hypothesis about thought format and difficultly comunication

Post Reply New Topic

I have a hypothesis about our problems with communication
here goes...

Many of us think in images or images and word combos, while other of us think in words alone from a poll that I saw a while back ago

This is my hypothesis
People who think completely visually have a greater degree of difficulty with verbal comunication because we have to take what is said and then translate it to pictures in our mind to understand what is being said...and then formulate words to reply back, but with writing, it is a more visual language, so we are much more artiulate in writing then in spoken word.

Meanwhile those of us that think in words alone or a hybrid of both are higher functioning with conversation that those with purely visual imagery as thought.

So what do you think.
take the poll. I would like to get as many people to take the poll as possible for best represntation

Excellent hypothesis. Written language is its own imagery. Voted visual and no prob with verbal comm but I do have some problem.

I strongly believe I only started to speak much when + because I started reading.

I have a terrible verbal memory, think primarily in pictures, and have to translate everything to be able to interpret/speak. It's easier for me to write things out and read than it is for me to participate in a conversation. I often have difficulties with verbal communication (especially expressive, but also receptive) to the point of losing most or all speech intermittently, even in the middle of a conversation (like an aphasia bomb went off) at which point I am stuck trying to slowly translate my thoughts into words. Usually I just don't talk, although in therapy I try to push through it with some effort.

When I read a book, I translate everything I read into imagery (and other sensory impressions) and I could not even describe the words I read, but I could describe what I sensed due to reading them. This is one reason I do so well with fiction versus non-fiction (although I do like a lot of non-fiction). I can translate fairly quickly when I read, however - possibly because once the scene's set it's a matter of simply altering? I don't know.

It's easiest for me to talk about things I've written or read about, though. It's hardest for me to talk spontaneously about something that I haven't written or read about, or previously discussed.

I would say that once I discovered text-based communication, it actually was almost an evolution in communication and thinking for me - verbal communication was always...superficially more functional than it really actually was, but with text I was able to more thoroughly explain and describe my thoughts and hopefully communicate the concepts I wanted to get across.

The only reason why written communication is easier for me is because I have more time to think of a response. I don't think it has much to do with thinking in pictures. Whether it's written or spoken, it still needs to be "translated" into something that I can understand.

Hi- this guy was working at the threshold between words and images. You might find the question he asks interesting: why is it some sets of meaning /experience seem to organize themslves better in to visual images and some into words ,and instead of an either/or, what would it be like if they synergized into a balanced combination of both?

Bit abstract but worth a think over. Ignore the art critic prattle , everyone has to make a living.

http://www.cytwombly.info/index.html

I voted for "I think in a hybrid of both and have trouble with verbal communication", although I would say I think mainly in concepts.

It definitely makes sense to me. Communication is easier in written form simply because of time, but on the other side a live conversation can be more accurate due to immediate feedback and meta-communication like facial expressions, body language, tone of voice and emphasis that are not completely beyond comprehension for somebody with ASD. However, more complex knowledge is no doubt easier to comprehend imparted in written form.

Your options are not complete. None of them are true for me.

I don't think in either words or pictures at all, I think entirely in concepts and ideas. A conversation includes me actively translating concepts to words, and often struggling with this.

At the same time, I not only don't think in pictures, I'm actually unable to convert the concepts to pictures unless its a very specific thing that I've seen before, and even then its conversions.

I don't have enough self awareness to know how I think. I chose words and pictures because I know that each of those is at least partially true, but ideas and sensations are also true. I have a great deal of trouble with verbal communication.

I think it has everything to do with my need to translate from sensory impressions to language and back again - having the time to translate and refine what I am trying to say makes it significantly easier to communicate things that, if I tried to express verbally, might come out garbled at best.

And Tuttle's correct - there are more ways to think than images and words. There's other sensory impressions, even partial impressions. There's thinking in pure concepts, thinking in abstracts, I forget all of the possibilities.

I think mostly in pictures and concepts, sometimes with accompanying words. For most of my life, I've had trouble with speaking and writing. I didn't know that I was supposed to translate the pictures and concepts into words to express them to others. Then, one day last year, I decided to try writing a story, and verbal communication suddenly clicked into place for the first time. I couldn't figure out why writing was suddenly easy for me when it had been so difficult all my life. Recently, I realized that it was because 1) I started making the translations, and 2) I translated in a way that played to my strengths - breaking things down and putting them back together. So my verbal communications are like the structures that I used to build out of blocks when I was little.

Also, it may be even more difficult for autistic people to express themselves verbally if they do a lot of associative thinking. Everything is connected to everything else. There are lots of odd connections being made. There may not be a clear beginning and ending. You'd have to break it all down into discrete sequential thoughts before being able to communicate them verbally. So there are additional translations to make before the thought--->verbalization translations are made. It's usually easier to draw a picture.

This is interesting - I do a lot of associative thinking, and I end up with a lot of details I've been told are excessive or irrelevant when I'm trying to explain things.

I chose "I think in a hybrid of both and have trouble with verbal comunication"

I think in a hybrid; however, I MOSTLY think in images. I can think with images and no words, but not with words and no images. So that could also support your hypothesis since I also have trouble with verbal communication. I do translate my words from pictures, and translate my pictures to words, so that is probably at least part of my difficulty with verbal communication.

I am sorry for not representing you...I did not know that people even thought in concepts. What are your thought processes when you think in concepts?? I cant even imagine that no matter how hard I try.
can you describe it to me??

I'm not sure how to describe it, there are neither words not pictures associated with my thoughts, its all in vague concepts, that then get converted into either words or pictures. Someone has asked me what type of dog I pictured when they said "dog", I said that I didn't picture a dog, they asked if I thought of the "word" dog, I said no, there is the general concept of "dog" that is what "dog" means to me.

Generic concepts get connections between them, including items that are subsets of those concepts. When it comes to answering a specific problem, then I check for the connections, and then try to convert it into words, struggling at times and finding it easy at times.

I feel vague about my thinking style, too. I am not really sure what it is. It is there, I know that. But how it exists I am not sure I know. There's a lot of repetition involved, sometimes. I delve into profundity from time to time. I question the world around me. My thinking style is questioning the world around me.

I like your example of dog.

Finding analogy between concepts is also important. This can be regarded as a type of connection. Finding analogy helps to simplify structures and making more general concepts, thus allowing for a less demanding thought process, resulting in quicker response in interactions. This is something that is called abstraction.


I realized long time ago that if I allow myself to admit seemingly strange concepts and ideas at least at surface level, I can benefit of it in the long term. This means I put up questioning for a while, and wait patiently for the answers to click. This attitude has yielded to a deeper understanding of the world around me and at the same time rendered me substantially more tolerant. This can result in multiple or parallel concepts, that co-exist in my mind at a given time. Much like hypotheses or theories. However, I still like to question the world around me, I'm only more delicate about it (I hope).