Difference between the way NTs and Apies think

Post Reply New Topic

Exactly

I'm not really sure where I fit into all of this.

I don't really think in pictures or images, and although my surface thoughts, stream of consciousness as it were, is in words, it's more like a running commentary track than my more complex thoughts.

Those are neither pictures, nor words, nor sounds, nor patterns.

Instead, they're feelings, almost like emotions, but each feeling can encompass everything I think about a particular subject, person, etc.
Sometimes the feeling is associated with a particular image, but a lot of the time they're not.
I can draw words out of the feeling and talk about the subject, though sometimes I have to grope around for the most precise word that it seems best expresses the meaning of the particular part of the feeling I'm trying to describe.

There are exceptions to this, of course.
I definitely do math visually, I actually see the numbers in my head, but even then the numbers have a feel to them that informs me of all the different possibilites of interactions between any given number and any other, and I can feel and see them as I do the various operations on them, so I suppose it's just an extention of the feeling way of thinking except each number gets its own image and the images/feelings move in and out of each other in my head.

I am, certainly, a visual learner.
I never really have a firm grasp of something until I can see it as a concrete example and thus internalize it as a feeling associated with the visual stimuli.

Anyone else out there think in feelings, or is it just me?
I've often wondered about that because I've never really run across anyone who described their thoughts to me in that way.

I think in a combination of all three of these, I'm not sure that they can be separated from each other in my case though. I have very strong visual thinking skills and all creative or emotional thoughts are predominantly governed by this style of thinking. For other thoughts (especially logic) the visual style is often coupled with/augmented by very strong pattern recognition - Mostly visual patterns of relationships between picture-thought concepts or linguistic components rather than mathematical ones (though I am generally rather good at math). I also have a few characteristics of word-fact thinking but there is no auditory-verbal input component. I am Deaf with poor vision so fact-input is always visual or tactile by necessity. I can regurgitate facts verbally, in sign or in writing but they are memories of pages of books I have read (I see whole pages, hence my ability to quote the line numbers along with shakespeare quotes etc - I re-read them in my mind). They can also be memories of conversations where I play them back in my mind and re-watch the signing or re-lipread, then repeat it verbatim - I think combining my dominant visual thinking with what would appear to others to be word-fact thinking. It is somewhat like recalling the raw state of my memories, before I process them and develop my own conclusions. As I process them I will alternate between visual and pattern then they become more solidified and become clearer pictures which I can again recall in detail the way I did with initial photo-like memories only they are then my own.

I'm sure I did not explain that clearly at all. I'm rather distracted by a family crisis right now so came on WP for a break. I'll try to remember to come back to this thread and clarify my above description when I'm feeling better, if anyone is interested.



Fascinating! I am currently waiting for the same book to arrive as I ordered it recently but it has to come from overseas. Would you mind explaining a little more about the book and elaborating on what you've gleaned from it so far? I would love to know more.

There ARE emotional responses when I'm making connections between ideas, emotions that don't exactly make sense from a standard viewpoint I suppose, and when I'm really tired at night it does sometimes seem like I might be emotional thinking in that an emotion represents a thought. But by the time I realize that that's happening the thought's flitted away. This is all quite vague to me though.

I want to clarify for bach that I don't think in visual patterns as there's nothing visual about them. The connections between ideas aren't visual for me. They're just...connected.

I asked my NT husband this question last night, and I was right in what I'd guessed for him. He does think in visuals. Ideas are snippets of visualization of real-world things in that they aren't abstract.

Chameleon: I think what you said was quite clear. A photographic memory it seems too, very neat.

Not sure if this is relevant but I noticed many years ago that I absolutely LOVE foreign movies .

At first I though it was because they had better storylines or something but then the penny dropped and I realised that during ordinary movies I'd get distracted or switch off completely BUT during foreign films I had to concentrate on the subtitles to keep up with things . I think I miss so much in normal movies as I lose interest and start thinking about other things ...

I am similar to many people here in that I think both in “visually” and with words depending on what I am thinking about. Although I am a very strong visual thinker.

I think I may be different than a lot of people here because I do not usually see numbers in my head. Numbers are generally part of my inner monologue, although I will sometimes see blobs which can represent numbers and manipulated to help do calculations.

I do not like the terms “visual thinking” or “thinking in pictures” very much. I have seen the terms multidimensional and multisensory thinking used. I believe these are more accurate.

My multidimensional/multisensory thinking changes a lot depending on the situation or problem I am thinking about.

At the most basic I have visual thinking. In this type of thinking I will see a graph, diagram, drawing, or perhaps a simple picture. I can zoom in if I wish. The next step up is video thinking, where I add motion to the image. If it is a graph, there will be a point sliding along a line (which is very useful in calculus). If it is a drawing of a car, it will be moving on the road. I can watch in slow motion, fast forward, rewind and pause.

The next step up would be 3D thinking, or visuo-spatial thinking. In this I will have an image of an object. I can zoom in, remove or hide pieces of the object, and view from any angle. I can also see cutaway views. It is very similar to a CAD program. This video from 2:50-3:20 should give you a pretty good idea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmVzSkCtNh8 Although unlike seeing it on a computer screen, in my mind there is actually depth. Similar to the difference between seeing a picture, and seeing something in real life.

Again, I can add motion to 3D images as well. Imagine watching a 3D movie. Using the example, of the shock from above, I can compress it watch spring back out again. This should give you an idea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BJXeEd-rIw

After that it I get into multisensory thinking. I will explain that later. I have already spent way too long on this. I had to retype because I accidently deleted everything and it was a really fun question to try to answer.

Although I would say I'm much more a visual thinker than a verbal one, but above all, I think in concepts and my type of thinking makes explaining(and sometimes learning) even more difficult.

I'm happy to hear that you will be reading the Bogdashiva book. I look forward to your insights. What I've taken away from the book is what is being demonstrated on this thread. Autistics think more sensorially than NTs, who think more linguistically.

Advantage: because we penetrate and dwell within the sensorial more deeply and prescind from hasty (and often conventional) linguistic formulation, we discover many original connections that NTs overlook.

Disadvantage: The sensory overload makes it harder for us to abstract our processes into conventional language, to the degree that communication can become difficult and for some nearly impossible.

There is simply no way that you are not an Aspie. Welcome.

Surely there are neurotypicals who do this also?

This kind of 3D mental play was one of my primary activities in High School--When a situation was too weird or I did not know what to do with myself, I just made polyhedra in my mind's rendering system and played with them. Also 3D letters on different scales in huge, deep jumbles. This is why I am a graphic designer today.

You're right. Frankly, I don't know.

What cavernio wrote sounds about right for this type of thought:



They are abstract things that don’t correspond to anything in the external world.

9. AUTISTIC THINKING IS SPECIALIZED

When I wrote Thinking in Pictures (Grandin 1995), I thought everybody on the autism/Asperger spectrum was a visual thinker. People with autism and Asperger's are specialist thinkers. They are good at one thing and bad at other things. From both books and interviews, I have concluded that there are three principal types of specialist thinking.

1. Photo-realistic visual thinkers--such as I. All my thoughts are in photo-realistic pictures (Grandin & Johnson 2005). My area of weakness is in algebra because there is no way to visualize it. Visual thinkers can do geometry and trigonometry, but not algebra. For my work, visual thinking is very important. I can see everything in my head and then draw it on paper. Figures 1 and 2 show two of my drawings, done by hand, of livestock handling facilities. They date from the mid-1980s when I did much of my best work.

2. Pattern thinking--music and math mind. This is a more abstract form of visual thinking. Thoughts are in patterns instead of photo-realistic pictures. Pattern thinkers see patterns and relationships between numbers. Some of the best descriptions are in Daniel Tammet's book Born on a Blue Day (Tammet 2006) and in Jerry Newport's book Mozart and the Whale (Newport et al. 2007) The weak area in pattern thinkers is usually reading and writing composition.

3. Word-fact thinkers. These individuals have a huge memory for verbal facts on all kinds of things such as film stars and sporting events. They are often poor at drawing and other visual thinking skills.[/quote]

I am mostly #2

I'm very visual too, photo realistic. My dreams wake me up by being so stunningly beautiful sometimes it take my breath away (so to speak).

I wanted to quote the above because I enjoy algebra.

I'm beginning to think that while I'm very visual, I don't think in visual. I think in concepts.

I can't write a sentence until I understand what it is I’m trying to express (the concept).
When I read a sentence, I don't understand what is being said until the entire sentence is completed. And then if it doesn't form a coherent concept, the whole sentence was gooblygook. It failed to convey meaningful information.

While I visualise things, people and places while speaking and hearing. It’s somehow the concepts that I need to understand and store into memory. I have grave difficulty remembering somebodies name, and I still can't spell simple words even after using them daily for the last 40 years. It often takes me 1 to 3 years to lean somebody's name even though I sit and work with them every day.

I guess there is no "concept" to be understood in a name. I can't gain information from it, therefor I can't understand it, and therefor I can't remember it.

Thank you, I take that as a compliment. Although I am waiting to get a Dx before I would ever say that about myself.

I just always had a lot of fun playing with engines and cars in my head.

For me. I hear the word "grass". It has a nice sound to it. It starts with a nice definite "Ghu" sound and quickly goes to a more gentle "Rrrrrr", then (for some reason) an airier "Aaaaah", and ends in a soothing "Ssssss" sound. The word resinates in my mind and is calming. I imediatly see soft lush green grass. The type I would love to roll in when I was a kid.

The word simply invokes the memory. The word itsself has no meaning, no purpose, and very little information in it. Since it's not used in a sentence at all, you simply said "grass". That's all I get. An image of grass. There was no "doing-words", no information, no actions.

I need more information to form a picuture that means something. boy, running, soft, tiggy, sunny, weekend, kids, around parents, lunch outdoors. These other words combine to build up a mozaic picuture. As I read a sentence and new information is read it adds new elements to the picture, or changes the location/setting of the picture in my mind. It's not untill I've read the entire sentence, or paragraph that I have a complete picture or sequence of pictures. I can then file this into memory and recall the picture at eny time in the future. The picture is the memory, I can recall the words and story surrounding the picture just by storing the picture in my memory.