It is implied that verbal thinking is less valuable than other forms of thinking in Temple Grandin’s argument based on her examples (sales people, writers, lawyers, teachers) and how we socially/culturally value these professions.
  1. I think arguing that verbal thinking is inherently more linear devalues the thinking required to make any argument, arguments being the reason why we take any action at all in the world.
  2. If people do not have sufficient reason as to why they are doing something, actions cease to have meaning.
I think people grossly underestimate how important verbal thinking is - the process of imbuing physical reality with nonphysical, symbolic, conceptual meaning - whether secular or metaphysical. Why would we do anything at all above fulfilling our base physiological needs without the argument of why that thing is important? I would argue a lot people today use language in their minds to create and justify many actions - probably you need words to justify, argue or convince for someone else to perform an action (building things such as civilization, for example).
I wonder, perhaps bitterly, what happens when people grasp on to this notion that making the unseen or even seen world tangible via conceptualization (i.e. “verbal thinking”) is like, inferior to other things you could do with your life. Who makes the arguments about what is we do with our lives…?
this territory is moderated