By Shinri Furuzawa
Temple Grandin wears many hats—she is a leading animal scientist in the humane livestock-handling industry, an academic at Colorado State University, and autism-rights activist. She is also a New York Times bestselling author
In her latest work, Visual Thinking: The Hidden Gifts of People Who Think in Pictures, Patterns, and Abstractions, she references Howard Gardner and his theory of multiple intelligences. Grandin has also spoken of Gardner’s ideas at her recent book events and in this interview with The Washington Post (link here).
How does Grandin explain “visual thinking”?
Grandin describes two types of thinkers—those who are “verbal” and those who are “visual.”
Verbal thinkers: think linearly, tend to do well in school as information is taught sequentially, are often well organized, sociable, and good talkers. They gravitate towards careers as educators, administrators, lawyers, writers, politicians, etc.
Visual thinkers: see images in their minds and make rapid associations among them, have an excellent sense of direction, are good problem solvers, and easily understand how things work or fit together. On the other hand, they are often late talkers who struggle with traditional educational settings and teaching methods, and they may also be socially awkward.
Visual thinkers can be further divided into two types, object and spatial.
Object-visual thinkers: see the world in pictures, and gravitate towards careers as designers, artists, architects, mechanical engineers, etc.
Spatial-visual thinkers: see the world in patterns and abstractions, and gravitate towards careers as statisticians, electrical engineers, physicists, etc.
What’s the evidence?
Grandin cites several studies to support her claims. Examples from recent brain research include a 2015 study by Kazuo Nishimura and colleagues in which magnetoencephalography was used to measure brain activity associated with “verbal” and “visual.” They demonstrated that when study participants were asked to recall a temple, signs of the zodiac, or a past conversation, “visual thinkers” created images while “verbal thinkers” used language. She also mentions Nobel laureate Roger Sperry and his notion of left-brain vs right-brain thinking to distinguish “verbal vs. visual” thinking.
Grandin cites most heavily the work of Maria Kozhevnikov of the Visual-Spatial Cognition Lab at Massachusetts General Hospital. In one 2002 study, Kozhevnikov tested high visualizers on spatial reasoning and other visual tests. She found that artists and designers tested as object visualizers while scientists tested as spatial visualizers. And while high-spatial visualizers interpreted graphs as abstract representations of spatial relations, low-spatial visualizers saw graphs as pictures. Verbalizers showed no preference for visual or spatial imagery.
What about Grandin herself?
Grandin categorizes herself as an "object-visual thinker.” She sees the world in photorealistic pictures, or film clips. To process any information or solve a specific problem, she must “do the equivalent of a Google search” in her mind to access images. A scan of Grandin’s brain using Diffusion Tensor Imaging showed her visual circuits to be significantly larger than those in the control group. She describes these circuits as a “huge internet trunk line from my rear visual cortex to my frontal cortex.”
Throughout the book, Grandin supports her ideas with anecdotes from her own life. For example, in critiquing the US education system, she claims that the system in effect screens out “object-visual thinkers.” She points out the irony that though she now teaches veterinarians and has proven mechanical engineering skills, she herself could not have qualified for veterinary school or engineering programs due to her lack of ability in algebra.
Am I convinced?
One problem with Grandin’s book is her overreliance on anecdotal and autobiographical examples as evidence. Even the scientific data she gives are not always robust. For example, the 2002 Kozhevnikov study mentioned above had a sample size of only 17, and Sperry’s left brain/right brain hemisphericity premise is now seen as of historic rather than of scientific interest.
Some of Grandin’s claims are farfetched. In her chapter “Visualizing Risk to Prevent Disasters,” she suggests that many disasters, such as Fukushima, could have been prevented. How? In her argument, in the case of that nuclear disaster, a “visual thinker” would have “envisioned the water coming over the top of the seawall.” She also suggests that “most geniuses” are “visual thinkers” including Edison, Einstein, and Picasso—relying on controversial posthumous (not clinical) diagnoses of their neurodivergence. Different groups in the neurodivergent community often claim past luminaries have their particular learning difference. This may be an effort to enhance the prestige and status of their own marginalized group and motivate others in their community. In fact, Einstein is claimed as an (unwitting) “ancestor” by many groups!
To be fair, Visual Thinking is not aimed at a scientific audience. For the lay reader perhaps it is enough to appreciate, as Grandin argues convincingly, that people who think differently deserve to be recognized, and should be recognized, for the betterment of their own self-image and for their possible contributions to society. Teams can be stronger when they include diverse thinkers. She promotes an approach to neurodiversity not as a disability but as an asset. Grandin herself is an inspirational figure; many enjoy and benefit from reading about her ideas and about her life.
how does “Visual thinking” fit into the theory of multiple intelligences?
In terms of MI theory, Grandin’s “verbal thinking” reflects Gardner’s linguistic intelligence, while her “visual thinking” reflects spatial intelligence.
I would infer that Temple Grandin displays impressive capacities with the following intelligences:
Naturalist intelligence (she has expert knowledge of animal behavior, in particular, cattle)
Spatial intelligence (she is able to visualize maps and design complex plans by seeing them in her mind)
Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (she is very good with her hands)
Logical-mathematical intelligence (she is knowledgeable in mechanical engineering)
On the other hand, as is commonly the case in people with autism, Grandin admits that understanding others can be a challenge, so interpersonal intelligence would not be a strength.
Howard Gardner does not agree with the concept of “visual thinking.” He is quoted on the jacket of Visual Thinking as saying that he believes Temple Grandin has written a “fine book” that clearly defines how “a self-described ‘visual thinker’ apprehends, understands, and explains the world.” Much of what Grandin describes is what Gardner would call spatial intelligence. He also asserts that visual is different from spatial and the two should not be confounded. Gardner says, “Reading is visual, and appreciating art and sculpture is visual, but they are not particularly spatial—blind people are capable of developing a strong spatial sense.” People who read at a young age can be spatially challenged, while people who have difficulty reading can have excellent spatial intelligence. Moreover, it is important not to tie an intelligence to a single sensory system like sight or audition. Grandin would counter this argument by saying that “visual thinking” is not about simply seeing, but rather it is how the brain perceives what is being seen.
Is there common ground?
In her book, Grandin concedes her differences with Gardner but finds they have similar views on education. She writes, “Though Gardner doesn’t recognize visual thinkers (let alone the different kinds of visual thinkers) as a separate category of intelligence, we are in agreement that our education system fails to recognize different types of intelligence.” Grandin believes there is a crisis in American education that is leading to a dangerous loss of technical skills and ingenuity. She attributes this situation partly to prejudices against community colleges and vocational schools, but also the fact that hands-on subjects like art and shop class are being phased out of schools. She also laments the barriers presented by biased testing systems that screen out otherwise capable and talented learners.
In several respects, Gardner concurs with Grandin’s broader aims. He has long criticized standardized tests, such as the SAT commonly used for US college admission, that unfairly tap primarily linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences. His MI theory is a sustained critique of the widespread assumption that intelligence can be adequately measured by IQ tests and their ilk. He has argued for recognizing and nurturing “all of the varied intelligences and combinations of intelligence.”
Ultimate goals
By advocating for the neurodiverse members of our society, Temple Grandin hopes her greatest legacy will be that she helped neurodiverse children find careers that contribute to society. She told The Washington Post,
“I want to help the kids that are neurodiverse, they have different kinds of minds—autistic, dyslexic, ADHD, or whatever—to get into satisfying jobs where they can make a positive difference. That's the thing I feel I need to be doing now, as somebody who has had a long career and is now in their 70s.”
Howard Gardner has a similar hope: to encourage people to use their multiple intelligences to do “good work,” that is, work which is excellent, engaging, and ethical. Gardner has said it is the most important thing he can do.
References
Gardner, H. E. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic books.
Grandin, T., & Lerner, B. (2022). Visual thinking: The hidden gifts of people who think in pictures, patterns, and abstractions. Riverhead Books.
For their comments on an earlier version of this blog post, I thank Tom Hoerr, and my colleague, Howard Gardner.