Talk:Visual thinking

message: 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)
thread_title: More POV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Geographical thinking 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Problems

message: 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)
thread_title: Focus on disability

message: 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)
thread_title:  Left handedness. 

message: 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. . --Tillmo 20:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spatial-temporal reasoning 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Merge proposal with [[Visual learning]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Visual" vs topographical thinking 

message: 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 , 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)
thread_title: Picture thinkers VS Visual learners

message: ::"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)
thread_title: Eidetic memory

message: 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)
replies: text: Welcome! Lova Falk talk 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Art and Design

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Deza 2009 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Source Link Broken 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Adapting to learning style produces no better outcomes -- contradictory