Faculty of Education & Society, University College London.
School of Health & Psychological Sciences, City, University of London.
Cogn Sci. 2023 Feb;47(2):e13255. doi: 10.1111/cogs.13255.
In cognitive science, there is a tacit norm that phenomena such as cultural variation or synaesthesia are worthy examples of cognitive diversity that contribute to a better understanding of cognition, but that other forms of cognitive diversity (e.g., autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder/ADHD, and dyslexia) are primarily interesting only as examples of deficit, dysfunction, or impairment. This status quo is dehumanizing and holds back much-needed research. In contrast, the neurodiversity paradigm argues that such experiences are not necessarily deficits but rather are natural reflections of biodiversity. Here, we propose that neurodiversity is an important topic for future research in cognitive science. We discuss why cognitive science has thus far failed to engage with neurodiversity, why this gap presents both ethical and scientific challenges for the field, and, crucially, why cognitive science will produce better theories of human cognition if the field engages with neurodiversity in the same way that it values other forms of cognitive diversity. Doing so will not only empower marginalized researchers but will also present an opportunity for cognitive science to benefit from the unique contributions of neurodivergent researchers and communities.
在认知科学中，存在一种默契的规范，即文化变异或联觉等现象是认知多样性的典型例子，有助于更好地理解认知，但其他形式的认知多样性（例如自闭症、注意力缺陷多动障碍/ADHD 和阅读障碍）主要只是作为缺陷、功能障碍或损伤的例子才具有趣味性。这种现状是不人性化的，阻碍了急需的研究。相比之下，神经多样性范式认为，这些体验不一定是缺陷，而是生物多样性的自然反映。在这里，我们提出神经多样性是认知科学未来研究的一个重要课题。我们讨论了为什么认知科学迄今为止未能涉及神经多样性，为什么这一差距给该领域带来了伦理和科学挑战，以及至关重要的是，如果认知科学以重视其他形式的认知多样性的方式来研究神经多样性，它将产生更好的人类认知理论。这样做不仅将赋予边缘化的研究人员权力，而且还将为认知科学提供一个机会，从神经多样性研究人员和社区的独特贡献中受益。
