Talk:Visual thinking

More POV

This article wears its opinion on its sleeve to the point that it will twist facts listed in the article to dismiss critics. Example: "Research by Child Development Theorist Linda Kreger Silverman suggests that less than 30% of the population strongly uses visual/spatial thinking, another 45% uses both visual/spatial thinking and thinking in the form of words, and 25% thinks exclusively in words. According to Kreger Silverman, of the 30% of the general population who use visual/spatial thinking, only a small percentage would use this style over and above all other forms of thinking, and can be said to be 'true' "picture thinkers"."

and "autism. However, given that current statistics by the National Autistic Society UK put the incidence of ASD around 1 person in 100 has an Autism Spectrum Disorder[2] and that up to 60%-65%[citation needed] of the population think in pictures, it cannot be concluded that visual thinking has any necessary connection with autism."

Grandin's theory appears to relate to thinking exclusively visually or the inability to think liguistically, which the article states is rare, only a few percent of the population. The 60-65% statistic includes those who think both visually and liguistically, but it is that statistic that the encyclopedia article uses to dismiss Grandin out of hand. Even were we supposed to argue the opposing viewpoint, that is a logical fallacy. -96.242.204.224 (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the problems here is that many are lookiing at the same elephant but only at their own parts of interest. I am coming from another perspective from other contributors so far, I have Auditory Processing Disorder and near all of my coping strategies revolve around visual learning, and processing Visual Information to compensate for my auditory processing deficit. I am a natural visual-spatial laearner who thinks in pictures. The estimates of the size of population of Visual learners in comparison to Auditory and Kineasthetic Learners can be distort by waht your are trying to describe. We all have some visual, auditory and kineathetic learning ability, and many arwe able to switch their abilities to match the task needs of the task they are performing. Others for whatever reason have a learning or thinking dominance while having a learning and thinking abiliyt deficit with their other abilities. So the statisitcs can be about those who have a visual learning dominance (preferance) which wouold be the smaller population OR they can be about those who are able to use visual learning abilities, which would be the larger population.

I have compiled a list of doanloadable PDF files on this topic on the APDUK web site (we do have copyright permission) on our Learning Style Summary page, which may shed some light on some of the issues here. http://www.infosheets.apduk.org/learnstyles1.htm

dolfrog (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Geographical thinking

There is a whole section of geographical thinking that has not been added here. Whilst it is a stub, it has the ability to be expanded in a much greater capacity, given appropriate research with people such as Silverman but also with input from behavioural geographers. 01:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Parawirra

Could you have a look at my section on topographical thinking at the bottom of the talk page? Since you haven't elaborated on the topic of geographical thinking, I'm wondering if you are referring to the same thing. Zuiram 01:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice, this article is about me isn't it... thanks a lot, Haraldur.

POV

This article borrows liberally from The Visual-Spatial Learner: An Introduction. Has anyone asked Dr. Linda Kreger Silverman, Ph.D., for her permission to use her material like this?

Yes, I agree... it actually goes straight through to a PDF of her book!

which appears a blatant advertisement plus later stuff appears a lead to someone's private consulting business.

This reads like pseudo-scientific propaganda, complete with an MBTI-like enumeration of famous individuals that supposedly represent the characteristics of the model.

I resemble this. This sounds like an amped-up version of the common aptitude that the Johnson O’Connor Human Engineering Laboratory calls 'Structural Visualization'. (http://www.jocrf.org/) Simply stated, people with this talent can visualize structures in 3D and even manipulate that visualization. For the physician, this gives a sort of 'virtual x-ray vision', an engineer might experience it as an instant, mental, CAD-CAM program, while an interior designer would be able to simply look at a room and know what furniture will fit.

The current article may read like pseudo-science, but the... phenomenon is real, testable, and inherited.

Well being able to manipulate a 3d object in your head isn't a problem to picture thinkers. There is a lot more to it and that is what this research is all about. I have been tested for it as a kid as I came out positive. It's also important to know this for many reasons. It's def not fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.228.168 (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone with high functioning autism, I find this article very defensive. The author seems offended that persons think differently than them. I'm a software architect, and my ability to communicate my ideas through pictures is quietly regarded as "brilliant". It's just normal to me. I accept most people learn through pictures, however, I don't think it is how most people think. I have subordinates who express their thoughts strictly in long-worded paragraphs, then get upset that no one cares what they have to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.85.28 (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

XPLANE listing

Should XPLANE really be included in see also? Timothy Clemans 21:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed this sentence

I removed the following sentence, "*Thinking at a subliminal rate of 32 concepts per second, as opposed to the 6-7 words per second experienced by typical verbal-sequential thinkers, thus appearing to intuitively come to conclusions that are very hard to reach by using typical linear reasoning". 32 concepts per second? This sounds like nonsense, I took it out. --Xyzzyplugh 04:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that sentence stuck out for me as well. A "subliminal rate" would probably be difficult to measure experimentally. Additionally, 32 is a precise number, where a range like "25-35" would really be more appropriate. If someone can find the study that spawned this concept, feel free to reference it. pmj 22:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The exact figure seems odd, and would presumably be dependent on the task at hand as well as the dominating frequency band of the brain at the time (i.e. while visual thinking may persist at predominantly delta levels near sleep, it would likely be nowhere as fast as at predominantly beta levels during concentration).

That said, my "visual" thinking rate appears to be slightly faster in terms of cycles per second than my verbal thinking; however, the main advantage is not in the cycles per second domain (sequential speed) but rather in expressiveness (net bandwidth).

It is possible to process several "symbols"/"concepts" at the same time, depending on what is being considered, typically leading to a higher parallelism (for me, at least) as verbal thinking is hard for me to parallelize. That could be construed as a higher rate, but would need clarification with regards to iterations per second, as opposed to concepts per second. I have no difficulty accepting 32 nodes consciously visited in a second, but I do have difficulty accepting 32 stages of processing in a second.

Unconscious processing of this sort appears to be faster than conscious processing, and easier to commit to memory; this could have something to do with volume of intermediate nodes, selecting new nodes to commit, or simply a kind of resistance to the higher net throughput due to a feeling of less control if you're a visual thinker that has worked primarily in the verbal mode due to external interactions.

Zuiram 00:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In computer terms, you can't measure the performance of something just by looking at the 'clock rate' - you also have to consider the amount of parallelism that can be employed - the cost of communication between the parallel parts of the processor, the consequences of Amdahl's law, the number and nature of specialised processors that are uniquely suited to a particular task - and how efficiently the 'algorithm' is implemented on the hardware that's provided. Since we are not even close to knowing any of those things for verbal versus spatial reasoning in humans, it is utterly pointless to even discuss the 'clock rate' at which some parts of the brain are operating. This is bogus - it is bad science, bordering on pseudo-science - and it doesn't belong in this article, either with exact number or a range of numbers or even without numbers at all. SteveBaker 02:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems

While this is certainly a valid and interesting concept, most of the article does not ring true, and amounts to nothing more than pseudoscience. What to do? —Viriditas | Talk 09:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that this article sounds somewhat pseudoscientific at the moment. It also comes across as npov in favour of visual thinking. Have a look at unsourced statements like: "Among gifted students, the proportion of visual-spatial learners may be much higher. In one small sample, more than three-fourths of the gifted students preferred visual-spatial methods." It really reads like a self help book written to sell copies improve the self esteem of visual thinkers rather than a clear well sourced article about an aspect of human psychology. Saluton 22:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Focus on disability

Is it just me or is the article an attempt to conflate several mental disabilities with a particular mechanism present in all individuals?

Its not just you its flagrantly obvious and is an embarassment to wiki.

If you had only one hand (the left), you could "prove" that you're not disabled, but merely left-handed. Similarly, this article points out in every second sentence that autism and dyslexia are concomitant with visual thinking. Obviously, if a certain mechanism (here, language) is damaged, similar tasks are handled by a another mechanism (here, visual thinking). That doesn't mean that mentally disabled people are just as gifted like the most skilled visual thinkers (with or without a language-related disability). --Vuo 16:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, see my comments on visual versus verbal thought. visual thinking is the most common mode of thought among 5 major modes of thought (not 2) yet left handers are only 1 in 7 people

Grandin's connection of visual thinking with autism has been outdated and she's updated her work accordingly so the article is citing her based on work she has now updated to reflect that SHE rather than AUTISTIC people think in pictures.

Left handedness.

I have no proof - but it seems to me that an unusually large percentage of visual thinkers are also left-handed. It kinda makes sense because a larger proportion of dyslexics are left handed, as are the mildly autistic Asperger's syndrome people. Left-handers also dominate occupations such as architecture. This is really striking to me - and I'm surprised it's not in the article. Is there published evidence for this? (I wouldn't want to promote 'original research' here). SteveBaker 20:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. The largest percentage of the population are visual thinkers. Yet only 1 in 7 people are left handers. I rest my case.

The article: Left-handed claims visual thinkers are statistically more likely to be left handed - and also backs up the link with dyslexia and mild autism. SteveBaker 20:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, on that coincidence I was diagnosed as dyslexic, I am left handed and a visual thinker too. --Nexii Malthus (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Visual and linguistic

This article seems to infer that one is either a visual thinker or a linguistic thinker. Could it be argued that certain individuals would be able to use both forms of thinking, albeit for different purposes. For instance, when one initially reasons out an idea in order to reach a conclusion, they do so linguistically, but when recalling their thought patterns, they would be perfectly capable of quickly resurfacing the idea to as well as how they came to there conclusion without requiring the time needed to undergo the every step of there reasoning process every time they recollect said idea? Further, could it also be argued that verbal thinkers do in fact use visual thinking to a lesser extent, even if it is secondary to their verbal line of thought? 66.24.236.62 01:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is the issue I was addressing in my paragraph above. This article 'dissects' a normal mechanism from a healthy system and associates it with mental disability. I also suspect that psychology is (at least nowadays) so primitive that only one mechanism is assumed to present in one individual. --Vuo 11:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to see references for this. Are we looking at people with 100% visual thinking versus people with 100% linguistic skills - are we presuming that there are people with 50% of the visual thinking skills and 50% of the linguistic skills or are we imagining a 'superhuman' person with 100% of both sets of skills? I have no clue. I'm definitely a visual thinker - people at work know that I'm incapable of conveying a coherent thought without a white-board to scribble on. I certainly have linguistic skills (I'm able to use them right here and now) - but are they as good as 'verbal thinkers'...? I suspect not - but it's hard to tell. Without some kind of solid reference on this subject, I don't think we should be engaging in Original Research (WP:NOR). SteveBaker 18:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Visual" thinking in the sense that I interpret the term is qualitatively different from verbal thinking, and so much so that it would appear to be something you have or lack. It is certainly different from visualization/mind's eye/episodic memory. However, your proficiency in both will depend on what you train; there appear to be many people who "have" the ability to do "visual" thinking, but have relied exclusively on verbal thinking, at least for conscious thought.

Ease of communication depends on your ability to translate between modes, as well as whether the person(s) you are communicating with think "visually". I can totally relate to the whiteboard issue, but I have no problem communicating coherently with many "verbal thinkers". My main issue has been on the receiving end, in that verbal communication can sometimes have a large volume with little content, leading to difficulty consolidating what is being communicated into "nodes".

Being "on the same page" helps immensely, particularly with "visual" thinkers on the receiving end. If your internal topographies are fairly congruent, it becomes trivial to communicate the "visual" content verbally. The "visual" thinkers I know refer to this form of communication as a "brain dump"; rarely is there any significant divergence in the conclusions reached, the interpretation/understanding of the material, etc. after such a short session of verbally nonlinear communication.

I'd be hesitant to call "visual" thinking superior, though, with the notable exception of areas where the inherent parallelism and topographical organization is required to consolidate comprehension of the topic in a suitable timeframe. Systems design appears to be one such area, where I have yet to see a verbal thinker produce a large design that "feels" conceptually coherent; I'd love a counterexample, though.

Zuiram 01:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think in images, but they are on different levels depending on what I need. I do not need to smell a triangle for example while doing some math. And I do not realize full pictures while talking.. I just get a few flashes here and there and that's that. But when remembering or trying to anticipate a situation, it's in full color/smell/feeling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.228.168 (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Visual and Linguistic among other fallacies

this article was full of supposition and fallacies.

Visual thinking is one of five main modes of thought, not two, the others being verbal, physical (kinesthetic), aural (musical), logical (mathematical/systems) with the last three also being non-linguistic.

Visual thinking has no necessary links with hemisphere dominance as it occurs in both global and details thinkers, left and right handers etc.

As the most common form of thinking has no necessary links with autism (although Temple Grandin promoted such a stereotype which is now outdated). As one of the most common modes of thought, there is also no necessary connection between visual thinking and dyslexia nor language disorder. The deaf blind can still learn language yet have neither verbal nor visual thinking.

Visual thinking should also not be confused with logical (mathematical/systems) which may also be visualised using lines and mind maps but is not pictorial, and the author had this confused, citing scientists and engineers as necessary examples of visual thinkers.

Visual thinking also has no necessary relationship to serial memory skills of those with photographical memory as even those with visual agnosia can have photographic memory.

Spatial-temporal reasoning

I am against merging Spatial-temporal reasoning into the present article. There is a whole body of research from computer science and psychology about spatio-temporal reasoning, see e.g. [1]. --Tillmo 20:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As an artist with high verbal skills who sustained a mild traumatic brain injury, I would like to make a few observations/connections that may refute some oversimplifications I read in the above discussion, where many types of thinking are blended rather indiscriminately. I hit my head at the point where the right eye coordinates vision with the rest of the brain. Because of our need to stay balanced, our vision is immediately synched with our hearing, so it makes no sense to split them for purposes of discussion. Visual& Aural thinking are strongly,intrinsically linked, giving us the speedy reactions that come before more complicated assessments of dangerous situations. When this area in me was damaged, I lost some hearing in my right ear, and lost the coordination of my right and left eyes for the purpose of reading. Unconsciously my brain suppressed information from my left eye in order to present a coherent, sequential world to me, but that habit of right-eye dominance left me confused, since my right side was damaged.In addition, using only 1 eye left me unable to perceive depth, so I became dizzy if I drove, or moved quickly, etc. In addition, all the words I learned as "sight-words" (in teaching special educ. we discriminate between words memorized eidetically, which for me are a large percentage, since I had eidetic memory) became scrambled in my typing. When I have a new thought to express, so I'm making intuitive leaps, I hear what I want to say & I'm visualizing abstractions, BUT, I can't picture the word anymore, or put the letters in sequence. It comes out scrambled, with my hands confused, placement of all the keys I visually learned inaccurate. In addition, I lost my internal map of my city, and got lost frequently. I wasn't aware of where I was in relation to the 4 directions, or landmarks.

I submit that we operate from internal maps --the hippocampus, the seat of our understanding, and become individuals, based on the needs/demands of our home & school environments, we learn the most optimum configuration or balance of types of learning inputs, to allow us to succeeed, if we are able to learn from our mistakes. Kinesthetic learning is required for any other learning to happen. Subject-object relationships, sensory-processing are basics. Visual learning is about input, visual thinking is about cognitive processing at a deeper level, but if the eyes don't coordinate, comprehension is much harder. Most of us learn internal focus visually, and it is required to use the executive function and coordinate the body in a useful response.

Having said that, object permanence is learned (by those who can see) with their eyes. Blind learners use auditory, proprioceptic and kinesthetic inputs to a greater degree, and store the information in the vision center at the back of the brain, as well as the hippocampus, jsut like the rest of us. This has been shown in the last 5-6 years, highlighted in Scientific American. (sorry no cit. off the top of my head). I must also note as one who has suffered from PTSD (as almost a third of Americans have at one point) stress and insecurity about safety or survival wreaks havoc with the thinking process. So to try to "divide and conquer" the brain and simplify it, is not terribly useful. We need to think in systems and dynamics and learn about the chemical reactions that constitute thought. We need to visualize sequences with logically consistent integrity AS WELL as hypothesize networks of associative connections, again, with FOCUS.

Tjejtanken (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal with Visual learning

• Oppose - It is possible to teach people using pictures even if they are not visual thinkers. Visual thinkers can be taught using only words. The two topics are pretty much unrelated. I am a visual thinker - I read books and the words turn into pictures in my mind. I don't necessarily want to be taught in pictures because it's such a long winded way of getting some concepts across. Visual thinking is an attribute of human minds - visual learning is a teaching technique. I just don't see any overlap whatever between the subjects. SteveBaker 17:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - What Steve said. I prefer high-rate high-density verbal learning (150-300wpm) or high-rate multipass reading (1000+ wpm). It allows me to form the concepts and sensory images (pictures etc.) in a manner that meshes with the existing topography. A diagram or schematic can be illustrative and occasionally indispensable for a few things, but this has nothing to do with the visual/verbal thinking bits. Zuiram 01:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

As there are actually 5 main modes of thought, not 2 (visual, verbal, physical (kinesthetic), aural (musical), logical (mathematical/systems) the authors arguments on the need for visual instruction over all other forms is based on incorrect information. Even styles of learning among autistic people are now recognised to be diverse and Grandin's original thesis that all autistics think in pictures (as she claims to) has now been updated in her own work.

"Visual" vs topographical thinking

As the article name and text indicates, it appears to deal explicitly in visual concepts. I relate to what is being said, but find it more accurate to describe this in terms of nodes that can contain any combination of sensory still- or motion-images along with an abstract cognitive context, organized into a topographical map which can be visually represented, but works faster and better for me if I don't do that intermediate "rendering" stage. Verbal data is only rarely included in a node. Is this an indication of a different kind of thinking, which should be linked from this article; that the article is dealing with a particular aspect of such thinking, not the whole; that such a mode of thinking has been shown to be the visual analogue of subvocalization; or that it is hard for "verbal thinking" researchers to recognize an abstraction that cannot be adequately described in a mode they are familiar with? If its just me, it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia, but I doubt it is, so if anyone knows anything about this, it'd be nice if they could chime in here. Anyone who doesn't, but thinks this way, can put their anecdotes on my talk page, and I'll see if I can get around to organizing an article or wikibook about it. Zuiram 01:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture thinkers VS Visual learners

Somehow this article has morphed into a hodgepodge. Some parts are now about the completely different subject of "visual learning", instead of "picture thinkers", Originally this page was intended as a copy of the Dutch page about "Beelddenken" (Thinking in pictures). See the Dutch version [2], which still only talks about "beelddenkers" (picture thinkers), but after many recent edits it has become polluted with the very different subject of "visual learning" . A "beelddenker" still (all children have this ability, but most lose it when they start to talk) has the ability to "solve problems" by (unconsciously) manipulating "symbols" in his head, rather than only being able coming to a conclusion by the "normal" linguistic step-by-step procedure most of us use. They are also able to think linguistically, but it is harder for them than normal, so they often have symptoms resembling dyslexia, but the upside is that they have abilities that "language thinkers" lack.

Perhaps it is true it that 60% of the population prefers visual methods of learning (although a site about Judo does not seem a reliable source), but that does -not- imply those 60% are "picture thinkers". A far smaller amount of people are -real- picture thinkers, no more than a few percent.

I would propose to move this article to "visual learning", and ressurect a -real- "picture thinkers" page in its place. Now in a way the real information about "picture thinkers" has been erased from the English wikipedia and replace by a different topic altogether. {re-worded} Mahjongg 01:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Current user is adding what amounts to advertisements

In the section:

Dutch and Belgian research into Picture thinking

the author has cited as reference a PDF of an author's book, amounting to an advertisement.

In the statement:

Contrary to the current thinking in the US, in the Netherlands and in Belgium there is not much doubt among the general population that picture thinking is a real phenomenon, and that only a small percentage of the population are true picture thinkers. [12] [13] Persons who mainly think using pictures to the exclusion of thinking linearilly using language. Although there is resistance to the idea by some psychologists, a lot of empirical evidence was discovered for the existence of this phenomenon.

the author has failed to provide any non-advertising refs re current thinking in the US - ie where's the proof, how does this differ from opinion?

the refs given go through to a pdf of an author's book and a not for profit Dutch business offering consulting relating, among other things, to LD and dyslexia.

If there is resistance to the idea, where's the ref re what psychologists think? Otherwise this is opinion.

if there is a lot of empirical evidence etc, then why only 1 ref going to an author's pdf and another going to a not for profit consulting business belonging to ONE particular therapist?

Re the following section

Much research is being done into the phenomenon of “picture thinking”, (a literal translation of the Dutch term "beelddenken") by the Dutch nonprofit foundation the "Maria J. Krabbe Stichting Beelddenken" [1]. They are publishing documents, holding congresses and are funding scientific studies and have even devised a test, (the "Ojemann wereldspel") to recognize children that are picture thinkers. In this test children are asked to build a village using toy houses, and a picture is taken from the result. After a few days the child is asked to re-create the very same village. Children who are picture thinkers are found to be much more accurate in re-creating the village than the non picture thinking children.

I visited the site, which is one for a consulting business of one particular therapist. It did not amount to 'much research'. If this much research exists, then profit valid academic sites to demonstrate this.

re:

A mass of literature about picture thinking is now available in Dutch, but so far little has been published in English. However, the "Maria J. Krabbe Stichting", in co-operation with the child development theorist Linda Kreger Silverman of the Institute for the Study of Advanced Development, has published a reader in English "upside down brilliance" [3].

this again works as a lead toward the pdf of an author's book and the consulting business refered to and hence should be considered an advertisement

re

Then there is also a small Dutch comic booklet published with the title "ben jij een beelddenker" (are you a picture thinker) that in a very clear way demonstrates to children and adults the difference in thinking between a "linear text thinker" and a "picture thinker" [14] Interestingly it is based on a comic first published in 1962.

whilst this comic exists on the consultant's home page, this acts as a lead in what amounts to an advertisement and is not an academic reference which meets wiki standards

re

Many popular and scientific articles have been published about "beelddenken" in the Netherlands, and consequently most Dutch parents, and teachers in primary education now know how to recognize and handle children that are "picture thinkers", so these teachers are much better equipped to help these children. Also many Dutch adults, after reading about picture thinkers, have recognized that they are picture thinkers themselves. Many of them have also discovered that one or more of their children are also picture thinkers, so it seems there is a genetic pre-disposition involved.

again, this is opinion as it provides no refs to valid academic articles as proof of 'many popular articles' nor impact on Dutch education, not any ref re genetic predispositions.. in other words it amounts again to only opinion. If these things are academic facts, then valid refs - which do not act as advertisements for particular author's books or particular consultants' business - must be provided. opinion alone is not valid as an academic standard of information.t

if such refs don't exist, then however strong the authors opinion, such venting only diminishes the reliability standards of wikipedia entries.

With all due respect, I think the above arguments are figurative, and amount to nothing more than an attempt to disqualify and sensor a point of view that the editor above (which is user:1210donna by the way) dislikes.

Let me be clear, i am -not- attempting in any way to "advertise" for a "book", (which is a free download so has no commercial value, so why is it "advertizing"?) or any other commerical item or service, and in fact I am not in any way connected to any of the things I am claimed to be "advertizing" for.

Instead the reader/book that is claimed I am "advertizing" for is actually just the transcript of a speach held for the Maria J. Krabbe Stichting, which is a well respected organisation, and not in any way just "a consulting business of one particular therapist"., perhaps it is because the page is in Dutch, but even a short visit will be enough to convince most people that the website of the "Maria J. Krabbe Stichting" is -not- the website of a single therapist, but of a foundation. The Dutch word "stichting" means foundation.

What in my view is happening is that an attempt is made to sensor the fact that in the Netherlands much more attention is given to the theory that a small percentage of the population are true "picture thinkers". It seems an attempt by many of the editors of this article to prevent this theory to also take a foothold in the US. That is why I said Contrary to the current thinking in the US...., it simply an observation of what is happening with this article. Why should I "provide non-advertising refs re current thinking in the US". What makes them more an "advertizing ref" than many similar links published in Wikipedia anyway, and why must the ref be to a US institution? The article in its current state, compared to the first year or so since this article was created tells the story of why I think many here are opposed to the idea. Please look through the history of this article and you will see why believe that to be true. Originally when this article was started it was much like the current Dutch version nl:beeld denken (and the French version) and talked mostly about "picture thinkers", but for the last couple of years it has been systematically stripped from any reference to "picture thinkers", and turned into quite the opposite. I am simply attempting to restore a little bit of what the article was originally about, only to see my edit immediately removed with figurative arguments.

Wherever I could I tried to reference my "opinions", but all my references are simply disqualified as "advertizing", which is simply nonsense. The author above seems to think that only if i provide a link to an -American- source it is a valid link. Where is the logic in that?

yes, the website on which the first two pages of the booklet "are you a picture thinker" (my translation) can be found is from a therapist, what has that to do with anything? I am -not- advertizing this therapist, i am simply using what is available on the internet. There are other links that I could have used, but they only show the cover of the booklet, this one actually shows the relevant pages. Anyway, the only reason to show the booklet is to show that "picture thinking" is a well known subject in the Netherlands. I provided some other links as well to show that "picture thinking" is a well known and documented subject in the netherlands, but these too were systematically removed.

The claim above is also that my claims are considered "unscientific", and that I do not offer "scientific proof", which seems to me to be a much more honest reason than to claim that I am trying to be an "advertizer". But this too is simply untrue, as at the very least the link to the Maria J. Krabbe Stichting provides scientific studies. I have attended one of their earlier congresses, and during that congresses things like the apparent genetic pre-disposition was being talked about, and later my sister found out that two of her daughters apparently are picture thinkers too (yes, I consider myself to be a picture thinker, that is why I am so interested in this subject, and also explains my somewhat convoluted writing style).

By the way, wikipedia does -not- require that an article contains only scientifically undisputed theories, as long as the article is balanced and provides both POV. Note that I did not remove "anything" from the "this is disputed" part of the article.

It has never been only -my- material about "picture thinkers" that has been systematically removed, it has been going on for a long time, just recently the very last whole remaining sections about it were removed, my attempt of restoring some of the original material is partly a reaction to that.

If readers have doubts about the phenomenon of "picture thinkers", it is their good right to do so, but I think that -I- am also in my right to rapport that in the Netherlands (and in Belgium) the situation is very different from the US. There is nothing wrong with trying to make the article more "encyclopedic", as long as the essence of what I'm trying to make clear is not removed. the essence of my contribution is simply that in the Netherlands the phenomenon of Picture thinkers IS taken serious, both by the public at large, by teachers, and by therapists, and that research that supports the theory HAS been done here. Please do not attempt to sensor that. Mahjongg (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. my appologies for the many spelling errors above, which slipped through even after proofreading, I simply -am- a bit dyslextic :-) (in the mean time I hopefully removed most of the most irritating ones)Mahjongg (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. I have reworded much of the section and added a lot more reference links that are more difficult to disqualify as "advertizing" because they are more independant from any "single therapist", in an attempt to remove some of the more valid criticisms. I also tried to accomodate English only readers by providing a way to read many of the referenced articles through a translation service. Mahjongg (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Competing advertisements mutually disputed; this should be fun to sort out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDMOS, WP:MEDRS, WP:FN on footnote placement *after* punctuation, WP:RS and WP:V (Wikipedia is not a source, please stop adding it), and WP:ADVERT. Please stop adding content to this article that does not meet WP:V. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear SandyGeorgia, you know what.. Thanks! I think the section actually looks much better like this!

I must confess, because of the continuous removals I became so desperate that I went a bit overboard with links trying to "document my case", while in fact that was only detrimental to the point I tried to make, so thanks, my message is still intact, that was all I ever wanted, and the section is much less cluttered as well...

By the way I think you were spot on with your remark "competing advertisements mutually disputed; this should be fun to sort out".

My only regret now is that the single remaining link is to a page that is in Dutch, perhaps that one footnote pointing to a Babel Fish translation of the same web-site would fix that, but I am almost scared to add that now :-) .

Now I only hope that nobody tries to remove (almost) the whole section again because someone thinks it's "unscientific" or something. That would not do, because as we both know (at least I have read-some- of these WP guidelines in the past), WP:V states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", but I do agree that for a medical article the threshold should be somewhat higher than normal. That is not a problem at all, because I encourage sceptical thinking about this subject (instead of swiping it under the rug) I would therefore encourage any and all truly scientific research into this subject. I am trying to be a truth-finder here not a zealot. Yes, I believe that picture thinking is real, and is the best theory at the moment to explain some observations. But if a better theory comes that is even better in explaining the observed facts, then I would be very happy to adopt it. Mahjongg (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There's more going on in this article than I can sort out, but I should have also added WP:COI to the list of suggested reading. I don't speak Dutch, so there's not much more I can add here, but I'm certainly concerned about all of the edits I'm seeing to everything related to Donna Williams. Across the board, every one of those articles is a wreck; everyone editing these articles needs a firming grounding in Wiki policies and guidelines, including conflict of interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

can't say I have ever heard of Donna Williams, (I assume she is user:1210donna) or why she removed the core of my section. I have nothing against her. By the way, I have added a ref with the babel fish translation as I suggested. It is far from perfect, but at least an interesting party can get the gist of the page. I hope you don't disapprove :-) . Mahjongg (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Eidetic memory

"Visual Thinking and Eidetic Memory

Eidetic Memory (photographic memory) may co-occur in visual thinkers as much as in any type of thinking style as it is a memory function associated with having vision rather than a thinking style. Eidetic Memory can still occur in those with visual agnosia (meaning blindness) who, unlike visual thinkers, may be limited in the use of visualization skills for mental reasoning."

I'm not sure what relevance it has to this article, since the definition of an eidetic memory (something which has never been demonstrated to exist, except for one controversial case where the researcher then married the subject, who refused to ever be tested again) is based on an automatic process, where no real 'thinking' is involved. Given the fact that the existence of eidetic memory in humans is extremely doubtful, I think this whole section should be removed. I'm not completely sure what the author was even trying to say, anyway.

Destynova 01:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Art and Design

I'm interested in expanding the section on art and design education. I want to explore the links between our perceptions of space and our cognitive abilities, and how they influence our perception of design. I think there can be a useful link to help convey information. If these principles could be understood and analyzed, it could be ground breaking for many design disciplines. Joleung (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome! Lova Falk talk 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Deza 2009

The first source, which is cited three times in the beginning is a rather weak one: In his book, Deza contributes only one paragraph to this topic without any further references.

See page here: http://books.google.de/books?hl=de&id=LXEezzccwcoC&q=Visual+thinking#v=onepage&q=Visual%20thinking&f=true

--hklinke (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the deeza references too. I was particularly amused by the citation [3] that had citation "[1]" as its source. I am worried about there being just too much in this article left completely unsupported.Tgm1024 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles

There are many reliable sources not yet reflected in this article's content. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This means that you started with an article full of POV and then now ask help to find support for it? That's completely backwards. You should always START(!) with the sources and from there derive an encyclopedic entry.Tgm1024 (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Source Link Broken

The link to the second citation is no longer available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.165.221 (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Adapting to learning style produces no better outcomes -- contradictory

“ no evidence that identifying a student's "learning style" produces better outcomes ”

This general statement makes no sense, despite cited sources, because disylexia is an obvious counter example. If one kind of processing information is clearly not an individual's strength, and learning material is provided in this modality predominantly, learning success will be dim. Current approaches of using other modalities might not be successful right now, because a mere translation, without making use of the modalities typical strength (think of graphs vs a long row of numbers), won't take advantage of that modality.

Furthermore, the cited sources are literature reviews, and remain vague on how exactly studies were made. The full article is not accessible, and the abstract is vague. Their major claim is that there was little edvidence rigorous research, and that the few studies that did it, have not found any evidence, but which studies that were and how they were conducted cannot be verified (article is not accessible).

But since even the authors state that there was little evidence based research in favor or against this method, it seems to be really exaggerated to generally discredit the hypothesis that learning styles do matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.219.148.180 (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Citation 12

Saying citation 12 is a bad citation is a massive understatement. There is no link, DOI, or any other reference other then the names and date. A date that spans an entire year. Can this be fixed or the information using it as a citation deleted? Mrmola (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

(For future reference, that's citation 12 in this old version of the page, reading "Morgan (1896), Hinselwood (1900), Orton (1925)".) This reads to me like it's been copied from another article where the references were defined—usually when you see references like this, the full citation is under "Sources" or "Further reading" (or an equivalent). Or, maybe the references were removed for some reason, by an editor who didn't realise that it left this reference unexplained.

Since the citation is from a section which links Dyslexia as the main article, that's my first port of call, but I can't see the citations in that article either. My next step is to look through the history of the article. Through some trial and error of checking old versions (accessible by the linked dates and timestamps in the page history), I find that it was added somewhere in this 2012 stream of edits by Joshua Jonathan, who by fortune happens still to be active as an editor and could possibly remember what was going on here (though it was almost a decade ago!). — Bilorv (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope; those soyrces were already there; I just moved them into a reference. But:

• Morgan (1896), A Case of Congenital Word Blindness
• Hinselwood (1900), CONGENITAL WORD-BLINDNESS
• Samuel Orton (1925), see A Brief History of Dyslexia

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)