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.

题记：丹尼尔.塔曼特是《诞生于忧郁日子》和《拥抱广阔天空》这两本书的作者，后者是一月才出版的。他是个语言学家，拥有惊人的记忆数字能力，能将圆周率背诵到小数点后面第22514位。《科学美国人》心智栏目特约编辑约拿.莱勒尔给塔曼特做了一个访谈，他们聊了他记忆的方式、为什么对IQ测试作用被高估了以及他非同寻常创造力产生的可能原因。

约拿.莱勒尔：你最近的回忆录——《诞生于忧郁日子》——描述了你作为孤独症天才的生活，比如，你怎么能快速学会新语言以及怎样记住很早以前看过的电影场景的细节。你还会因自己的天赋感到惊奇吗？

丹尼尔.塔曼特：我一直以视觉化、动态化的方式去想象诸如数字类的抽象信息。在我的大脑中数字呈现出复杂、多面的形状，所以我能从个别到整体熟练操控，在做对比时也能决定他们是否重要。

对于语言，我做类似的思维，想象每个词都有属于集群的意义，根据其在我精神结构里的位置使每个词汇都有自己独特的意义。这样，我可以很轻易地分辨词与词之间的区别，这有助于我记住它们。

在我看来，数字和文字的意义远远超过纸上用墨水书写出来的字体。它们有形式，颜色，纹理，等等，它们对我来说是栩栩如生的，这就是为什么在孩提时期我把它们当“朋友”。我想这就是为什么我的记忆是非常深刻的，因为这些信息不是静态的。我在书中说，我不是像计算机一样死读硬记数字，确切地说，我是与它们跳舞。

这一切都不是令我特别惊讶的，我一直认为这样做看上去是完全自然的。真正让我惊讶的是其他人并不以同样的方式思考。我很难想象如果数字和文字不是我体验的这样，那世界会是什么样子！

莱勒尔：在《拥抱广阔天空》里，你批评IQ测试是一种过于简单化的理解力的、测试。你写道：“没什么能作为理解力的证据，只有理解力本身。”你能解释一下你的意思吗？

塔曼特：当我还是孩子的时候，我的行为远远不会被大多数人贴上“聪明”的标签。它往往是有限的，重复性的，不合群的。我不会做大多数人认为理所当然的许多事情，如说话时注视别人的眼睛或琢磨别人的身体语言，仅仅学会这些技巧就要花费很多时间。我也很努力学习许多拼写手法或做课堂总结，因为他们不符合我的思维风格。

我从切身体验里发现智力远比IQ数据的内涵深刻。实际上，我很怀疑有能真正反映一个人心智的复杂和独特的系统，并且能很大程度上描述他或她潜力的本质。

智商分布钟形曲线告诉我们世界上2/3的人拥有85到115之间的智商。这就意味着全球大概有几十亿人共享着31个数值。（“他是94，”“你是110，”“我是103，”）相当于1.5亿人用着同一个智商分数。对我来说，这听上去就像占星术——把所有人都勉强塞进黄道十二宫。

尽管我们不能测试、不能以科学的方式精确定位智力，但我坚信它存在，并因人的反应而变化。对于科学家和从事教育的人士来说，这个概念有益且重要。我反对的是把一个人智力的测试作为一项任务。从某种程度上说，我们应该把焦点放在关注基本的读写能力上，这样每个孩子不同的天资才能被挖掘、激励并得到培养。

莱勒尔：您还描述了最近的一些科学研究，关于我们学习第二语言时大脑内发生的事情。你认为这项研究会该改变我们教语言的方法吗？

塔曼特：由于现代扫描技术的发展，我们知道了更多在我学习第二语言时我们大脑内发生的事情，我们可说的是这是惊人的认知成就。学习第二语言——尤其是当这种语言对于这个人来说不常用时——是一项极为艰巨的任务。我认为低估了它的挑战是错误的。学生应该知道，他们将面临的困难是语言本身所固有的，而不是他们自己不行。

有一个关于语言怎样运行（怎样被教授）的很有趣的科学发现叫“音义联觉”——某些声音跟它们描述的事物有意义上的联系。比如，在很多语言中元音声“i”给小相关联——小、少、娇小、缺乏等等，而“a”或“o”的音跟大相关联——壮观、总的、盛大的等等。这些关联在世界上很多语言里都能找到。这些发现强烈地暗示学习者能从自身自觉建立的关联体系中受益，这能帮助他们理解并记忆遇到的很多外语词汇。

认知心理学家Lera Boroditsky, Lauren A. Schmidt和Webb Phillips的另一项发现可能也能提供学习第二语言关键部分的有用视角。研究人员要求以德语和西班牙语为母语的人想形容词来描述各种对象，比如，钥匙。对于讲德语的人，“钥匙”是男性化的，给出的形容词是“硬的”，“冰冷的”，“沉重的”，“参差不齐的”，“金属的”；而对于讲西班牙语的人，“钥匙”是女性化的，他给出的形容词是“金黄的”，“小巧的”，“可爱的”和“亮闪闪的”。这个结果表明讲本族语言的人依靠这个词是否是“女性的”或“男性的”来定位词性，以区别它们的特征。第二语言学习者可以以同样的方式学习认识各种名词，帮助他们记住正确的词性，这是合理的。

无论一个人如何准确学习第二语言，我们确实知道这对大脑很有益。有足够的证据显示语言学习有助于个人抓取信息、集中注意力，甚至可能帮助避开与年龄有关的神智机能的下降。

莱勒尔：您提倡一个由认知特性（你称为超度连接）定义的创新理论，能解释一下吗？

塔曼特：我非常有创造性，从由随机字符串组成的可视化用数字表示的景观到在许多语言中发明自己的文字和概念。这些创造性来自哪里呢？

我的大脑发育得跟大多数人的大脑有些不一样，除了严重的自闭症，我小时候还受癫痫发作的折磨。在我的书中，我认为我的大脑运作和创新能力之间有超连接性联系。

大部分人的大脑的主要功能是分别独立执行的，相互之间互不干扰。但是，科学家发现很多脑功能紊乱者，包括自闭症和癫痫，在正常的大脑区域内交互沟通能够发生。我的理论是，罕见创造性想象力的形式是正常思维、记忆、感情和想法断开的结果。

莱勒尔：您怎么能按记忆背诵圆周率的前22514位呢？能不能给渴望提高自身记忆力的人们一些建议？

塔曼特：像我前面提过的，数字对我来说是有它们各自形状、颜色和纹理的。各种研究也证实了形象化信息更易于记忆。另外，我对数字的形象化在语义学上是有意义的，也就是说我能给数字形象化的意义。拿37来做一个简单的例子吧，它就像燕麦片一样粗壮，111也一样笨笨的，像数字3。在你眼中你可能觉得圆周率就是一连串很随机的数字，但在我的世界里它们都有形象的意义，组成一个有等级的组织。

想象是提高记忆力的一个很好的方法，比如，演员需要记成百上千条台词，可以通过分析、想象人物形象的目的和动机来记忆。很多人还想象把这些台词的意思解释给另外一个人，这被证明能显著完善后来的回忆。

在我的书中还有一些其他的建议，研究人员发现如果那个地方或情形你能够借助一些关联（如：你最开始接触的颜色或味道）勾起回忆，你可能更容易记得这些事情。