Thinking with imagery

I woke up this morning thinking about my “movie running the background as I think” discovery that I made a week or so ago.  This was a lightning bolt type discovery (as almost all my discoveries are, anyway–I think this is what makes me neurotic).

Since then, I asked several other people if they “think in images.” I thought for sure Eddie would say yes because he is an artist, too. But he said no. Yesterday I met a person who thinks visually, like me, in an unlikely place–the front desk of the car dealership. Before she had kids, she went to school to be an artist… I would love to study this thing with her if I ever end up pursuing this research this phenomenon.

So this morning I woke up dreaming (envisioning) myself at a lab, and a participant wearing a sensor cap. I was wondering what technology would allow me to explore what regions of the brain light up when they process language, auditory, sensory, visual information. I am a bit skeptical about this, though: so say, I have the hypothesis that only SOME and not ALL people process information like me. So I would hook up my participants to sensors and have different types of conversations with them: ask them about some episodic memories, discuss a topic new to them (so I could see, if possible, if they use internal imagery to make sense of new concepts), ask them to explain something to me (to see if imagery is involved in their sequential thinking), I would have them watch a movie… and do other things, then analyze the data (which will be collecting information about what regions of the brain are most active during those tasks in different people). The problem is… what if what we know about the mapping of the brain (which parts process what) will change, like the discovery that left and right hemispheres are not involved in different functions, after all. So if I tie my hypothesis testing strategy to the assumption that the brain is processing visual information when it lights up in this particular region, then my research maybe obsolete. Too bad I know so little about neuroscience… I could totally learn more, but how will it affect my objectives now? I could see if a test like this is doable in the Psych department. Gretchen took a class there, so she could tell me more.

So by the time I did the dishes and cooked breakfast, I realized that language would probably be a good tell-tale sign of how the brain is processing information. I hypothesize that a person who is thinking visually will use more descriptive words, that the speech pattern will reflect a lack of direction in a story, but may be very sequential in reasoning (if a person is describing an internal visual concept, she or he will simply describe what he/she sees in no particular order). This thinking will even probably reflect in the type of questions he or she asks because as the person will be asking questions to create a more detailed mental image–this is what “making sense” of something ultimately means–to create a detailed picture or movie as possible so that it will be accessible for further examination or recall at any time. This is why (I suspect) a person who thinks visually takes longer to process and may be asking seemingly useless questions that other people would answer be inferencing. Perhaps, there is an auditory input that creates a distraction or a loop (or serves as one of the major channels of information input; it may be playing a major role in translating information into visual data).

So here are some implications of my discovery: for one, I feel better about myself. For years, I have been trying to find a way to feel “special.” Now I do. For years, I also felt horrible about myself because people thought I was nerdy and they were irritated by the great number of questions I ask. I thought all this was a character flaw. I tried to remedy it by putting my curiosity to good use in the research field, to find redemption, find a niche to fit in, but I now think of all the others who do not have this opportunity. Those who go through life trying to find ways to cope, not embrace their thinking type.

In this version of reality, intelligence tests look like they would be governed not by the Newtonian physics, but quantum mechanics–that is unable to predict or to quantify with any dose of reliability.

What of learning and instruction, too? God forbid anyone misconstrues this as a proof of learning styles theory. I imagine there would be some overlap, but I would not say that I, a visual thinker, prefer to be shown or verbally explained what I do–making an internal image takes ALL modes of input. Hearing uses language which gets processed, then assigned to a visual, then fitted into the larger picture or cast out (which is what creates the confusion). Manual manipulation of things or learning by doing get processed to make the picture richer, more detailed. There does not have to be a preference for any mode–it all goes into the processing grinder to make that puzzle more complete.

I also suspect that everyone thinks visually, but they may not be aware of this. I asked Jenni if she thinks with a “movie running in the background,” and she said no. Yet, she often uses words like “spaces” when she talks about thinking. For example, “I work and think in this space…” To me, it is a totally appropriate way to describe thinking. I often imagine myself roaming a huge mansion where each room is a concept, an activity. I quite literally roam and look in different rooms when I try to make sense of something new. I go through filing cabinets placed in these rooms where my facts and memories are labeled and stored. Funny thing, though, if I were to pull out a memory out of a drawer, I would not end up with an actual object that it visually represents– the picture of the room and the file cabinet would actually dissolve into the new space that gives the recalled concept life–it becomes a new room or a place, only this time, it is not confined to my “mansion” of thought–it transports me to visual memory of this concept. For example, if I thought of Moscow, I’d have a slide show of different visions of Moscow that I obtained from my personal visits, bits that I saw on TV, books, and elsewhere. My personal memories are more vivid because I also use memories of smell, temperature, and other memories of sensory events. I can stretch these memories into a continuous slide, compare different memories but putting them side by side, pull additional images out the stack labeled “Moscow,” interact, visually explore details, make inquiries into other related concepts…

Some this process is not so obvious, it is as if my back is turned to the imaginary screen. Sometimes it feels like I am in a planetarium…. other times, the screen is in front of me. If a conversation is fast, or if there are other sensory events that overwhelm me, the movie is a blur… yet, it always seems to be there, even if it is in shadows…

It would be interesting to record and analyze a verbal account of a thought process of a person blind from birth.

Also bilinguals–I rarely translate from Russian to English. I almost never have to–all information goes in and gets processed visually (even language. If it is a language I do not understand, my brain records the place where my encounter takes place. My language processing channels go into the background mode and get reactivated when I pick up on a word I think is familiar). It all creates a picture anyway even as my mind plays movies of other similar encounters and situations that resemble the one I am currently processing. Comparison of available memories happens simultaneously until I find the closest match or two.

When I speak Russian, my native tongue, the words seem to get translated into imagery seamlessly because my vocabulary is vast. If there is a word I do not know, there is a little hole in the image (similar to a missing jigsaw puzzle piece that is surrounded by other pieces, and therefore, is not always a big deal), or blurred piece. Eventually, the piece is complete and stored. The same happens when I speak English because I have enough vocabulary to create an image of meaning and comprehension (if it is a language I do not know, the image is of the actual event, the place where it is happening). So when I speak to translate, I just translate the image into the other language. The process slows if I did not speak the other language for a while, and cannot find appropriate words. So clearly, expressive and receptive language processes are supported in my discovery the way I see it. Maybe this could be another angle to examine my discovery? To split the concept further?

This could also be an interesting pathway to study autism because it is frequently described as verbal- non-verbal.