔曼特：我一直以視覺化、動態(tài)化的方式去想象諸如數字類的抽象信息。在我的大腦中數字呈現出復雜、多面的形狀，所以我能從個別到整體熟練操控，在做對比時也能決定他們是否重要。

對于語言，我做類似的思維，想象每個詞都有屬于集群的意義，根據其在我精神結構里的位置使每個詞匯都有自己獨特的意義。這樣，我可以很輕易地分辨詞與詞之間的區(qū)別，這有助于我記住它們。

在我看來，數字和文字的意義遠遠超過紙上用墨水書寫出來的字體。它們有形式，顏色，紋理，等等，它們對我來說是栩栩如生的，這就是為什么在孩提時期我把它們當“朋友”。我想這就是為什么我的記憶是非常深刻的，因為這些信息不是靜態(tài)的。我在書中說，我不是像計算機一樣死讀硬記數字，確切地說，我是與它們跳舞。

這一切都不是令我特別驚訝的，我一直認為這樣做看上去是完全自然的。真正讓我驚訝的是其他人并不以同樣的方式思考。我很難想象如果數字和文字不是我體驗的這樣，那世界會是什么樣子！

萊勒爾：在《擁抱廣闊天空》里，你批評IQ測試是一種過于簡單化的理解力的、測試。你寫道：“沒什么能作為理解力的證據，只有理解力本身。”你能解釋一下你的意思嗎？

塔曼特：當我還是孩子的時候，我的行為遠遠不會被大多數人貼上“聰明”的標簽。它往往是有限的，重復性的，不合群的。我不會做大多數人認為理所當然的許多事情，如說話時注視別人的眼睛或琢磨別人的身體語言，僅僅學會這些技巧就要花費很多時間。我也很努力學習許多拼寫手法或做課堂總結，因為他們不符合我的思維風格。

我從切身體驗里發(fā)現智力遠比IQ數據的內涵深刻。實際上，我很懷疑有能真正反映一個人心智的復雜和獨特的系統(tǒng)，并且能很大程度上描述他或她潛力的本質。

智商分布鐘形曲線告訴我們世界上2/3的人擁有85到115之間的智商。這就意味著全球大概有幾十億人共享著31個數值。（“他是94，”“你是110，”“我是103，”）相當于1.5億人用著同一個智商分數。對我來說，這聽上去就像占星術——把所有人都勉強塞進黃道十二宮。

盡管我們不能測試、不能以科學的方式精確定位智力，但我堅信它存在，并因人的反應而變化。對于科學家和從事教育的人士來說，這個概念有益且重要。我反對的是把一個人智力的測試作為一項任務。從某種程度上說，我們應該把焦點放在關注基本的讀寫能力上，這樣每個孩子不同的天資才能被挖掘、激勵并得到培養(yǎng)。

萊勒爾：您還描述了最近的一些科學研究，關于我們學習第二語言時大腦內發(fā)生的事情。你認為這項研究會該改變我們教語言的方法嗎？

塔曼特：由于現代掃描技術的發(fā)展，我們知道了更多在我學習第二語言時我們大腦內發(fā)生的事情，我們可說的是這是驚人的認知成就。學習第二語言——尤其是當這種語言對于這個人來說不常用時——是一項極為艱巨的任務。我認為低估了它的挑戰(zhàn)是錯誤的。學生應該知道，他們將面臨的困難是語言本身所固有的，而不是他們自己不行。

有一個關于語言怎樣運行（怎樣被教授）的很有趣的科學發(fā)現叫“音義聯覺”——某些聲音跟它們描述的事物有意義上的聯系。比如，在很多語言中元音聲“i”給小相關聯——小、少、嬌小、缺乏等等，而“a”或“o”的音跟大相關聯——壯觀、總的、盛大的等等。這些關聯在世界上很多語言里都能找到。這些發(fā)現強烈地暗示學習者能從自身自覺建立的關聯體系中受益，這能幫助他們理解并記憶遇到的很多外語詞匯。

認知心理學家Lera Boroditsky, Lauren A. Schmidt和Webb Phillips的另一項發(fā)現可能也能提供學習第二語言關鍵部分的有用視角。研究人員要求以德語和西班牙語為母語的人想形容詞來描述各種對象，比如，鑰匙。對于講德語的人，“鑰匙”是男性化的，給出的形容詞是“硬的”，“冰冷的”，“沉重的”，“參差不齊的”，“金屬的”；而對于講西班牙語的人，“鑰匙”是女性化的，他給出的形容詞是“金黃的”，“小巧的”，“可愛的”和“亮閃閃的”。這個結果表明講本族語言的人依靠這個詞是否是“女性的”或“男性的”來定位詞性，以區(qū)別它們的特征。第二語言學習者可以以同樣的方式學習認識各種名詞，幫助他們記住正確的詞性，這是合理的。

無論一個人如何準確學習第二語言，我們確實知道這對大腦很有益。有足夠的證據顯示語言學習有助于個人抓取信息、集中注意力，甚至可能幫助避開與年齡有關的神智機能的下降。

萊勒爾：您提倡一個由認知特性（你稱為超度連接）定義的創(chuàng)新理論，能解釋一下嗎？

塔曼特：我非常有創(chuàng)造性，從由隨機字符串組成的可視化用數字表示的景觀到在許多語言中發(fā)明自己的文字和概念。這些創(chuàng)造性來自哪里呢？

我的大腦發(fā)育得跟大多數人的大腦有些不一樣，除了嚴重的自閉癥，我小時候還受癲癇發(fā)作的折磨。在我的書中，我認為我的大腦運作和創(chuàng)新能力之間有超連接性聯系。

大部分人的大腦的主要功能是分別獨立執(zhí)行的，相互之間互不干擾。但是，科學家發(fā)現很多腦功能紊亂者，包括自閉癥和癲癇，在正常的大腦區(qū)域內交互溝通能夠發(fā)生。我的理論是，罕見創(chuàng)造性想象力的形式是正常思維、記憶、感情和想法斷開的結果。

萊勒爾：您怎么能按記憶背誦圓周率的前22514位呢？能不能給渴望提高自身記憶力的人們一些建議？

塔曼特：像我前面提過的，數字對我來說是有它們各自形狀、顏色和紋理的。各種研究也證實了形象化信息更易于記憶。另外，我對數字的形象化在語義學上是有意義的，也就是說我能給數字形象化的意義。拿37來做一個簡單的例子吧，它就像燕麥片一樣粗壯，111也一樣笨笨的，像數字3。在你眼中你可能覺得圓周率就是一連串很隨機的數字，但在我的世界里它們都有形象的意義，組成一個有等級的組織。

想象是提高記憶力的一個很好的方法，比如，演員需要記成百上千條臺詞，可以通過分析、想象人物形象的目的和動機來記憶。很多人還想象把這些臺詞的意思解釋給另外一個人，這被證明能顯著完善后來的回憶。

在我的書中還有一些其他的建議，研究人員發(fā)現如果那個地方或情形你能夠借助一些關聯（如：你最開始接觸的顏色或味道）勾起回憶，你可能更容易記得這些事情。