Thinking

And also: In the middle of the night, two homemade grenades exploded outside of the building housing the British consulate (and various other tenants) in mid-town Manhattan. Only a little damage was caused, and not much was made of the whole thing. It is amazing that no one actually accomplished a serious act of violence after 9/11 ... it is remarkably easy for someone to do it with not too much effort. A suicide bomber surely could kill and injure thousands on the subways. But, knock on wood, not yet.

I THINK IN PICTURES. Words are like a second language to me. I translate both spoken and written words into full-color movies, complete with sound, which run like a VCR tape in my head. When somebody speaks to me, his words are instantly translated into pictures. Language-based thinkers often find this phenomenon difficult to understand, but in my job as an equipment designer for the livestock industry, visual thinking is a tremendous advantage.

-- Temple Grandin, Thinking in Pictures

I was reading through Dr. Grandin's book recently. She specializes in construction animal/livestock handling facilities, and a couple years ago the NYT noted:

Executives found Dr. Grandin's approach "scientific" and not "emotional," Mr. Langert said. They marveled at her research techniques: how she measured animal behavior and conditions; how she paid attention to animal vocalizations; how she studied their response to electric prods; how she catalogued their adaptations to various conditions.

Indeed, Dr. Grandin often gets down on all fours to walk through a processing plant, as if she were an animal. She has autism, and she says things that bother her because of her condition, like loud noises, can bother animals, as well, McDonald's officials said.

She surely is "scientific" -- autistic in fact. Reading about how she views the world and learnt in a very concrete way, I thought about how I process things. For instance, let's take reading. I am an avid reader, as might be guessed, though a bit of a finicky one. As I read, I visualize what I am reading, including the "voice" of various characters (if applicable). This is fairly normal (some say that movie versions of books ruin the effect, since one's imagination is the best visual). Still, many cannot process books as fast as I can, and it does seem amazing one can do it so smoothly.

I'm not sure I see why my liberal friends are making such a fuss about Laura Bush's stand-up comedy routine.

If she wants to use the cover of humor to point out that George W. Bush is too stupid and lazy to be President, why should we object?

Also, sometimes I wonder how people view things in a certain fashion. After referencing a troubling lower court case that I discussed a few weeks ago, Mark Kleiman in my view basically missed the point. Two things come to mind: (1) It rankles that we are supposed to be "in on the joke," while her President is helping to lead us to ruin. (2) It is just plain hypocritical that she is "allowed" to be off color while social conservatives help her hubby's party rule the day. It rankles once again.

You see why the stand-up routine annoyed so many liberals? Lately, some co-workers were discussing basically how her husband is a f-up. It pisses me off, but you cannot dwell on it and retain your sanity. Still, watching Laura basically on her catbird seat getting laughs by saying things that deep down are not funny at all is a bit hard to take.*

But, I "see" things differently than people sometimes, so the difference of opinion is not too surprising.

---

* One thing that is just plain amazing by the way is that NO ONE mentions that Laura Bush accidentally killed someone when she was a teenager. The Clintons' past were discussed in detail, but the fact Laura killed someone (especially given her husband's activities, death penalty related alone ... yes, I know it was accidental, but the 'second chance' nature of her life is notable) is NEVER mentioned. This is ridiculous.